Additionality is in detail: Farmers' choices regarding payment for ecosystem services programs in the Atlantic forest, Brazil

- Farmers are more interested on forest conservation actions in comparison to restoration.
- PES for forest conservation may halt forest degradation and illegal deforestation.
- Farmers preferences may compromise the National Forest Code policy implementation.

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) have spread rapidly across the globe in the last two decades, emerging as an important alternative to halt deforestation and biodiversity loss. The motivations of farmers to take part in PES programs, however, is still largely unknown. Most of the recent studies on the theme have investigated factors influencing participation but a few of them have looked at the factors explaining the minimum financial compensation that farmers would expect to receive to join PES. Particularly scarce are the studies aiming to understand the relationships between the minimum amount of money (MAM) that farmers would demand to get involved in PES programs for forest conservation and restoration and the impacts of such programs on PES additionality. We focused our study on the early stages of the PES program of the Chapecó Ecological Corridor, an important agricultural region that provides vital ecosystem services in Southern Brazil. One hundred farmers from 21 municipalities were interviewed. Data were tested using maximum likelihood and the model selection approach. Almost all farmers interviewed (94%) manifested interested in taking part in a PES program focused on forest conservation, but only 48% would like to get involved in a forest restoration program. PES program modality (100%), farmers' income (65%) and educational level (54%) were the most important variables influencing the minimum amount of money required by farmers to get involved. In average, the farmers would expect 35% more for forest restoration (US$ 185.56/ha) than for conservation (US$ 116.53/ha) programs. In any case, however, the net increase of forest cover resulting from the PES program would be insignificant. Nevertheless, PES could provide some additionality by halting forest degradation and by helping to curb small-scale and illegal deforestation. The low interest in restoration activities may jeopardize the PES program goals and cause negative impact on the implementation of the National Forest Act in the region. To overcome this constraint, the PES program managers should work with the farmers to raise awareness about the relevance of forest restoration in a region with seasonal water shortages, high level of erosion and of water pollution.