The Role of Payment for Ecosystem Services in Climate Change Adaptation

According to the report, Payment for Ecosystem Services are used in the conservation of natural resources by providing incentives to the farmers. These PES mechanisms play an important role by increasing adaptation to climate change. There is a lot of scarcity in the natural resources now a days and the government is planning various methods to deal with drastic climate changes. The main aim of Payment for Ecosystem Service is to pay an individual who provides ecosystem services. It is used to increase the service where the natural ecosystem is lost because of the climate changes. The ecosystem services for which PES mechanisms are used  include regulation of climate, regulation of water, and loss of wildlife and habitat. PES provides financial incentives to land or resources managers in return of various natural services provided by them (Fu et al., 2014).

 These PES mechanisms help in the improvement of  performance of environment and also improve business development by creating innovative methods and hence minimizing the benefits on the wider economy. It helps in supporting economic growth and wellbeing . It focuses on creating markets for services of ecosystem and brings together the providers of these services. For example, publicly financed agri-environment methods such as Environmental Stewardship in which  payment is given to farmers for  various environmental solutions .This is being operated  since a long time, but now the demand for PES is continuously increasing.  Many countries like the US, Australia, and France along with United Kingdom have been using these methods to deal with drastic climate changes(Farley et al ., 2013).

Payment for Ecosystem schemes pay incentives to deal with the market failure by changing the economic incentives faced by the owners and land managers. It is based on one specific service like carbon sequestration or many services like biodiversity enhancement and carbon sequestration. The financial issues are taken care by the government or can be financed on a voluntarily basis by the private organizations as key elements or individuals.

Payment for Ecosystem schemes help improving the provision of ecosystem services snd its security(ES). It has both positive and negative effects on the  poor population in the developing countries and less emphasis has been given in determining the role of PES in relation to climate change adaptation. It has various advantages in relation to climate change but there are also various barriers and risks involved to deal with adaptation to climate change.

Payment for Ecosystem systems can help in climate change adaptation  in three important ways by improving the procurement of ecosystem services, by increasing the adaptive capacity in  a manner these systems are composed and  implemented and also by providing various incentives to the farmers to follow various strategies to deal with climate changes. These systems  should reduce the vulnerability to play an important role in adaptation to climate change,. Vulnerability can be defined as three major elements that is adaptive capacity, sensivity and exposure. Adaptation is used for both natural systems and human beings. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptation as adjustments by human beings or other natural organisms in response to various drastic climate effects. Adaptations play an important role in reducing the vulnerability (Costanza et al., 2014 ).  According to the IPCC Assessment Reports, Vulnerability is defined in terms of the magnitude, character, and the degree of variation in climate to which a system is exposed, its sensitivity and adaptive capacity. It can  be reduced by increasing the adaptive capacity or decreasing the sensitivity . Exposure can be defined as the  degree or nature which any system is exposed to variations in the climate . Sensitivity refers to the rate at which any system is affected in adverse manner or beneficial by climate-related stimuli .Adaptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to adjust to various climate changes like climate variability and extreme weather conditions which can have a harmful effect on natural systems and human beings.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Payment for Ecosystem Services

 PES can be linked with the adaptations in climate variations with regard to socioecological system. Socioecological system has two subcomponents, the social systems and the natural systems.These both systems are connected through the provision of Ecosystem Services. The social system in relation to PES has various characterstics like the interaction between ES providers, ES buyers, intermediaries, and non-participants of the scheme and the institutional arrangements in which they take place.

 The characteristics of natural system is the ecosystem that provides the services. Both of these  systems are exposed to various factors  like  variability in the climate  and there are other types of factors as well. The effect that these factors have on have on the coupled socioecological system is in accordance to the sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the various  elements of natural system s.  It depends on the level at which different kinds of PES system function and it may  led to changes between different types  of PES systems and within . It s expected that both  the  providers and the buyers are exposed to similar types of stresses  if the PES systems that operate especially  at the local level like watershed PES. Providers, buyers and intermediaries of PES systems who function at an international level or a local level such as biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration are exposed to a different set of both climatic and non-climatic variations.

PES and adaptation to variation in climate and change interact with each other in three major ways. First, the arrangement of ES through PES can decrease the vulnerability of the coupled socioecological system and its other system elements. Secondly, the PES scheme can increase the adaptive capacity of  various system elements in a manner in which it is designed and implemented. Thirdly, the PES can act as an incentive mechanism for ES providers to improve specific adaptation measures to variations in the climate  and extreme weather change.

There is a conceptual link between ecosystem services provision and the vulnerability of the socioecological system to climate change. Most of the ecosystem services connect to vulnerability through their influence on the components of adaptive capacity and sensitivity. Different roles are played by different ecosystem services. There are various Regulatory services like regulation of water, regulation of erosion , or regulation of natural hazard can improve the social system and natural system  against the  negative impacts of  changes in climate and extreme weather conditions like floods and droughts( Alix-Garcia et al.,2014 ). There are also various provisioning  services such as fodder and food from various natural resources that have a major role in decreasing the negative impact of extreme weather conditions. Various cultural services play an important role in contributing to the adaptive capacity of the social system by improving the health and social relations.

Linking Payment for Ecosystem Services and Adaptation Measures

There is a conceptual link between adaptive capacity and the Payments for Ecosystem Services in the case of local watershed-type by strengthening the adaptive capacity of buyers and providers in a manner  in which PES is applied and constructed.

Payment for ecosystem services and climate change are also linked through incentivizing adaptation measures. The ability of poor residents who live in rural areas to apply various  adaptation activities is limited and hence it is limited for them to adapt themselves. There is a condition when ecosystem providers that they wish to follow the adaptation strategy but do not have an appropriate means for application, PES mechanisms can be used in a manner that it provides direct incentives for adaptation measure. For example- drought resistant seeds can be used as an adaptation measure to deal with drought conditions.

The main emphasis of PES schemes is on the protection of water shed like erosion management, carbon sequestration, conservation of biodiversity, water regulation,waste treatment regulation, control on natural disasters, water purification and disease control . Soil carbon sequestration involves the incorporation of carbon dioxide from the environment to the soil to decrease the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the environment and aquatic life forms. This will also enhance the fertility of the soil. Carbon dioxide is collected in a natural manner from the atmosphere by three processes including physical, biological and chemical. There are also artificial methods by which carbon sequestration can be done. These methods include use of carbon sinks, which store carbon containing chemical compound for an undetermined period, artificially accumulating carbon dioxide with the help of aquifers that are saline in nature  (Bremer et al., 2014).

As stated in the report, PES mechanisms work on the basis of various principles. It is voluntary as any service provider makes a a PES agreement in an independent manner and the payment is done by the beneficiaries of the natural services like communities, individual or government. The payment is done on a direct basis to the providers of ecosystem services. The payment made to land or natural service managers is conditional that is it depends on the quality and type of service provided by the providers. PES schemes should not affect the area in which the service has not been provided (Pagiola& Platais, 2016) .It should avoid leakage and the area in which the ecosystem service is given should not disrupt the other areas.

There are various advantages of PES mechanisms are that it can address various climate change risks like floods and droughts by incorporating viable  systems dealing with drainage which includes permeable pavements, trees and vegetation, wetlands, green roofs, storm water and  ponds which can withhold water (Carlson, 2015). The beneficiaries involved in this are various residents of the urban area and businessman.

Conceptual Links between Ecosystem Services and Vulnerability to Climate Change

But there are various barriers in this regard like the cost to developers may be high and they may expect a high pavement as compared to the cost involved in providing an ecosystem service. There might be an issue about the effectiveness of sustainable drainage systems and about the maintenance once they have been installed. The floods can also be prevented by developing space for floods by restoration of natural flows and mosses. But this method is difficult in technical aspect and there are many other ways by which floods can be controlled . For example, grey infrastructure can be used to control the overflow of water by using pipes, ditches, detention ponds, and pumps (Leimona et al., 2015). 

Pluvial and fluvial flood risk can be overcome by planting hedgerow trees and crops, copses and woodland to deal with heavy rainfall .Plantation of buffer strips beside water coursesto reduce the  leaching of nutrients. But there might be an issue of payment with the land and resource managers.

Payment for ecosystem services can be used to deal with issues of water scarcity, Urban heat island effect, flood risk which can be overcome by increasing the provision of urban green infrastructure. But there may be problems of high opportunity cost. Various issues related to water quality during drought can be dealt with  by improving the management of  land  in order to improve the quality of water, for example fencing  of river banks, decrease in the level of fertilizer/pesticide, removal of  over shaded woodlands,  clearance of scrub  improvement in  depth farming,  but it also includes various barriers like high cost and farmers  may not be willing to cooperate and ownership of land can be a complex matter to deal with (Zheng et al., 201 )

Flood risk and water scarcity can be overcome by blocking drainage ditches, preserving and restoring degraded peatlands, restoring areas of exposed and eroded peat establishment of clough woodland, provision of new farm buildings for wintering of livestock. These various barriers in this regard include complex land ownership ,opportunity cost and there may be a need to change in land management in specific areas to avoid risk because of floods.

Coastal flood and erosion risk  can also be controlled by following various strategies to develop various structures to prevent the harmful effects of these natural disasters. (Muradianet al., 2013). There might be some barriers like the impact of measures may be uncertain and there might b issue with opportunity costs of the land.  Complexity in the ownership of land and social or public perception can also be a problem to control water quality and floods.

Conclusion

Climate change aspects related to fluvial and pluvial flood risks and diversity of wild species resilience to climate change can be addressed by increasing  the cover of woodland  and connection of present cover. The barriers in this regard are the potential water quality issues. Unpredictability of the degree of effect on opportunity cost of flood risk

But there are also various challenges and barriers in the implementation of PES systems and to run them successfully. The various barriers in relation to climate change adaptation are informational, that is there is insufficient knowledge among beneficiary and the providers,insufficient information among the people who are affected by harmful effects of changes in the climate and extreme weather conditions (Pascuaet al., 2014). There may be technical barriers like scientific uncertainty about the climate change projection which may have negative effects and the PES systems may not be able to function as expected and the  confidence in land buyers will decrease about the fact that these systems will not be able to deal with drastic effects of changes in the climate

Hence, it is clear from the report that PES schemes has a significant role in providing solutions to deal with  adaptation to changes in the climate  by providing incentives to land and resource managers but there are also various challenges and  barriers involved in Payment for Ecosystem Services.

Alix-Garcia, J., & Wolff, H. (2014). Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ., 6(1), 361-380.

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., & Lopez-Carr, D. (2014). What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s SocioPáramo program. Land Use Policy, 36, 122-133.

Carlson, K. (2015). RIDDING PES SYSTEMS OF THE” PAY TO POLLUTE” PRINCIPLE: PES OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES. Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol’y, 16, 23-25.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., … & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158.

Farley, K. A., Bremer, L. L., Harden, C. P., & Hartsig, J. (2013). Changes in carbon storage under alternative land uses in biodiverse Andean grasslands: implications for payment for ecosystem services. Conservation Letters, 6(1), 21-27.

Fu, B., Wang, Y. K., Xu, P., Yan, K., & Li, M. (2014). Value of ecosystem hydropower service and its impact on the payment for ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment, 472, 338-346.

Leimona, B., van Noordwijk, M., de Groot, R., & Leemans, R. (2015). Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosystem Services, 12, 16-28.

Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., Adaman, F., Aguilar, B., Agarwal, B., … & Garcia?Frapolli, E. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win?win solutions. Conservation letters, 6(4), 274-279.

Pagiola, S., & Platais, G. (2016). Payments for environmental services.

Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., … & Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience, biu146.

Zheng, H., Robinson, B. E., Liang, Y. C., Polasky, S., Ma, D. C., Wang, F. C., … & Daily, G. C. (2013). Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(41), 16681-16686.