Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes
An international payment for ecosystem service (IPES) schemes may be one of the only mechanisms available to stimulate the provision of vital non-marketed ecosystem services at the global level, as those nations that benefit from global ecosystem services (GES) cannot readily force other sovereign nations to provide them. Currently, international trade offers trillions of dollars in incentives for countries to convert natural capital into marketable goods and services, and few payments to entice countries to conserve natural capital in order to sustain critical non-marketed ecosystem services. We examine the biophysical characteristics of climate change and biodiversity to understand the obstacles to developing effective IPES schemes. We find that none of the existing schemes for providing GES are adequate, given the scale of the problem. A cap and auction scheme for CO2 emissions among wealthy nations could fund IPES and simultaneously deter carbon emissions. To disburse funds, we should adapt Brazil's ICMS ecológico, and apportion available funds to targeted countries in proportion to how well they meet specific criteria designed to measure the provision of GES. Individual countries can then develop their own policies for increasing provision of these services, ensured of compensation if they do so. Indirect IPES should include funding for freely available technologies that protect or provide GES, such as the low carbon energy alternatives that will be essential for curbing climate change. Markets rely on the price mechanism to generate profits, which rations technology to those who can afford it, reducing adoption rates, innovation and total value.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gustafsson, Bo, 1998. "Scope and limits of the market mechanism in environmental management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 259-274, February.
- Limburg, Karin E. & O'Neill, Robert V. & Costanza, Robert & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Complex systems and valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 409-420, June.
- Morgenstern, Richard & Harrington, Winston & Nelson, Per-Kristian, 1999. "On the Accuracy of Regulatory Cost Estimates," Discussion Papers dp-99-18, Resources For the Future.
- John M. Gowdy, 1997. "The Value of Biodiversity: Markets, Society, and Ecosystems," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(1), pages 25-41.
- Grieg-Gran, Maryanne, 2000. "Fiscal Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: The ICMS Ecologico in Brazil," Discussion Papers 24135, International Institute for Environment and Development, Environmental Economics Programme.
- Dur, Robert & Staal, Klaas, 2008.
"Local public good provision, municipal consolidation, and national transfers,"
Regional Science and Urban Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 160-173, March.
- Dur, Robert & Staal, Klaas, 2006. "Local Public Good Provision, Municipal Consolidation, and National Transfers," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 86, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Robert Dur & Klaas Staal, 2007. "Local Public Good Provision, Municipal Consolidation, and National Transfers," CESifo Working Paper Series 2061, CESifo Group Munich.
- Coomes, Oliver T. & Grimard, Franque & Potvin, Catherin & Sima, Philip, 2008. "The fate of the tropical forest: Carbon or cattle?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 207-212, April.
- Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
- Simpson, R. David & Ferraro, Paul, 2000. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Discussion Papers dp-00-31, Resources For the Future.
- Todd Sandler, 1998. "Global and regional public goods: a prognosis for collective action," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 19(3), pages 221-247, August.
- Sandler, Todd, 1998. "Global and Regional Public Goods: A Prognosis for Collective Action," Staff General Research Papers Archive 1225, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
- Kumar, Surender & Managi, Shunsuke, 2009. "Compensation for environmental services and intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case of India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 3052-3059, October.
- David Pearce, 2008. "Do We Really Care About Biodiversity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(4), pages 611-611, August.
- David Pearce, 2007. "Do we really care about Biodiversity?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 313-333, May.
- Voinov, Alexey & Farley, Joshua, 2007. "Reconciling sustainability, systems theory and discounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 104-113, June.
- Karan Capoor & Philippe Ambrosi, "undated". "State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009," World Bank Other Operational Studies 13403, The World Bank.
- Alberola, Emilie & Chevallier, Julien & Cheze, Benoi^t, 2008. "Price drivers and structural breaks in European carbon prices 2005-2007," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 787-797, February.
- Stefano Pagiola & Paola Agostini & José Gobbi & Cees de Haan & Muhammad Ibrahim, 2004. "Paying for Biodiversity Conservation Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Others 0405005, EconWPA.
- Vatn Arild & Bromley Daniel W., 1994. "Choices without Prices without Apologies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 129-148, March.
- Kahn, James Randall & Franceschi, Dina, 2006. "Beyond Kyoto: A tax-based system for the global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 778-787, July.
- Todd Sandler, 1993. "Tropical Deforestation: Markets and Market Failures," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 69(3), pages 225-233.
- Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
- Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters,in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Weitzman, Martin L., 1998. "Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 201-208, November.
- Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
- Suzanne Scotchmer, 1991. "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumulative Research and the Patent Law," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 29-41, Winter. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)