The Strength and the Weaknesses of Pay for Ecosystem Services (PES)

All biological lives need a supply of external energy. Most Plants are capable of photosynthesis, some bacteria employ natural sources of chemical energy. Many other organisms require different types of energy to grow. Beyond this biological need of humanity, technologically advance societies have increasingly weaken in their dependence on external energy for production of many manufactured goods. Where this technological advancement is a wonderful convenience of modern life in particular, there it allows people to live under a diverse condition of climate, in general. Increasing levels of human comforts result in increased dependence on external energy. Conversely, this increased dependence on external energy sources goad to such means of energy sources, which are harmful for the environment. It is therefore why there has been the introduction of pay for ecosystem services (PES) for economic management of the environment (Arocena-Francisco, 2003, p. 5-8). The aim of this paper is to assess the strength and the weaknesses of pay for ecosystem services (PES) for economic management of the environment

Strengths

In the use of the PES mechanism of Eco-labeling or certified forest products, the major strength is its demand which is at a steady fast growth and is fuelled by worry about imports that have been illegally obtained. It has also shown strength in its prospective to acquire the status of landscape level certification. In the use of the PES mechanism, Authoritarian and deliberate biodiversity counterbalance there are certain strengths and weaknesses that come with it. The strengths include that in applying the PES mechanism of Authoritarian and deliberate biodiversity counterbalance there is the promotion of a self-sustaining...

... middle of paper ...

... of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia, June 19-23, 2006.

Landell-Mills, N. and Porras, I. (2002). ‘Silver Bullet or Fools’ Gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor’, International Institute for Environment and Development. London

Peskett, l. et al. (2007). Can payments for avoided deforestation to tackle climate change also benefit the poor? ODI Forestry Briefing Paper 12.

Scherr, S. et al. (2006). ‘Developing Future Ecosystem Service Payments in China: lessons learned from International Experience’, Washington: Forest Trends/Eco-agriculture Partners/Peking University.

Stern, N. (2006). ‘Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change’, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

Wunder, S. (2007). The Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services in Tropical Conservation, Conservation Biology 21 (1): 48-58