Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem

services in South America and Ecuador

Los medios de vida y la valoración de servicios

ecosistémicos en sur América y Ecuador

Magdy Mileni Echeverría Guadalupe

Franklin Enrique Cargua Catagnia

Carlos Rolando Rosero Erazo

Catherine Gabriela Frey Erazo

Abstract: The valuation of ecosystem services in high Andean zones,

specifically in páramo ecosystems, is essential as they provide

livelihoods for local livelihoods through water regulation, water

storage, carbon sequestration, protection against landslides and

floods, tourism and biodiversity, which is why establishing ecosystem

services is essential. The present research focuses on a comprehensive

review of peer-reviewed studies related to ecosystem services in

South America and Ecuador using Science Direct, Taylos & Francis

and Springer databases (search for titles, abstracts and keywords: The

search terms used were the combination of the following keywords:

"ecosystem services", "payment ecosystem services", "paramo",

"Andes", "Ecuador", "grassland". From the bibliographic search,

articles were considered only if they met the following criteria:

English language articles, focused on high Andean ecosystems,

search periods 2010-2020. It has been shown that there are several

gaps in ecosystem services issues such as PES (payments for

environmental services) as they influence the management of natural

resources, also CE (Emissions Trading) are useful to make

participants reflect on specific elements of payments for

environmental services. The most important findings in this context

were the poor distribution of wealth and lack of knowledge of the

processes to access these environmental benefits.

Keywords: Ecosystem Services, páramo, Payments for

Environmental Services, Emissions Trading

Resumen: La valoración de los servicios ecosistémicos de zonas alto

andinas específicamente en ecosistemas de páramo es esencial ya que

proporcionan sustento a medios de vida locales ya sea por regulación

hídrica, almacenamiento de agua, captura de carbono, protección

contra deslizamientos e inundaciones, turismo y biodiversidad por lo

que establecer. La presente investigación se centra en una revisión

exhaustiva de estudios revisados por pares relacionados a servicios

ecosistémicos en América del Sur y Ecuador utilizando bases de datos

Doctor in Environmental Sciences. Professor

Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo,

Grupo de Investigación y Desarrollo para el

Ambiente y Cambio Climático (GIDAC).

m_echeverria@espoch.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-4267

Master in Biodiversity and Climate Change.

Professor at Escuela Superior Politécnica de

Chimborazo, Research and Development Group

for the Environment and Climate Change

(GIDAC).

franklin.carguac @espoch.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4487-9208

Forestry Engineer. Superior Polytechnic School

of Chimborazo. Research Technician, Research

and Development Group for the Environment and

Climate Change (GIDAC).

carlos.roseroe@espoch.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2691-5578

Master in Biodiversity, Professor, Escuela

Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Grupo de

Investigación y Desarrollo para el Ambiente y

Cambio Climático (GIDAC).

catherine.frey@espoch.edu.ec

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4434-7394

Published

Instituto Tecnológico Superior Edwards Deming.

Quito – Ecuador

Periodicity

July - September

Vol. 1, Num. 22, 2024

pp. 70-90

http://centrosuragraria.com/index.php/revista

Dates of receipt

Received: January 30, 2024

Approved: February 14, 2024

Correspondence author

m_echeverria@espoch.edu.ec

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License, Attribution-

NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0

International.https://creativecommons.org/licenses

/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

de Science Direct, Taylos & Francis y Springer (búsqueda de títulos,

resúmenes y palabras clave: Los términos de búsqueda utilizados

fueron la combinación de las siguientes palabras clave: “ecosystem

services”, “payment ecosystem services”, “paramo”, “Andes”,

“Ecuador”, “grassland”. De la búsqueda bibliográfica se consideró

artículos solo si cumplían los siguientes criterios: Artículos en idioma

inglés, centrado en ecosistemas altoandinos, periodos de búsqueda

2010-2020. Se ha mostrado que existen varios vacíos en temas de

servicios ecosistémicos como PSE (pagos por servicios ambientales)

ya que estos influyen en la gestión de los recursos naturales, además

los CE (Comercio por emisiones) son útiles para hacer que los

participantes reflexionen sobre elementos específicos de los pagos por

servicios ambientales. Los hallazgos más importantes dentro de este

contexto fueron la mala distribución de la riqueza y desconocimiento

de los procesos para acceder a estos beneficios ambientales.

Palabras clave: Servicios Ecosistémicos, páramo, Pagos por

servicios ambientales, Comercio por emisiones

INTRODUCTION

In the central Ecuadorian Andes, the high mountain tropical ecosystems

located above 2,740 m are considered complex, varied, with a cold

climate and very sensitive to changes due to land use and climate. As

such, they are highly vulnerable to the anticipated impacts of climate

change. Existing models have predicted that 56% of the Andean páramo

could disappear by 2050 (Pérez et al. 2010). The associated loss of

many ecosystem services, such as soil protection, biodiversity

conservation, and water regulation and supply, along with a reduction

in the area's hydroelectric potential, will affect Ecuador's central

highlands, where not only cities such as Quito, Cuenca, and Riobamba

are located, but also the entire Ecuadorian Amazon region that depends

on water supplied by glaciers in Ecuador's central highlands (Buytaert

et al., 2006).

At the same time, the Andean Páramo is an ecosystem of vital

importance for climate change mitigation, as it has the capacity to

sequester carbon and regulate the climate. In the coming years, it will

be necessary to implement conservation and adaptation policies for this

type of ecosystem in order to drastically reduce the advance of

industrial/conventional agricultural activities, which are increasingly

invading this fragile ecosystem. The communities that depend on this

ecosystem and its services must adapt and need tools to improve their

resilience.

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

In this sense, the conservation of these ecosystems is strongly related to

the socioeconomic context of these communities. Incomes and yields

are determined by a wide range of socioeconomic and technological

factors, as well as by ecosystem conditions, such as water availability

or soil quality. They are also very sensitive to changing climatic

conditions. Therefore, the loss of net income and yields from

agricultural activities due to climate change and especially extreme

events such as droughts can become a driver of degradation of the

Andean páramo ecosystem.

Ecosystem management is based on a learning process that helps adapt

methodologies and practices to the ways in which these systems are

managed and monitored. It uses sustainable ecosystem management,

conservation and restoration to provide services that enable people to

adapt to the impacts of climate change (Ash and Ninni 2009). It is

already recognized that the diversity of social and cultural factors

influences the use of natural resources. Ecosystem-based adaptation

(EbA) is conceived as a long-term experiment that incorporates

information and results to reduce the vulnerability of ecosystems and

communities and conserve relevant ecological services (Andrade and

Vides, 2009). According to the definition used by the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP, 2004), the ecosystem approach to

adaptation is based on the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as

part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people and communities

adapt to negative climate impacts.

In this context, ecosystem services can be defined as the benefits that

people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services

such as food; regulating services that affect climate and water cycles;

cultural services that provide recreational and spiritual benefits; and

supporting services such as nutrient cycling (Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005).

In this sense, adaptation to environmental and climate change is an

essential component of any community planning effort to become more

resilient. Whether communities are aware of these changes or not,

knowing how to plan adaptation strategies is a vital component of any

development plan or long-term sustainability plan. Planning for these

changes requires the inclusion of all segments of the community

population in a shared dialogue. It is necessary to implement a

community dialogue to develop a consensus on what elements of the

community are vulnerable to environmental and climate changes and

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

from there develop plans that focus on strengthening community

resilience.

To study resilience, vulnerability and adaptation of systems, social and

ecological studies have evolved into a connected approach: social-

ecological systems, ESS (Liu et al. 2007, An 2012). Social-ecological

systems can be defined as complex, integrative and adaptive systems,

in which humans are part of nature (Berkes and Folke 1998). Even in

urban areas, ecosystems are important elements of resilience (Tyler and

Moench 2012). These systems are composed of at least two subsystems:

the social subsystem (e.g., a farming community, a family) and the

ecological subsystem (e.g., a watershed, a valley, a lagoon). The key

aspect of these subsystems is that they interact with each other. In other

words, there are reciprocal influences between the subsystems. The

main attributes of social-ecological systems, which sometimes cannot

be observed in subsystems, are: 1) the non-linearity of their dynamics,

2) emergent properties, 3) the existence of several scales, and 4)

feedback loops (Chapin et al., 2009).

Other authors defend the non-linear relationship between resilience and

vulnerability (Chelleri, 2017). That is the reason why the complexity of

these interactions must be integrated, through a participatory

methodology, as well as in the socioecological model to assess

effectiveness in an adequate manner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search for peer-reviewed studies on ecosystem

services in South America and Ecuador was carried out using the

Science Direct, Taylor & Francis and Springer databases (search for

titles, abstracts and keywords). The search terms used were the

combination of the following keywords: "ecosystem services",

"payment ecosystem services", "paramo", "Andes", "Ecuador",

"grassland". From the bibliographic search, articles were considered

only if they met the following criteria:

1) The article must be published and written in the English language.

2) The article should have focused on high Andean ecosystems of South

America, specifically páramo, i.e. in the countries of Colombia,

Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia, therefore, studies conducted in tropical

ecosystems, high Andean forests and wetlands were not included.

3) We searched only for articles, conference proceedings and chapters

published within the period 2010 to 2020.

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

Relevant studies identified from the bibliographic lists of the articles

were also included.

Studies that were conducted in ecosystems outside the Andes and in

forests were excluded. A total of 348 studies were found and the final

sample of papers eligible for full text review had 10 publications. We

analyzed them in terms of which ecosystem services valuation method

was used, which ecosystem services were analyzed, what was the

valuation approach and what were the results of the valuation method.

We recorded the location

RESULTS

Of the total number of articles reviewed, 10 articles were analyzed that

address the topic of Payment for Ecosystem Services in the páramo

Papers final

analysis

Papers for final analysis

N = 10

Eligibility

Reading the abstract/Area of study

N = 33

Abstract and quick reading of the article

N = 15

Reading the methodology of the article

N = 12

Screening

Identification

192

Science

Direct

Taylor&Franc

Springer

Title/Keywords

N = 357

Article title/key words/abstract/Duplicates

N = 66

Excluded N=291

Excluded N= 33

Excluded N= 18

Excluded N= 3

Cambrige

Scielo

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

ecosystem, of the 5 countries that have this ecosystem Ecuador is the

country with the most studies, followed by Colombia. Bolivia and

Venezuela do not present studies specifically on this topic.

The year with the most studies is 2014, in which the mechanisms

implemented in Ecuador are analyzed, and one study analyzes both

countries, Ecuador and Colombia.

Ecuador has been the only country in the Cordillera to apply payment

for ecosystem services, under the name of incentives.

According to authors (cite) there are few studies for the implementation

of ES in Latin America, and all agree on the importance of the

participation of the communities and the involvement of academia and

authorities, to carry out previous scientific studies of the ES provided

by the páramo, since in addition to the service of water regulation and

carbon content, there are more ES that require, with equal importance,

their study.

In the book published in 2019, which consists of a compilation of

studies carried out in Latin America regarding social-ecological

services, it mentions that although the percentage of areas in Latin

America where there are no social-ecological

In the article published in 2019 by Peru, it states that there are no

conservation mechanisms in the high Andean lands.

One of the first studies found was carried out in 2011 (Farley et al.,

2011)which reviews and analyzes the contribution of emerging

ecosystem services (CES) compensation programs (compensation and

non-payment) implemented in communities living in the moorlands of

Ecuador, focusing on two case studies. Among the contributions of this

study are the following:

• There is no scientific study of the ES provided by the paramo

ecosystem in these areas, few programs had determined the baseline

conditions and these, as well as the objectives, were based on

assumptions about the functions of the páramo. The study mentions

that the programs considered one ES as the highest priority, mainly

hydrological services, followed by carbon, and had expectations that

multiple ecosystem services exist. It is mentioned that "the data to

support these expectations were limited and representatives of these

programs readily acknowledged that they did not have empirical

studies to support these assumptions, but based them on what they

considered to be the best current scientific understanding."

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

• Mentions how unlikely it is that the programs implemented will be

successful if the local communities do not benefit from them in an

equitable manner

• In addition, it mentions that there is a large information gap on the

evaluation of implemented programs that measures and monitors

their results, due to the lack of clear baseline information and the

scientific basis needed to measure program impacts.

In 2014, three studies were conducted mainly in Ecuador and one in

Colombia and Ecuador. In Ecuador the Socio páramo program is

evaluated (Bremer, Farley, & Lopez-Carr, 2014)(Bremer, Farley,

Lopez-Carr, et al., 2014) and the carbon offset program led by

PROFAFOR and in Colombia the Fundación Natura silvopastoral

program (Hayes et al., 2014). (Hayes et al., 2014).

According to the two studies conducted by the same authors. (Bremer,

Farley, & Lopez-Carr, 2014; Bremer, Farley, Lopez-Carr, et al., 2014),

in which an analysis of the compensation program called Socio Paramo

is carried out. One of the studies evaluates the factors that facilitate and

limit participation in the Socio Paramo program in Ecuador(Bremer,

Farley, & Lopez-Carr, 2014); while the second study conducted by the

authors assesses whether Socio Paramo has the potential to contribute

to local livelihoods (financial, natural, social, human and physical

management) and sustainable resource management(Bremer, Farley,

Lopez-Carr, et al., 2014)..

The results of these studies indicate that:

• Key factors affecting participation in the SP program include land

title, social capital including social networks and community

organization, and the availability of alternative sources of livelihood

outside of enrolled páramo lands. Factors that encourage

participation include financial benefits and non-financial benefits,

such as increased land security and improved natural resource

management, while fear of land expropriation deters participation.

(Bremer, Farley, & Lopez-Carr, 2014).

• In terms of equity of access, it mentions that there is a participation

of both urban and rural inhabitants, with the highest percentage of

participation by rural inhabitants, it is worth mentioning that rural

areas are where there is greater poverty. The study mentions that

"PES may be accessible and desirable to smaller rural landowners

and communities as awareness increases"; yet it also mentions that:

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

"the results support other findings of low participation by

smallholders who could be considered among the 'poorest of the

poor' who see their participation limited by insecure land tenure,

distrust of government programs, and hesitancy to lock up limited

land. So they suggest considering making the program more

accessible and desirable to small landowners and rural communities

and avoiding the issue of land conflicts. (Bremer, Farley, & Lopez-

Carr, 2014).

• It was also found that payment levels do not cover opportunity costs

for the most productive uses of páramo land, so it is important to

seek alternative livelihood strategies. (Bremer, Farley, & Lopez-

Carr, 2014)

• It also mentions the need to monitor and evaluate the effect of SP.

(Bremer, Farley, & Lopez-Carr, 2014). Similarly in the second study

they emphasize "following up with these participants and exploring

how outcomes change with new participants in subsequent years is

imperative for a more complete understanding of program

outcomes" (Bremer, Farley, Lopez-Carr, et al., 2014).

• The value and importance of forming strengthened collaborative

networks NGOs, community institutions, landowners to overcome

some of the distrust of the program, increase awareness of the

program and support in developing alternative livelihoods that

enable greater participation of SPs. (Bremer, Farley, & Lopez-Carr,

2014) The authors suggest that focusing on strengthening social

networks and developing economic alternatives are two ways that

PES programs can improve equity in outcomes and lay the

groundwork for PES to strengthen livelihoods. (Bremer, Farley,

Lopez-Carr, et al., 2014)

As for the third study conducted in 2014, it evaluates two programs

selected for the context of dynamic and complex socio-ecological

systems. One of them is the Carbon Offsets Program (SE: Carbon

Sequestration) carried out by PROFAFOR and applied in Ecuador. The

other program evaluated was Fundación Natura's Silvopastoral

Incentives Program (SE: water resources), applied in Colombia. Both

programs were implemented in the highlands of the Andes Mountains.

The objective of the study was to compare and examine how PES

institutions conform to the principles of adaptive decision making for

sustainable resource management. (Hayes et al., 2014).

Although both programs are economic incentive programs, the

PROFAFOR model is "user-financed", in contrast to the "government-

financed" model of the silvopastoral program in Colombia. Another

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

difference was that the Colombia model constantly interacted with

participants generating participatory learning processes and adaptive

decision making. (Hayes et al., 2014) mentions that, "In both Ecuador

and Colombia, while the economic incentive served to initiate

behavioral change, it did not motivate, and probably hindered, resource

managers' initiative to maintain those practices, as participants'

management activities were dependent on receiving payment," stresses

that more research is needed to systematically evaluate how contracts

and incentives impact participants' motivation and perceived ability to

adaptively manage their resources. (Hayes et al., 2014)

The challenges encountered were:

• The committed participation of all stakeholders to carry out the

programs, both in planning and monitoring.

• The need to monitor the broader (social, economic and ecological)

and long-term impacts of programs to adapt to changing social and

ecological conditions.

• It is mentioned that both studies illustrated that we lack a solid

understanding of the ecological dynamics of South American

ecosystems, particularly upland systems.

• They conclude that PES that rely on a futures market, such as carbon

sequestration, may be particularly inadequate to address changing

social and ecological conditions.

In the 5 databases used to carry out this literature review, only one study

was found for 2015 in Ecuador, which analyzed the PES of the socio

paramo program in collectively managed lands. The socio paramo

program continues in that year, but the article mentions that there are

very few national laws explicitly dictating what activities are prohibited

in the páramo and that conservation laws consist largely of general

stipulations to protect fragile ecosystems and biodiversity, many of

which are weakly implemented (Hayes et al., 2015)

His findings suggest that community participation and organization is a

key factor, as if it is weak, PES alone may not be sufficient. He also

mentions the importance of previous studies and viewing PES programs

as experiments in need of continuous adaptation, as there is limited

understanding of how to successfully structure such systems and the

need for effective monitoring mechanisms to analyze the equity and

impact of the programs.

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

The study concludes with the fact that while ESPs can support and kick-

start the development of communal systems, more research is needed

to assess how the interaction of the different components of an ESP, the

experimental environment, community behavior, services, benefits and

more over time.

In 2017, 3 studies were found, one carried out in Peru which reviews

ES and proposes technologies to preserve them and payment schemes

for them (Rolando et al., 2017). The other two articles found correspond

to studies conducted in Ecuador where they make an analysis of the

Socio Bosque program implemented already in 2009. (Hayes et al.,

2017) . (Farley & Bremer, 2017)

(Rolando et al., 2017) conducts a study where he analyzes how

intensified agriculture affects the ES in a high Andean zone of Peru

(Puna) and for this he determines which are the key ES in that

ecoregion, thus he mentions: provision of food, wool and fiber, soil

fertility, nutrient cycling, soil carbon sequestration, water provision and

regulation, genetic resources, pest and disease control, pollination

regulation and microclimate regulation. The author also analyzes the

main drivers of change, where he discusses four: climate change,

agricultural intensification and encroachment changes, intensive

grazing practices and mining activity. He also makes a brief analysis of

traditional practices with empirical evidence to protect the ES. Within

his analysis he states that in Peru no compensation scheme for ES has

been implemented, there is a lack of attention to the high Andean

region, only in 2016 it was proposed to protect COS reserves and

provide an opportunity for conservation or restoration plans for

grasslands susceptible to ES payment and climate change mitigation

schemes.

What it brings to the table is that:

• For the effectiveness of such traditional technologies it is thanks to

a high degree of social cohesion to successfully perform the

community work required to maintain the technologies.

• Enforcement of policies related to climate change mitigation

schemes and ES payment are still very weak. It is important to

strengthen such policies hand in hand with scientific studies and

combine them with traditional technologies widely used in the Puna

to cope with climate variability.

On the other hand the two studies conducted in Ecuador analyze what

were the local perceptions of the participants. (Farley & Bremer, 2017)

and the impact of PES on communal lands. In one of the studies it states

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

that PSB are the most direct formal rules of the government to regulate

the use of the páramo. But like Peru, Ecuador does not have a national

law to protect the páramo and the general measures that do exist are

weakly enforced. (Hayes et al., 2017)

The contributions suggest that:

• The key importance of engaging local people as their participation

can provide valuable information for developing and adapting

policies and management guidelines. In some cases, local

perceptions align with research on the ecological outcomes of PES,

while in others, the expectations of PES participants are unlikely to

be met. (Farley & Bremer, 2017).

• The authors emphasize that data to assess the ecological and social

outcomes of these programs are limited and few empirical studies

have explicitly examined PES in the context of communal resource

management. (Farley & Bremer, 2017; Hayes et al., 2017).. Despite

their increasing use of PES limited understanding of the conditions

under which PES can serve as an appropriate tool for conservation

and how incentivized land management practices affect local values

and uses of moorlands(Farley & Bremer, 2017; Hayes et al., 2017)..

From an environmental standpoint, more research is needed to better

identify whether the environmental practices often prescribed under

PES actually produce the desired environmental service (Naeem et

al., 2015).

• In other words, social and ecological studies are required, as well as

other parameters that influence and must be carried out before and

during the implementation of the programs in order to carry out a

coherent monitoring and, as a fundamental element, the participants

are key actors in the process, who take ownership of the findings and

from them arise the doubts, needs for change and solutions, where

science and management go hand in hand.

• The results of the study (Hayes et al., 2017) indicate that PSB is

producing additional behavioral changes that would be unlikely to

occur in the absence of the program, but the changes are also due to

socioeconomic, cognitive, local governance factors, and broader

contextual factors influencing farmers' use of their collective

woodlot.

• They also support that the perception of the páramo is a determinant

in the change of land-use behavior, so that greater motivation to

carry out a desired conservation activity can be noted.

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

• Perception of resources, education, community governance are tools

that facilitate PSE and may have a greater impact than program

participation. Added to those factors, broader economic trends,

technological changes, and educational campaigns may be

contributing to the overall decline in usage in both participants and

non-participants. (Hayes et al., 2017)

In 2018 a study on PES, conducted in Ecuador is reported which seeks

a greater understanding of local perceptions of equity and the role of

respective communal governance institutions, to build a clearer and

broader vision of how to structure incentive-based conservation

programs that better support the development of fair and durable

conservation arrangements(Hayes & Murtinho, 2018).

• The study shows that the organizational capacity of a community can

play a fundamental role in the successful implementation of PES.

For example, the distribution of benefits is perceived to be fair in

communities with self-organizing capacity, whereas in communities

with an inability to self-organize, distributional outcomes were

weaker. And they suggest future research to uncover additional

governance attributes and their role in mediating the impacts of PES.

(Hayes & Murtinho, 2018).

In 2019 there are 3 studies; two carried out in Ecuador, one evaluates

the PES approach and biodiversity protection (Bremer et al., 2019) and

the other one performs an analysis of a national PES program, FONAG

(Joslin, 2019). The third study found, is part of the 12 case studies

compiled in the book. ("Soc. Syst. Lat. Am. Complexities Challenges,"

2019)which seeks to analyze the complexities and challenges of socio-

ecological systems in Latin America. The selected study was conducted

in Colombia where a novel methodology for valuation of ES is

implemented.

The study conducted by (Bremer et al., 2019) in the páramo ecosystem

of northern Ecuador, fills a gap about the effectiveness of burn

exclusion, as the authors indicate "there are very few sites in the country

(or elsewhere in the Andes) that allow a comparison of known burn

histories, particularly over long periods of burn exclusion." (Bremer et

al., 2019). It is important to note that burn exclusion is sometimes

incentivized by PSE, but without studies to corroborate such land use

decisions at present.

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

• The study highlights: "the importance of clearly articulating

biodiversity objectives in PES programs, as management

recommendations depend on which outcomes are prioritized". The

published results demonstrate that: "PES and other conservation

programs should translate general native vegetation conservation

objectives into specific desired outcomes with respect to which

components of páramo vegetation are conservation priorities". It

also suggests that more research is needed on the contribution of

different páramo life forms to ecosystem function and services.

• The results based on the data from the vegetation covers studied

suggest that moorlands recover relatively quickly. Therefore, total

burn exclusion is not necessary if PES management objectives are

focused on maintaining the ecosystem function of páramo soils.

However, when PES objectives include increasing the cover of non-

herbaceous páramo species that are extremely sensitive to human

disturbance, stricter burning regulations may be appropriate.

• Finally, it concludes that in general human-managed systems, the

linkages between land use, biodiversity and HE are poorly

understood (Ponette-González et al. 2014). and these programs

represent a potentially important source of funding in the context of

under-resourced biodiversity conservation efforts globally (Hein et

al. 2013; Bennett and Ruef 2016). the most appropriate strategies for

managing páramo for biodiversity depend on the specific desired

outcomes (Bremer et al., 2019)

The second study conducted in Ecuador published in 2019 evaluates the

success narrative of the program: Fund for the Protection of Water

(FONAG) as a PES model for water funds. (Joslin, 2019). The study

cites several authors who consider that the circulation of such PES

success narratives along with other conservation programs, among

various organizations, governments, academics etc., contributes to an

increase in popularity, attracts financial resources and justifies

replication of the use of such programs, despite the fact that they present

discursive contradictions and never move towards implementation

(Joslin, 2019) suggests that, "widely circulated narratives of success can

misrepresent complex interactions among stakeholders as well as

within communities and their land management practices." As PES

models influence natural resource management, policy adoption and

others. As the author indicates the purpose of questioning these

narratives is to: "point out the nuanced ways in which water funds and

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

any conservation policy model can be interpreted and presents an

alternative framework for deciphering local relationships with

conservation projects. Assessments that represent situated perceptions

of conservation practice can help clarify interactions with PES

programs within specific ecosystems." So by generalizing these

narratives of success and being applied they generate real-world

consequences that affect the dynamics of ecosystems and human

communities.

It concludes the study by stating that the challenge for future research

is to "value local perspectives as a form of evidence and to further

examine the context and mechanisms of how conservation policies

function on the ground as forms of environmental governance. It invites

further development of innovative evaluations aimed at examining the

role in pre-existing land management practices and institutions in

supporting PES programs and recognizing the complex political,

economic and social context of PES deals.(Joslin, 2019)

On the other hand, we found a study conducted in Colombia which is

part of a book that makes a compendium of analysis, research and

compilation of 12 studies in Latin America that analyzes socio-

ecological systems. ("Soc. Syst. Lat. Am. Complexities Challenges,"

2019). Said study performs the valuation of ecosystem services,

specifically the water resource, in the upper zone of the Chinchiná-

Colombia river basin. To determine the economic value per cubic meter

of water generated by wetlands, it analyzes variables such as forest

areas and the volume of water collected, the importance value of the

forest, the opportunity costs of the productive system and the cost of

ecosystem restoration. The study arrives at a value of US$4.28 per

cubic meter if valued according to public service rates.

An interesting point of the study that is of interest to us for this review

was that a key part of its methodology was community participation in

the identification and prioritization of ecosystem services. This

participation states that: The community is aware of the importance of

ecosystem care, actions to maintain a healthy environment, not only for

the community but the entire planet and they mention that the mountain

should always be maintained due to its vital importance in providing

water for the population.

The study concludes with the following points of interest:

• Community participation in the identification of ecosystem services

was fundamental to understanding the recognition of their

environment, and their priorities served to decide the valuation

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

method". He stresses that "there must be a great social responsibility

to manage water through governance, transparency, equity, and

well-defined conservation criteria in the medium and long term.

Society is called to know its natural environment, its internal

function, identifying the ecosystemic value of the natural heritage,

especially water, in the hope that from there, conservation decisions

can be generated, since it is not possible to conserve something that

is not known. For this to happen, it is necessary to consider society

and nature in an integrated manner, or in this case, society and water,

given their close relationships. Problems and solutions for human-

nature relations must be approached with a holistic perspective to

ensure the quality of life of society and the preservation of our

natural heritage.

• Contingent valuations are difficult to perform in the area since the

communities interested in water conservation are mainly those living

in medium or low altitude zones, being the ones that benefit mainly

from having a recharge zone at higher altitudes. And they mention

that although major investments in the research were not available

and there could be subjective variables that affect the results, the

participation of the community was vital in prioritizing ecosystem

services.

To conclude the results obtained in the search, a study conducted in

Colombia was found which consists of the application of a deliberative

assessment in an indigenous community in Colombia. (Lliso et al.,

2020). The author mentions and as can be evidenced in our search, this

study was one of the first implementations of Deliberative Choice

Experiments (DeCE) in the Global South. (Lliso et al., 2020)

Since the legislation in Colombia passed in 2017 to regulate and

encourage the use of PSE, and with the evidence that this may result

opportunities as risks, the author sets out as the objective of the study

of (Lliso et al., 2020) find appropriate approaches that can be used to

elicit the preferences of indigenous peoples with respect to PES design,

in order to ensure that these programs are adapted to their context and

to determine whether deliberative valuation approaches are adequate

for this task.

The author mentions two reasons for the choice of methodology: 1) it

has been found to successfully address many of the criticisms and

limitations of traditional valuation approaches, such as reducing the

cognitive load on participants and giving them more time to process the

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

information and form their preferences quotes a (Bunse et al., 2015).

He suggests that it is a relevant point when participants value unfamiliar

goods and when there are low levels of education and 2) The second

reason he mentions (Lliso et al., 2020) is that, "the CE component was

useful for getting participants to reflect on specific elements of PES

implementation and provide quantitative evidence of the importance of

equity considerations, the focus groups between round one and two of

the DeCE can provide rich qualitative information about The

preferences of participants in a format that is familiar and comfortable

to them, as it is similar to the mingas de pensamiento that they hold

regularly in their community."

Some of the study's contributions to our review, in order to achieve

effective PES design and implementation are:

• Community participation: One of the first steps was to explore under

what conditions participants are most likely to agree to participate in

a future PES. It mentions that, for the design of these programs,

active community participation is significant in making decisions

about land use, the perspective of who should lead, which

stakeholders to involve, and equity in PES design. Thus, adapting

PES to the full range of worldviews and ways of life of these groups

is more likely to ensure success.

• Terminology: The author states in his research that the economic

terminology used in academic contexts of PES, implementing them

in the indigenous context could be counterproductive, and he

recommends adapting the language and structure of PES to fit the

jargon and concepts used by indigenous peoples in order to involve

their participation. As the author cites, these could be important first

steps to avoid PES being perceived as a neoliberal tool used to

commodify nature in a way that often clashes with the values of these

communities (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010). In addition to adapting

terminology, it is also important to adapt PES to fit indigenous

worldviews and reinvent them in a way that allows indigenous

groups to take ownership.

• They conclude that: the deliberative valuation approach is a useful

way to elicit preferences in an indigenous context. One of the

advantages of adding a deliberative component to the CE

methodology is that it allowed us to extract information not only

about what participants value, but also why they value it (Lienhoop

et al., 2015). The deliberative process helped people carefully

consider the importance of each of the attributes in question, not only

to them but also with respect to how implementation of a PES

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

scheme would interact with their community more broadly (Kenter

et al., 2016 ).

CONCLUSIONS

Harmonizing the relationship between humans and nature is complex.

In this study, the awareness of various entities and institutions, such as

academia, governmental organizations, various organizations and

people directly or indirectly linked to ecosystem services, is considered

important. Briefly, after the information reviewed, it is undoubtedly of

utmost importance to link research, management institutions and

communities committed to any conservation program.

It is important for the PES to carry out previous studies to establish

scientific baselines for both the ES and the social aspect, which

contributes to an effective monitoring of the process and results of the

programs. Although it will not always be possible to have a

comprehensive baseline before implementing the PES, information

should be fed during the course of the implementation of the programs.

Therefore, there is no doubt that these PES programs require continuous

adaptation, flexibility, evidence of shortcomings and achievements, and

awareness that these processes take time and need to be approached

with care, i.e., adaptive management must be implemented.

Although it is mentioned that PES have been generalized and

popularized in South America, no evidence was found in scientific

articles and many have been designed and implemented by assumptions

without scientific backing and a joint and conscious participation of all

those involved.

It is evident that in recent years (Peru and Colombia) have begun to

notice the need to strengthen legislation and holistic conservation of

resources. Although Ecuador has been one of the countries that has been

involved in PES for many years, it has shown some gaps on the subject.

This is quite useful because it supports the need to manage the trinity

and awareness, and provides experience and thus strengthen and

understand that it is a process of adaptation, flexibility and

participation. The PES has Our findings contribute to fill this gap in

the context of PES in ecosystems as complex as the páramo, evidence

what have been the shortcomings and where to strengthen the process.

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

References

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Chadwick, O. A., & Harden, C. P. (2016).

Changes in carbon storage with land management promoted by

payment for ecosystem services. Environmental Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000199

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., DeMaagd, N., Suárez, E., Cárate Tandalla,

D., Vasco Tapia, S., & Mena Vásconez, P. (2019). Biodiversity

outcomes of payment for ecosystem services: lessons from páramo

grasslands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(4), 885-908.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3

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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002.

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Lopez-Carr, D., & Romero, J. (2014).

Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem

services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for 'win-

win'? Ecosystem Services, 8, 148-165.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2014.03.007.

Farley, K. A., Anderson, W. G., Bremer, L. L., & Harden, C. P. (2011).

Compensation for ecosystem services: An evaluation of efforts to

achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian paramo

grasslands. Environmental Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100049X

Farley, K. A., & Bremer, L. L. (2017). "Water Is Life": Local

Perceptions of Páramo Grasslands and Land Management

Strategies Associated with Payment for Ecosystem Services.

Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(2), 371-

381. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1254020

Hayes, T., & Murtinho, F. (2018). Communal governance, equity and

payment for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy, 79, 123-136.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.08.001

Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., Cárdenas Camacho, L. M., Crespo, P.,

McHugh, S., & Salmerón, D. (2014). Can Conservation Contracts

Co-exist with Change? Payment for Ecosystem Services in the

Context of Adaptive Decision-Making and Sustainability.

Environmental Management, 55(1), 69-85.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1

Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2015). An institutional analysis

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

of Payment for Environmental Services on collectively managed

lands in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 118, 81-89.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2015.07.017

Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2017). The Impact of Payments

for Environmental Services on Communal Lands: An Analysis of

the Factors Driving Household Land-Use Behavior in Ecuador.

World Development, 93, 427-446.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.01.003.

Joslin, A. J. (2019). Unpacking 'Success': Applying Local Perceptions

to Interpret Influences of Water Fund Payments for Ecosystem

Services in the Ecuadorian Andes. Society and Natural Resources,

32(6), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1559379

Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S., & Mariel, P. (2020). Payments for

ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth?

Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in

Colombia. Ecological Economics, 169, 106499.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106499

Rolando, J. L., Turin, C., Ramírez, D. A., Mares, V., Monerris, J., &

Quiroz, R. (2017). Key ecosystem services and ecological

intensification of agriculture in the tropical high-Andean Puna as

affected by land-use and climate changes. Agriculture, Ecosystems

and Environment, 236, 221-233.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.010.

Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and

Challenges (2019). In L. E. Delgado & V. H. Marín (Eds.), Social-

ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and

Challenges. Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7

Vásconez, P. M., Castillo, A., Flores, S., Hofstede, R., Josse, C., Lasso,

S., Medina, G., Ochoa, N., & Ortiz, D. (Eds.) (2011). Páramo :

studied, inhabited, managed and institutionalized landscape.

EcoCiencia.

Vergara-Buitrago, P. A. (2020). Strategies implemented by Colombia's

National System of Protected Areas to conserve páramos. Revista

de Ciencias Ambientales, 54(1), 167-176.

https://doi.org/10.15359/rca.54-1.9

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Chadwick, O. A., & Harden, C. P. (2016).

Changes in carbon storage with land management promoted by

payment for ecosystem services. Environmental Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000199

July - September vol. 2. Num. 3 - 2024

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., DeMaagd, N., Suárez, E., Cárate Tandalla,

D., Vasco Tapia, S., & Mena Vásconez, P. (2019). Biodiversity

outcomes of payment for ecosystem services: lessons from páramo

grasslands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28(4), 885-908.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01700-3

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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002.

Bremer, L. L., Farley, K. A., Lopez-Carr, D., & Romero, J. (2014).

Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem

services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for 'win-

win'? Ecosystem Services, 8, 148-165.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2014.03.007.

Farley, K. A., Anderson, W. G., Bremer, L. L., & Harden, C. P. (2011).

Compensation for ecosystem services: An evaluation of efforts to

achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian paramo

grasslands. Environmental Conservation.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100049X

Farley, K. A., & Bremer, L. L. (2017). "Water Is Life": Local

Perceptions of Páramo Grasslands and Land Management

Strategies Associated with Payment for Ecosystem Services.

Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 107(2), 371-

381. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1254020

Hayes, T., & Murtinho, F. (2018). Communal governance, equity and

payment for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy, 79, 123-136.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.08.001

Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., Cárdenas Camacho, L. M., Crespo, P.,

McHugh, S., & Salmerón, D. (2014). Can Conservation Contracts

Co-exist with Change? Payment for Ecosystem Services in the

Context of Adaptive Decision-Making and Sustainability.

Environmental Management, 55(1), 69-85.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0380-1

Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2015). An institutional analysis

of Payment for Environmental Services on collectively managed

lands in Ecuador. Ecological Economics, 118, 81-89.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2015.07.017

Hayes, T., Murtinho, F., & Wolff, H. (2017). The Impact of Payments

for Environmental Services on Communal Lands: An Analysis of

Livelihoods and the valuation of ecosystem services in South America and Ecuador

the Factors Driving Household Land-Use Behavior in Ecuador.

World Development, 93, 427-446.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2017.01.003.

Joslin, A. J. (2019). Unpacking 'Success': Applying Local Perceptions

to Interpret Influences of Water Fund Payments for Ecosystem

Services in the Ecuadorian Andes. Society and Natural Resources,

32(6), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1559379

Lliso, B., Pascual, U., Engel, S., & Mariel, P. (2020). Payments for

ecosystem services or collective stewardship of Mother Earth?

Applying deliberative valuation in an indigenous community in

Colombia. Ecological Economics, 169, 106499.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.106499

Rolando, J. L., Turin, C., Ramírez, D. A., Mares, V., Monerris, J., &

Quiroz, R. (2017). Key ecosystem services and ecological

intensification of agriculture in the tropical high-Andean Puna as

affected by land-use and climate changes. Agriculture, Ecosystems

and Environment, 236, 221-233.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.010.

Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and

Challenges (2019). In L. E. Delgado & V. H. Marín (Eds.), Social-

ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and

Challenges. Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28452-7

Vergara-Buitrago, P. A. (2020). Strategies implemented by the

Colombian National System of Protected Areas to conserve

páramos. Revista de Ciencias Ambientales, 54(1), 167-176.

https://doi.org/10.15359/rca.54-1.9