IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The potential and limitations of markets and Payments for Ecosystem Services in agricultural landscape restoration: critical reflections inspired by an assessment of the RISEMP program in Matiguás-Río Blanco, Nicaragua


  • Bastiaensen, Johan
  • Van Hecken, Gert


During the last two decades the concept of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) has gained ever-increasing attention among a wide public of scholars as well as conservation and development practitioners. The main premises of this innovative conservation approach are appealing: private landowners, which in normal circumstances -i.e. in absence of any direct incentives- are poorly or not motivated to protect nature on their land, will do so if they receive direct payments from environmental service (ES) buyers, which at least cover part of the landowners’ opportunity costs of developing the land. In this paper, however, we warn for an overenthusiastic adoption of the PES approach. Based on an extensive literature review and a field study of the Nicaraguan component of the ‘Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches to Ecosystem Management Project’ (RISEMP), one of the main GEF-World Bank funded pioneering pilot projects of PES in Latin America, we argue that the concept still has to deal with several theoretical and practical lacunae. We argue that the concept of PES rests on loose foundations, mainly because of (i) a simplistic view on ES as discrete, quantifiable and marketable entities; (ii) an abstraction of the required landscape approach to conservation and the corresponding collective action precondition; (iii) a simplistic and arbitrary one-sided approach to the externality problem with important implications on the desirability of different policy instruments; (iv) a simplistic perception of socio-institutional reality and negligence of institutional effects on human behaviour and environmental morale; (v) the problematic character of transaction costs and a misleading justification of the approach based on the efficiency criterion; and (vi) a potential continuation of regressive financing of global commons with important fairness and sustainability implications. As such, we argue that the concept of PES could distract the attention for environmental problems away from the more complex underlying causes, which generally require broader locally embedded political action for their solution and not merely market creation. We think more debate about the desirability and conceptual clarity of the PES conservation tool is necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Bastiaensen, Johan & Van Hecken, Gert, 2009. "The potential and limitations of markets and Payments for Ecosystem Services in agricultural landscape restoration: critical reflections inspired by an assessment of the RISEMP program in Matiguás-Río," IOB Discussion Papers 2009.02, Universiteit Antwerpen, Institute of Development Policy (IOB).
  • Handle: RePEc:iob:dpaper:2009002

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Thomas Reardon & Peter Timmer & Julio Berdegue, 2004. "The Rapid Rise of Supermarkets in Developing Countries: Induced Organizational, Institutional, and Technological Change in Agrifood Systems," The Electronic Journal of Agricultural and Development Economics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, vol. 1(2), pages 168-183.
    2. Magnus Henrekson & Tino Sanandaji (ed.), 2012. "Institutional Entrepreneurship," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13217, April.
    3. Roy Mersland & Reidar Øystein Strøm, 2008. "Performance and trade-offs in Microfinance Organisations-does ownership matter?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(5), pages 598-612.
    4. Reardon, Thomas & Berdegue, Julio A. & Timmer, C. Peter, 2005. "Supermarketization of the "Emerging Markets" of the Pacific Rim: Development and Trade Implications," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 36(01), March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iob:dpaper:2009002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Hans De Backer). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.