Table 8.

Overview of cost data extracted from studies

PES programme/study	Cost information	Formal cost‐effectiveness analysis conducted?	Authors' comment on cost‐effectiveness
PAS Costa Rica Arriagada (2012)	‐ Administrative cost data ‐ Value of land protected due to PES ‐ PES funds distributed	No, only total cost of programme provided to obtain additional forest cover. Calculation based on U.S. dollars per hectare gained per year over the study period	Unclear: Estimation of cost between $255 and $382 per year per hectare of additional forest
PSAH Mexico Alix‐Garcia et al (2012)	‐ Participation costs for applicants ‐ Implementation cost are provided pesos per year based on survey data but	No, assesses participation costs for applicants on nonfinancial specifics such as days required to apply for participation Yes, assesses the implementation costs on a suite of indicators for labour costs to PES payment	Not cost‐effective: In summary, by most of the possible measures, the available surplus of the programme beyond covering costs is quite small
PSAH Mexico Sims (2017)	‐ Budget for PES and protected area ‐ Mean predicted locality production revenues for each policy	No, relies on comparison of budgetary data Yes, conducts formal regression analysis on mean predicted locality production revenues for each policy	Not cost‐effective: PES was likely significantly more expensive to implement per hectare than a protected area. PES is not necessarily more cost‐effective simply because it is an incentive‐based rather than command and control conservation mechanism
EPWS Tanzania John (2012); Kwayu (2017); Lokina (2016)	‐ Administrative data of PES programme	No, only provides an overview of the total cost of the programme	Unclear: Following the initial feasibility assessment phase, which required an investment amounting to US$220,000 (CARE & WWF, 2007c) cited in John (2012), project implementation costs from 2008 are estimated at US$1.2 million covering negotiation, training and payments to farmers
PES Uganda Jayachandran (2017)	‐ Administrative data of programme cost ‐ PES funds distributed ‐ current market price of carbon	Yes, back of the envelop assessment of cost‐effectiveness in terms of averted carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions	Cost‐effective: We estimate that for each $0.25 in payments, or $0.57 in total programme costs, a metric ton (hereafter, ton) of CO2 emissions due to deforestation was delayed. The social benefit of the delayed CO2 emissions is then $1.11 per ton, or roughly two times the $0.57 programme cost
SLCP China Zheng (2013)	‐ Implementation costs ‐ Projected revenue	Yes, simple cost ratio between programme's benefits (the value of increased water yield and improved water quality) and programme's costs (the opportunity costs of the upstream farmers plus transaction cost)	Cost‐effective: Our analysis suggests that overall benefits of the PLDL programme exceed the costs of programme implementation. Overall, the benefit–cost ratio of the programme is 1.5
ICRAF Malawi Jack (2017)	‐ Total cost per PES contract ‐ Current market price of carbon	Yes, simple cost ratio between per contract costs and programme benefits measured in social cost of carbon	Not cost‐effective: Using a social cost of carbon of US$21, this implies sequestration benefits of US$0.26 per tree at the end of the contract. If carbon sequestration is the only social benefit generated by the programme, then there are more cost effective ways to sequester carbon
PAS Brazil Simonet (2017)	‐ Estimate of the number of tons of CO2 emissions that have been averted ‐ Estimate to calculate the project costs per ton of averted CO2 emissions	Yes, simple cost ratio between programme costs and programme benefits measured in social cost of carbon	Unclear: Assuming unchanged deforestation rates until the end of the project (2017), the total discounted project costs over the 2012–2017 period are 2,021,859 USD (5,777 USD per participant) while the total avoided emissions reach 3,628,166 tCO2 (10,366 tCO2 per participant). Over the 5 years of the project, the total cost of the project is thus 0.56 USD per ton of CO2