Assessing the implementation of Payments for Hydrological Ecosystem Services in Peru through a bottom‐up stakeholder analysis: Case study of Lima, Peru

Date01 May 2019
Published date01 May 2019
AuthorOscar Angulo Núñez,Ester Galende Sánchez
World Water Policy. 2019;5:15–35.
© 2019 Policy Studies Organization.
Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/wwp2.12003
Assessing the implementation of Payments for
Hydrological Ecosystem Services in Peru through a
bottom‐up stakeholder analysis: Case study of Lima,
EsterGalende Sánchez1,2
OscarAngulo Núñez3,4
This paper continues and deepens the research conducted in 2016 and published on the Digital Archive of the UPM as
Estrategia para la mejor gestión de los mecanismos de retribución por servicios ecosistémicos hídricos en Lima (Perú) a
través del análisis de actores.
1Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible
de la Ecorregión Andina ‐ CONDESAN,
Lima, Peru
2Universidad Politécnica de Madrid ‐ UPM,
Madrid, Spain
3Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios
de Saneamiento ‐ SUNASS, Lima, Peru
4Departamento Académico de Ciencias
Sociales,Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Peru, Lima, Peru
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) represent a revo-
lutionary conservation paradigm aimed at providing a sus-
tainable financing for conservation, assuring the continued
supply of ecosystem services (ES) for different beneficiar-
ies while having the opportunity to improve sustainable
livelihoods of rural communities providing these services.
Whereas PES schemes are increasingly being developed all
over the world, Peru has created a national legislative frame-
work to operationalize them, called Rewarding Mechanisms
for Ecosystem Services (MRSE), with an especial develop-
ment on Hydrological Ecosystem Services (MRSEH) to
sustain good quality and quantity of drinking potable water
for urban areas. However, a lack of coordination, miscom-
munications, and unintegrated decision making process
among the wide variety of stakeholders involved, especially
urban (downstream water users) and rural stakeholders (ES
upstream providers) has caused several challenges for the
government to be implemented. This paper proposes an in-
novative methodology tool aimed to overcome these chal-
lenges, based on an in‐depth bottom‐up stakeholder analysis
Human beings are an integral part of the planet's ecosystems, totally relying on them and their proper
functioning. Ecosystems are responsible for providing some goods and services essential for us, called
Ecosystem Services (ES), such as fresh water and food (provisioning); regulation of water, climate,
flood, and diseases (regulating); soil formation and nutrient cycling (supporting); as well as cultural
services. Alterations caused by human activities, particularly over the past 60years, have degraded
these ecosystems, limiting their capacity for providing us the ES mentioned above and, therefore, pos-
ing a serious threat to our well‐being (Daily, 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Many
measures have been proposed to try to reverse this problem and manage ecosystems in a more sus-
tainable way, including market instruments, such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) (MEA,
Payments for Ecosystem Services have generated growing interest in order to translate external and
nonmarket values of the environment into real financial incentives (Engel, Pagiola, & Wunder, 2008).
This revolutionary approach recognizes the need to bridge the interests of landholders and outsiders
(Wunder, 2005). Traditionally, landholders are not receiving any compensation or reward for ES they
provide for others. Additionally, these ES considered as “free services” usually do not receive any
incentive to maintain their provision. The core idea of PES is that those who provide ES and secure
environmental conservation should be rewarded for doing so, and, at the same time, those who receive
the services should pay for their provision (Pagiola, Arcenas, & Platais, 2005; Wunder, 2005). There
has been a lot of effort from different authors in trying to find a formal definition for PES, but the most
extended definition is the one proposed by Wunder (2005):
A PES is:
1. a voluntary transaction where
2. a well‐defined ES (or a land‐use likely to secure that service)
3. is being “bought” by a (minimum one) ES buyer
4. from a (minimum one) ES provider
5. if and only if the ES provider secures ES provision (conditionality).
able to identify and understand those problems, and proposes
sustainable win‐win upstream–downstream interventions to
carry out in the future. A detailed review of the available
literature on bottom‐up stakeholder participation methodol-
ogy and a deep understanding of the MRSEH socio context
were completed. We conclude that this methodology has the
potential to be applied in any MRSEH of Peru at the design
stage and also recommend that more research related with
MRSEH stakeholder engagement should be conducted.
conservation, hydrological ecosystem services, Peru, PES, stakeholder
analysis, sustainable management

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT