PESFOR-W: Improving the design and environmental effectiveness of woodlands for water Payments for Ecosystem Services

Valatin, Gregory; Abildtrup, Jens; Accastello, Cristian; Al-Tawaha, Abdel Rahman; Andreucci, Maria-Beatrice; Atanasova, Silvia; Avdibegović, Mersudin; Baksic, Nikolina; Banasik, Kazimierz; Barquín, José; Barstad, Johan; Baštáková, Viera; Bećirović, D.; Beguerı́a, Santiago; Bethers, Uldis; Bihuňová, Mária; Blagojević, Boško; Bösch, Matthias; Bournaris, Thomas; Cao, Yiying; Carvalho-Santos, Cláudia; Chikalanov, Alexander; Sá, Maria Cunha; Czyżyk, Krzysztof; Daly, Hamed; Davies, Helen; Campo, Antônio; Groot, R.S. de; Vreese, Rik De; Dostál, Tomáš; Mokaddem, Abdelmohssin El; Finér, Leena; Evans, Rhys; Fiquepron, Julien; Frąc, Magdalena; Futter, Martyn N.; Garcia, Serge; Gatto, Paola; Geneletti, Davide; Gežík, Veronika; Giupponi, Carlo; González-Sanchis, María; Gordillo, Fernando; Gorriz, E.; Grigorova, Yulia; Heinsoo, Katrin; Hochbichler, Eduard; Högbom, Lars; Image, Mike; Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl; Japelj, Anže; Jelić, Sreten; Junk, Jürgen; Juhász, C.; Kagalou, Ifigenia; Kelly‐Quinn, Mary; Klamerus‐Iwan, Anna; Kluvánková, Tatiana; Koeck, Roland; Konovska, Iskra; Ostoić, Silvija Krajter; Krč, Janez; Lavnyy, Vasyl; Leonardi, Alessandro; Lībieté, Zane; Little, Declan; Porto, Antonio Lo; Λουκάς, Αθανάσιος; Lyubenova, Mariyana; Marić, Bruno; Martínez‐López, Javier; Martinez, Inazio; Maxim, Alexandru; Metslaid, Marek; Melvin, Alison; Mihai, Costică; Mincev, Ivan; Morkvėnas, Žymantas; Nevenić, Radovan; Nisbet, Tom; ÓhUallacháin, D.; Olschewski, Roland; Östberg, Johan; Oszust, Karolina; Ovando, Paola; Paletto, Alessandro; Parpan, T. V.; Pettenella, D.; Malovrh, Špela Pezdevšek; Planinšek, Špela; Podlipná, Radka; Posavec, Stjepan; Potočki, Kristina; Prokofieva, Irina; Quinteiro, Paula; Radocz, Laszlo; Ristić, Ratko; Naeije, Robert; Rugani, Benedetto; Sabanovic, Jelena; Sarvašová, Zuzana; Savoska, Snezana; Schleppi, Patrick; Schueler, Gebhard; Shannon, M. A.; Silgram, M.; Srdjević, Bojan; Stefan, Gavril; Stijović, Aleksandar; Strange, Niels; Tattari, Sirkka; Teofilovski, Aco; Termansen, Mette; Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark; Tóth, Attila; Trebs, Ivonne; Tmušić, Novica; Vasiliades, Lampros; Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth; Ventrubová, K.; Vuletić, Dijana; Winkel, Georg; Yao, Richard; Young, Sarah; Yousefpour, Rasoul; Zahvoyska, Lyudmyla; Zhang, Daowei; Zhou, Junhu; Žižková, Eva

doi:10.3897/rio.3.e13828

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The indicative net public benefits values can also provide discussion points for establishing or maintaining innovative financial mechanisms (e.g. biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services) (ten Kate, et al, 2014;Valatin, et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussion Policy Implications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?

Yao¹,

Scarpa²,

Harrison³

et al. 2019

Ecosystem Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study evaluates a proposed programme that would sustain and enhance the provision of ecosystem services in planted forests. We focused on the evaluation of the benefits and costs of the conservation of the brown kiwi (an iconic yet threatened New Zealand bird species) that inhabits planted forests. Yao et al. (2014) found that a sample of 209 New Zealand (NZ) households would, on average, financially support a programme for conserving the brown kiwi in NZ planted forests. We extend that study using a proof of concept that integrates economic, ecological and spatial approaches. We undertake this in five steps: 1) supplementing a previous choice experiment survey by interviewing more than 900 additional georeferenced households; 2) estimating household-specific means of marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values; 3) using spatial econometrics to explore WTP determinants; 4) identifying 12 ecologically and economically feasible ecosystem-service sites (ranging from 5,000 to 11,500 hectares) and calculate the average annual costs of a conservation programme at each site; and finally 5) aggregating the public benefits of biodiversity at the regional and national levels and calculate the benefit cost ratio. We found that the value of the proposed biodiversity conservation initiative at the national level can be more than 100 times higher than the overall cost of the programme. To prioritise intervention of this initiative, we also identify the New Zealand region with planted forest sites that would produce the highest net economic benefit from the enhanced provision of ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Policy Implications and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?

Yao¹,

Scarpa²,

Harrison³

et al. 2019

Ecosystem Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, this study tries to address the knowledge gap concerning the analysis of opinions and perceptions of diverse groups of stakeholders towards forest-related WES. The study, focused on the stakeholders from countries of Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean Basin, was developed in the context of COST Action CA15206-PESFOR-W (Forests for Water), which aims to synthesize current knowledge about PES and to improve Europe's capacity to use PES in the context of water storage and water bodies' development [42].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Stakeholders Working on the Forest–Water Nexus Perceive Payments for Ecosystem Services?

Báliková

Červená

Meo

et al. 2019

Forests

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, great emphasis is placed on the relationship between forest and water because forests are considered as substantial sources of many water ecosystem services. The aim of this paper is to analyze the stakeholder opinions towards the relationship between forests and water and the potential development of water-related payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes. The study is developed in the context of COST Action CA15206-PESFOR-W (Forests for Water) aimed at synthesizing current knowledge about the PES schemes across Europe. The stakeholder opinions were mapped out using a structured questionnaire consisting of 20 questions divided into four thematic sections. The data were collected through an online survey. The results showed opinions of 142 stakeholders from 23 countries, mainly from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. In order to analyze the collected data, the stakeholders were grouped in buyers, sellers, intermediaries, and knowledge providers. The survey results indicated that the most important category of water ecosystem services according to our sample of stakeholders is regulating services followed by provisioning services. Further findings pointed out the highest importance that shared values and direct changes in land management can have when designing water-related PES schemes. The role of public authorities and collective collaboration of different stakeholders, with emphasis on local and expert knowledge, are also identified as of crucial importance. The results show that stakeholder opinions can serve as a starting point when designing PES schemes.

show abstract

“…The development of PES schemes was followed by rich literature body covering its various aspects: institutional [20][21][22][23], design [6,24,25], policy [17,19,26,27] and economics [28][29][30][31]. The literature shows its broad acceptance and provides numerous examples of more or less successful forest-related PES programs targeting water services [25,27,29,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water-Related Payment Schemes for Forest Ecosystem Services in Selected Southeast European (SEE) Countries

Vuletić

Ostoić

Keča

et al. 2020

Forests

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the level of payment for ecosystem services (PES) concept implementation in the financing of water-related forest ecosystem services (ES) in the Republic of Croatia, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FB&H), the Republic of Slovenia, and the Republic of Serbia. The focus is on water-related forest ES recognised by the millennium ecosystem assessment (MEA). For the purpose of this paper, the term pure PES describes schemes that comply to all five conditions set by Wunder definition and term PES like for those schemes that miss some of those conditions. In the first step, the most important legislative documents related to forests, water, and environmental protection were selected. The second consists of a content analysis; focusing on the definition of ES; the definition of fees or payments; the establishment of ‘forest funds’, ‘water funds’, or ‘environmental funds’; and the way these funds were spent. Here we looked at the flow of funding into the forestry sector recognising forest management as the main water-related forest ES provider. Research revealed existence of well-established payments schemes in forestry in Croatia for almost 30 years and in FB&H for some 20 years which were assessed as closest to pure PES. In Serbia and Slovenia, there were no PES or PES like schemes in the forestry sector. In the water sector the well-established PES like payments schemes existing in all four countries. The environmental protection sector, however, rely more on the tax like rather than on the PES like schemes. Legislation in general recognised the link between forests and water, but this was much more evident in the forestry than in the water or environment sector. The role of the state is strongly pronounced in all countries studied, and was the main driving force behind all payments. However, this position of the state represents also the main obstacle for the development of pure PES schemes, together with underdeveloped private forestry and complex socio-economic conditions. Nevertheless, there is room for further development of pure PES and PES like schemes based on EU or global experiences.

show abstract

PESFOR-W: Improving the design and environmental effectiveness of woodlands for water Payments for Ecosystem Services

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?

Does the economic benefit of biodiversity enhancement exceed the cost of conservation in planted forests?

How Do Stakeholders Working on the Forest–Water Nexus Perceive Payments for Ecosystem Services?

Water-Related Payment Schemes for Forest Ecosystem Services in Selected Southeast European (SEE) Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About