International Journal of Life Science and Agriculture Research

Conservation incentive programs — including payments for ecosystem services (PES), biodiversity certifications, and REDD+ mechanisms — have expanded substantially since the mid-1990s, yet their aggregate contribution to halting biodiversity loss remains contested. A persistent gap between programmatic ambition and measurable outcomes reflects, at least in part, deficiencies in measurement design: inadequate baselines, absence of counterfactual controls, and limited adaptive feedback mechanisms. This review article synthesizes conceptual and methodological frameworks for evaluating the effectiveness, equity, and efficiency of conservation incentive programs, and examines the digital monitoring infrastructure now available for real-time adaptive management. Drawing on a System Dynamics simulation model and an Integral Certification and Monetization Proposal developed for the Department of Quindío, Colombia — a megadiverse Andean coffee landscape — the article demonstrates how quasi-experimental counterfactual methods, composite biodiversity indices aligned with Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), and multi-criteria evaluation frameworks translate into operational monitoring and decision-support tools. The article further surveys globally successful digital platforms — including Global Forest Watch, Google Earth Engine, passive acoustic monitoring with AI-driven species identification, environmental DNA metabarcoding, and digital twin biodiversity forecasting — and articulates an integrated, layered technological architecture applicable to sub-national conservation programs in biodiversity-rich developing regions. The proposed framework positions rigorous monitoring as the central determinant of conservation program credibility in voluntary carbon markets and as a prerequisite for adaptive governance under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets.

biodiversity conservation; payments for ecosystem services; adaptive management; remote sensing; digital twins; Kunming-Montreal Framework; Quindío, Colombia

1. Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California's tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746
2. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2023). Digital tools for accurate and low-cost biodiversity monitoring. Development Asia. https://development.asia/explainer/digital-tools-accurate-and-low-cost-biodiversity-monitoring
3. Barlas, Y. (1996). Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 12(3), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199623)12:3<183: AID-SDR103>3.0.CO;2-4
4. Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, M., & Wunder, S. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development, 96, 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.011
5. Burgos-Salcedo, J. D. (2025a). Construcción y calibración del modelo de simulación, integrando escenarios de certificación y sus efectos en el sistema. Technical Report 6, Contract No. 009-2025. CIINAS–CORPOCUENCAS.
6. Burgos-Salcedo, J. D. (2025b). Propuesta de certificación y monetización de bienes y servicios ambientales del Departamento del Quindío. Technical Report 7, Contract No. 009-2025. CIINAS–CORPOCUENCAS.
7. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
8. CBD. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. CBD/COP/15/L.25.
9. Chazdon, R. L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Laestadius, L., Bennett-Curry, A., Buckingham, K., Kumar, C., Moll-Rocek, J., Vieira, I. C. G., & Wilson, S. J. (2022). When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio, 45(5), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0772-y
10. Cook, N. J., Grillos, T., & Andersson, K. P. (2023). Conservation payments and perceptions of equity: Experimental evidence from Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 100212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2023.100212
11. CORPOCUENCAS / CIINAS. (2025a). Análisis de factores de línea base del PIGCC – Departamento del Quindío. Bogotá: CIINAS.
12. CORPOCUENCAS / CIINAS. (2025b). Propuesta de certificación y monetización de bienes y servicios ambientales – Quindío Verde Plus (E7). Bogotá: CIINAS.
13. Cubillos-Tovar, J. P., & Tobón, C. (2021). Water regulation services of high Andean ecosystems in Colombia: A review. Ecological Indicators, 120, 106914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106914
14. Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Coronado, I., Enghoff, M., & Holt, S. (2022). Participatory environmental monitoring in forest and biodiversity conservation: Rationale, design, and outcomes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47(1), 659–687. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012221-040505
15. Dasgupta, P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. HM Treasury.
16. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E., Ngo, H., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K., & Butchart, S. (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat.
17. Ecosystem Marketplace. (2023). State of the voluntary carbon markets 2023. Forest Trends. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com
18. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011
19. ESA Space Solutions. (2024). Pemberton biodiversity monitoring tool. European Space Agency. https://business.esa.int/projects/pemberton-biodiversity-monitoring-tool
20. FAO. (2023). Payments for ecosystem services in forests: Guidance for practitioners. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org
21. Fenichel, E. P., Dean, M. F., & Schmitz, O. J. (2024). The path to scientifically sound biodiversity valuation in the context of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(34), e2319077121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319077121
22. Ferraro, P. J., Lawlor, K., Mullan, K. L., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2012). Forest figures: Ecosystem services valuation and policy evaluation in developing nations. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6(1), 20–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rer019
23. Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLOS Biology, 4(4), e105. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105
24. FONAFIFO (Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal). (2024). Programa de Pagos por Servicios Ambientales: Estadísticas 1997–2023. San José: MINAE.
25. GEO BON (Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network). (2013). Building a global observing system for biodiversity. GEO BON.
26. Global Forest Watch (GFW). (2024). Forest monitoring, land use & deforestation trends. World Resources Institute. https://www.globalforestwatch.org/
27. Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693
28. Hill, A. P., Prince, P., Piña Covarrubias, E., Doncaster, C. P., Snaddon, J. L., & Rogers, A. (2018). AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(5), 1199–1211. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12955
29. Holling, C. S. (Ed.). (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons.
30. IDEAM. (2022). Informe del estado del bosque y los recursos forestales de Colombia. Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales. Bogotá: IDEAM.
31. IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
32. IPBES. (2022). Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522
33. IUCN Save Our Species (IUCN SOS). (2024). Embracing technology for improved wildlife conservation. https://iucnsos.org/embracing-technology-for-improved-wildlife-conservation/
34. Izquierdo-Tort, S., Jayachandran, S., & Saavedra, S. (2024). Redesigning payments for ecosystem services to increase cost-effectiveness. Nature Communications, 15, 9252. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-53643-1
35. Kahl, S., Wood, C. M., Eibl, M., & Klinck, H. (2021). BirdNET: A deep learning solution for avian diversity monitoring. Ecological Informatics, 61, 101236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101236
36. Kolinjivadi, V., Adamowski, J., Buscher, B., & Kosoy, N. (2023). Fifteen years of research on payments for ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 82, 102734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102734
37. Le, T.-A. T., Vodden, K., Wu, J., Bullock, R., & Sabau, G. (2024). Payments for ecosystem services programs: A global review of contributions towards sustainability. Heliyon, 10(1), e22361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22361
38. Lynggaard, C., Bertelsen, M. F., Jensen, C. V., Johnson, M. S., Præbel, K., Urbanowicz, C., & Bohmann, K. (2022). Airborne environmental DNA for terrestrial vertebrate community monitoring. Current Biology, 32(3), 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.014
39. MADS (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible). (2017a). Decreto Ley 870 del 25 de mayo de 2017. Bogotá: Diario Oficial No. 50,244.
40. MADS. (2018). Decreto 1007 del 14 de junio de 2018. Bogotá: MADS.
41. MADS. (2023). Plan de acción en biodiversidad y servicios ecosistémicos 2030. Bogotá: Gobierno de Colombia.
42. McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006
43. NCEAS (National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis). (2025). Closing the gap: How NCEAS is using AI to unlock the full potential of biodiversity monitoring. https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu
44. OECD. (2023). Scaling up biodiversity-positive incentives: Biodiversity-positive subsidies and payments for ecosystem services. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19b859ce-en
45. OECD. (2025). Scaling up biodiversity-positive incentives: Delivering on Target 18 of the Global Biodiversity Framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19b859ce-en
46. Okala. (2024). AI-powered biodiversity monitoring software. https://www.okala.io/biodiversity-monitoring
47. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Christie, M., Baptiste, B., González-Jiménez, D., & Anderson, C. B. (2023). Diverse values of nature for transformative change: A leverage points perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 64, 101334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101334
48. Patra, S., Thakur, A., Bhatt, S., & Tiwari, A. (2022). Remote monitoring methods for biodiversity conservation: A comprehensive review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196, 487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-12049-0
49. Pijanowski, B. C., Farina, A., Gage, S. H., Dumyahn, S. L., & Krause, B. L. (2011). What is soundscape ecology? An introduction and overview of an emerging new science. Landscape Ecology, 26(9), 1213–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9600-8
50. Plummer, R., Crona, B., Armitage, D. R., Olsson, P., Tengö, M., & Yudina, O. (2012). Adaptive comanagement: A systematic review and analysis. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04952-170311
51. Possingham, H. P., Grantham, H., & Rondinini, C. (2012). How can you conserve species that haven't been found? Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(3), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01797.x
52. Richardson, W., & Bustos, C. (2022). Implementing nature's rights in Colombia: The Atrato and Amazon experiences. Revista Derecho del Estado, 54, 227–275.
53. Sánchez-Fernández, D., et al. (2025). Biodiversity futures: Digital approaches to knowledge and conservation of biological diversity. World Environment, 25, 29–52. https://we.copernicus.org/articles/25/29/2025/
54. Scholes, R. J., & Biggs, R. (2005). A biodiversity intactness index. Nature, 434(7029), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03289
55. Soriano-Redondo, A., Correia, R. A., Barve, V., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Jarić, I., & Di Minin, E. (2024). Harnessing online digital data in biodiversity conservation. PLOS Biology, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002516
56. Soriano-Redondo, A., et al. (2025). A digital twin for real-time biodiversity forecasting with citizen science data. Nature Ecology & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02966-3
57. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill.
58. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. AMBIO, 43(5), 579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
59. Tierney, M., et al. (2020). Ecosystem integrity as a foundation for conservation targets. Science, 370(6522), 1295–1296. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd5985
60. TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures). (2023). Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. TNFD. https://tnfd.global/
61. Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J., & Katti, M. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5, 1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w
62. UN. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023. United Nations Publications.
63. UNDP-BIOFIN. (2024). Biodiversity Finance Trends Dashboard 2024. UNDP BIOFIN. https://www.biofin.org
64. Wager, S., & Athey, S. (2018). Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(523), 1228–1242. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2017.1319839
65. Walters, C. (1986). Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan.
66. Weiss, E. B. (1989). In fairness to future generations: International law, common patrimony, and intergenerational equity. Transnational Publishers.
67. West, T. A. P., Wunder, S., Sills, E. O., Börner, J., Rifai, S. W., Neidermeier, A. N., & Kontoleon, A. (2023). Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science, 381(6660), 873–877. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade3535
68. Westgate, M. J., Likens, G. E., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2013). Adaptive management of biological systems: A review. Biological Conservation, 158, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.016
69. Williams, B. K., & Brown, E. D. (2012). Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior applications guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior.
70. World Resources Institute (WRI). (2024). Global Forest Watch: An online platform for near-real-time forest monitoring. https://www.wri.org/initiatives/global-forest-watch
71. WWF. (2024). Living Planet Report 2024: A system in peril. WWF International.
72. Wunder, S., Brouwer, R., Engel, S., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Muradian, R., Pascual, U., & Pinto, R. (2018). From principles to practice in paying for nature's services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x
73. Wunder, S., Brouwer, R., Engel, S., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Muradian, R., Pascual, U., & Pinto, R. (2020). From principles to practice in paying for nature's services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 145–150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x
74. Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., et al. (2020). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 241, 108271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108271