The critique of the design and complexity of PES interventions and the potential for wasted financial resources is also common. Admittedly, setting up PES programmes are not trivial, and by their very nature, they may not be replicable due to the imperative to incorporate local context. There are also not enough studies that show the rigour needed for research, such as the use of randomised control trials to compare and contrast PES vs. non-PES interventions(Gaworecki, 2017) While valid, we do not feel these criticisms detract from the benefit of PES-based systems. PES, by design, is inherently fair; and the payments can be and should be made such that they are appropriate for the work required. Bringing in impact and blended finance will, in fact, mitigate some of the underlying issues, as the frameworks, methods, and measurement metrics become established. The long-term impact of ascribing a tangible value to our ecosystems; creating regenerative ecosystems that are in harmony with the humans who inhabit them; and an approach with stakeholder collaboration that is preceded by a fundamental realignment of mindsets and narratives, has the potential to realise benefits that are multi-fold and intergenerational. One of the oft quoted objections to the Eco-DRR practice is that such a practice cannot provide complete protection from disasters and the projected ecosystem takes too long to mature and provide predictable services. Eco-DRR is not a standalone or individual strategy and should be combined with other solutions for DRR, including hybrid green-grey-blue solutions, early warning systems, and other measures for prevention and emergency preparedness. Eco-DRR as a practice requires, daily, weekly, monthly, and annual routines of engagement to derive the requisite and long­lasting results, which are invariably cost effective and nature positive. Payments for Ecosystem Services 14