Funding forest and biodiversity conservation: Payments for ecosystem services and other innovative mechanisms to mobilize private capital in Argentina
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.26.36.1.0.2622Keywords:
natural assets, preservation, financial resources, climate changeAbstract
1. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) schemes have emerged as a key tool to finance forest and biodiversity conservation, yet their effectiveness varies across contexts. This article analyzes the effectiveness, challenges, and opportunities of PES schemes and explores emerging mechanisms for mobilizing private finance at the global level.
2. Based on a literature review, regional case studies (Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil and Ecuador), and interviews with key stakeholders, it identifies lessons learned and policy recommendations to support more effective conservation interventions in Argentina.
3. The findings show that although PES can generate positive environmental and social outcomes, their effects tend to be limited in contexts of high agricultural pressure, where the economic incentives included in PES schemes are insufficient to offset the opportunity costs of halting deforestation.
4. The evidence further indicates that PES effectiveness depends critically on their articulation with strong regulatory frameworks, effective monitoring and enforcement systems, and local productive development strategies capable of sustaining conservation beyond the duration of payments.
5. The analysis of international experiences reveals that exclusive reliance on public funding constrains the scale and sustainability of PES programs. Emerging mechanisms to mobilize private capital such as insetting, biodiversity credits and natural asset companies (NAC), offer potential to complement PES financing, but also entail methodological, regulatory and distributive risks.
6. Implications. PES can contribute to conservation, but they do not constitute a structural solution to deforestation dynamics driven by high agricultural returns. In Argentina, strengthening environmental policy against deforestation requires integrating these instruments into national climate and biodiversity strategies, combining PES programs with stronger regulation and emerging private financing mechanisms.
References
Aguiar, S., G. C. Sans, and J. M. Paruelo. 2017. Instrumentos económicos basados en mercados para la conservación de la biodiversidad y los servicios ecosistémicos en Latinoamérica:¿ panacea o rueda cuadrada? Ecología Austral 27(1-bis):146-161. https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.17.27.1.1.262.
Argentina – Presidencia. 2025. Tercera Contribución Determinada a nivel Nacional de la República Argentina.
Arias Mahiques M. V., P. de la Vega, A. Firpo, F. Mendoza, and M. F. Villafañe. 2024. Instrumentos financieros innovadores para atender la triple crisis de deuda, clima y biodiversidad. Fundar.
Arriagada, R. A., P. J. Ferraro, E. O. Sills, S. K. Pattanayak, and S. Cordero-Sancho. 2012. Do payments for environmental services affect forest cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics 88(2):382-399. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.88.2.382.
Alix-Garcia, J., G. Aronson, V. Radeloff, C. Ramirez-Reyes, E. Shapiro, K. Sims, and P. Yánez-Pagans. 2014. Impacts of Mexico's payments for ecosystem services programme. 3ie Impact Evaluation Report 20.
Börner, J., K. Baylis, E. Corbera, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, J. Honey-Rosés, U. M. Persson, and S. Wunder. 2017. The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96:359-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020.
Bottazzi P.,E. Wiik, D. Crespo, and J. P. G. Jones. 2018. Payment for environmental “self-service”: exploring the links between farmers’ motivation and additionality in a conservation incentive programme in the Bolivian Andes. Ecol Econ 150:11-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.03.032.
CBD. 2022. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15), Montreal.
Consejo Federal de Medio Ambiente (COFEMA). 2018. Resolución N.º 360/2018. Lineamientos técnicos estratégicos para la implementación de la Ley 26.331. Buenos Aires: COFEMA.
Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA). 2022. Ley Federal de Derechos: Disposiciones aplicables en materia de aguas nacionales 2019 [PDF]. Ciudad de México: CONAGUA. URL: tinyurl.com/3m3vcnxe.
Comisión Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR). 2010. Lineamientos de operación del Fondo Patrimonial de Biodiversidad. Zapopan, Jalisco: CONAFOR.
Comisión Nacional Forestal CONAFOR. 2022. Reglas de Operación 2023 del Programa Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable para el Bienestar. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 29 de diciembre de 2022 (edición vespertina).
Comisión Nacional Asesora para la Conservación y Utilización de la Diversidad Biológica (CONADIBIO), Subsecretaría de Ambiente de la Nación Argentina, y Secretaría de Turismo, Ambiente y Deportes. 2024. Estrategia Nacional sobre la Biodiversidad y Plan de Acción 2025-2030. República Argentina.
Chablé-Rodríguez, G., M. J. González-Guillén, A. Gómez-Guerrero, T. M. González-Martínez, and D. S. Fernández-Reynoso. 2023. Disposición a pagar por servicios ecosistémicos hidrológicos en Xalapa, Veracruz, México. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 29(2):55-70. https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2022.04.023.
Charoud, H., S. Costedoat, S. Izquierdo-Tort, L. Moros, S. Villamayor-Tomás, M. A. Castillo-Santiago, S. Wunder, and E. Corbera. 2023. Sustained participation in a Payments for Ecosystem Services program reduces deforestation in a Mexican agricultural frontier. Scientific Reports 13(1):22314. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49725-7.
De Koning, F., M. Aguinaga, M. Bravo, M. Chiu, M. Lascano, T. Lozada, and L. Suarez. 2011. Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science and Policy 14(5):531-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007.
Engel, S., S. Pagiola, S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics N° 62:663-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011.
FAO. 2022. The State of the World’s Forests 2022: Forest Pathways for Green Recovery and Building Inclusive, Resilient and Sustainable Economies. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9360en.
Ferraro, P. J. 2018. Are payments for ecosystem services benefiting ecosystems and people? Pp. 159-66 en P. Kareiva, M. Marvier and B. Silliman (eds.). Effective Conservation Science: Data Not Dogma. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0025.
Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (FAS). 2022. Bolsa Floresta Program: trajectory, lessons and challenges of an innovative public policy for the Amazon. Manaus: FAS.
Figueroa, F., Á. Caro-Borrero, D. Revollo-Fernández, L. Merino, L. Almeida-Leñero, L. Paré, D. Espinosa, M. Mazari-Hiriart. 2016. I like to conserve the forest, but I also like the cash. Socioeconomic factors influencing the motivation to be engaged in the Mexican payment for environmental services programme. J For Econ 22:36-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.11.002.
Geldmann, J., M. Barnes, L. Coad, I. D. Craigie, M. Hockings, N. D. Burgess. 2013. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation 161:230-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.018.
Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014.
IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz and H. T. Ngo (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Pp.1148. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673.
IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.
Izquierdo‑Tort, S., S. Jayachandran, and S. Saavedra. 2024. Redesigning payments for ecosystem services to increase cost‑effectiveness. Nature Communications 15:9252. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53643-1.
James, N., and E. Sills. 2019. Payments for ecosystem services: Program design and participation. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.580.
Le, T. A. T., K. Vodden, J. Wu, R. Bullock, G. Sabau. 2024. Payments for ecosystem services programs: A global review of contributions towards sustainability. Heliyon 10(1):e22361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22361.
Maluf, A. C. 2024. Pagamento por Serviços Ambientais. Revista Amagis Jurídica 16(2):15-53. URL: tinyurl.com/46say2tn.
MAyDS. 2023. Informe Nacional de Inventario del Quinto Informe Bienal de Actualización de la República Argentina a la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC). URL: tinyurl.com/mtwacuy9.
Montero-de-Oliveira, F., G. Blundo-Canto, and D. Ezzine-de-Blas. 2023. Under what conditions do payments for environmental services enable forest conservation in the Amazon? A realist synthesis, Ecological Economics, Volume 205, 2023, 107697, ISSN 0921-8009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107697.
Moros, L., J. Matallana, and M. F. Beltrán. 2020. Pagos por servicios ambientales y Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en América Latina: ¿hacia dónde deben orientarse? Documento CODS Nro. 6. Centro de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible para América Latina y el Caribe (CODS).
Morales, L. A., and M. Perevochtchikova. 2020. De pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos a fondos concurrentes: Estudio de percepción social en una comunidad forestal de Oaxaca, México. Sociedad y Ambiente 23:267-295. https://doi.org/10.31840/sya.vi23.2161.
Miljand, M., T. Bjärstig, K. Eckerberg, E. Primmer, and C. Sandström. 2021. Voluntary agreements to protect private forests - a realist review. Forest Policy and Economics 128:102457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102457.
Murguia, J. M., P. Ordoñez, L. Corral, and G. Navarrete-Chacón. 2022. Payment for Ecosystem Services in Costa Rica: Evaluation of a Country-wide Program. https://doi.org/10.18235/0004259.
Núñez Regueiro, M. M., J. Hiller, L. C. Branch, C. Núñez Godoy, S. Siddiqui, J. Volante, and J. R. Soto. 2020. Policy lessons from spatiotemporal enrollment patterns of payment for ecosystem service programs in Argentina. Land Use Policy 95:104596.
Pattanayak, S., S. Wunder, and P. Ferraro. 2010. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4(2):254-274. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/req006.
Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (2021). Mecanismo de financiamiento para la sostenibilidad de la biodiversidad en Costa Rica (Vol. 2). San José: PNUD. URL: tinyurl.com/4kbde82u.
Pullin, A. S., M. Bangpan, S. Dalrymple, K. Dickson, N. R. Haddaway, J. R. Healey, H. Hauari, N. Hockley, J. P. Jones, and T. Knight. 2013. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environmental Evidence 2:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-2-19.
Perevochtchikova, M., J. Á. H. Flores, W. Marín, A. L. Flores, A. R. Bueno, and I. A. R. Negrete. 2019. Systematic review of integrated studies on functional and thematic ecosystem services in Latin America, 1992-2017. Ecosystem Services 36:100900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100900.
Rico, L., M. Pérez, F. Escutia, S. Barrasa García, and E. Contreras Mejía. 2011. Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics 70(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.016.
Robalino, J., A. Pfaff, C. Sandoval, and G. A. Sánchez-Azofeifa. 2021. Can we increase the impacts from payments for ecosystem services? Impact rose over time in Costa Rica, yet spatial variation indicates more potential. Forest Policy and Economics 132:102577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102577.
Sánchez-Azofeifa, G. A., A. Pfaff, J. A. Robalino, and J. P. Boomhower. 2007. Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation, and impact. Conserv Biol 21:1165-1173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00751.x.
Sánchez‑Chaves, O., and G. Navarrete‑Chacón. 2017. La experiencia de Costa Rica en el pago por servicios ambientales: 20 años de lecciones aprendidas. Revista de Ciencias Ambientales 51(2):195-214. https://doi.org/10.15359/rca.51-2.11.
Sarmiento Barletti, J. P., A. M. Larson, C. Hewlett, and D. Delgado. 2020. Designing for engagement: A realist synthesis review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change. World Development 127:104753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104753.
Salzman J., G. Bennett, N. Carroll, A. Goldstein, and M. Jenkins. 2018. The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services. Nature Sustainability 1(3):136-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0.
Subsecretaría de Ambiente. 2024. Informe de Estado del Ambiente 2023. URL: tinyurl.com/54rrha72.
Venegas Díaz, J. A. 2022. Retos de la política forestal de México. Tesis de Maestría.
Wunder, S., S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, and R. Moreno-Sanchez. 2007. Pago por servicios ambientales: una nueva forma de conservar la biodiversidad. Gaceta Ecológica (número especial) 84-85:39-52.
Wunder, S., J. Börner, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, S. Feder, and S. Pagiola. 2020. Payments for Environmental Services: Past performance and pending potentials. Annual Review of Resource Economics 10:511-534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-094206.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Verónica Gutman, Franco Mendoza, Antonia Firpo, María V. Arias Mahiques
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain their rights as follows: 1) by granting the journal the right to its first publication, and 2) by registering the published article with a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which allows authors and third parties to view and use it as long as they clearly mention its origin (citation or reference, including authorship and first publication in this journal). Authors can make other non-exclusive distribution agreements as long as they clearly indicate their origin and are encouraged to widely share and disseminate the published version of their work.
