WRI's The Business of Plan ng Trees report presents several business-oriented models curated from around the world for tree plantations that leverage the impact and PES financing models for their long term sustainability(WRI, 2018). PES for agriculture in the Himalayas reveals that agriculture with an ecological footprint using PES serves two purposes in the Indian Himalayan region. It brings down poverty and makes agriculture climate-resistant. This article calls out to the poorer Indian states and their citizens to rightfully claim PES from the rest of the country(Dash, 2019). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restora on 2021-30 – What Chance for Success in Restoring Coastal Ecosystems is a 2020 article in Frontiers of Marine Science on'blue' ecosystems that explicitly calls out for new financing approaches, including PES-based, that are essential for any chance of success(Waltham, and others, 2020). A 2016 report on PES based scheme for mangrove protection in the crucial Mekong Delta ecosystem highlights the inter-play between PES and DRR. PES payments for mangrove protection also have the potential to aid DRR, a significant win-win in the climate change regime and in a crucial regional ecosystem(Friess and Thompson, 2016). As part of their Conservation Effectiveness Series in 2017, Mongabay, conducted one of the most comprehensive reviews of the results of PES. An analysis of 38 PES schemes that have been implemented globally demonstrated that while PES schemes have done reasonably well on ecological and environmental outcomes – there is limited change in socio-economic outcomes, primarily due to poor systems for payments and lower pay-outs to the local communities (Gaworecki, 2017). The Meloy Fund for Sustainable Community Fisheries, deploys blended finance for development and adoption of sustainable fisheries in Indonesia and the Philippines (Yow, Veronica, 2022). IPBES' Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services includes an overview of PES in Payments for Ecosystem Services different world regions and ecosystems with a helpful table on the underlying governance structure and stakeholders involved for each of the PES programmes. This document also provides an indication of impact effectiveness, including for critical socio-ecological markers such as equity and biodiversity(IPBES, 2019). 2.4 PES pay-out models The most common PES-based schemes cover the following: 1. Water: Watershed protection, water rights, water quality/pollution. 2. Land: Vegetation and ecologically sensitive land use/management. 3. Floods: Protection and risk reduction. 4. Carbon sequestration and offsets: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and REDD+ schemes are a part of this. 5. Organic farming: Reduction in the use of chemicals, such as nitrates. 6. Sustainable harvesting: From both land and water bodies. 7. Eco-tourism: Aesthetics, recreation. 8. Biodiversity: Habitats for wildlife, biodiversity offsetting. 9. NTFP: Nuts, oils, etc. from standing forests. When considering a PES scheme for any of the services outlined above, the opportunity to experiment, and the need to provide usable information about successes and failures, has to be established amongst the stakeholders. Johns Hopkins' Paul Ferraro says,“My prescription is, every time there's a new PES programme, or a scaling up of an existing programme, it should be done in a way that allows us to draw conclusions about the overall impact or some element of it, like targeting versus not targeting; more frequent payments versus less frequent; longer contract, shorter; tying the payments to actions versus tying it to environmental outcomes. These are 8