Towards a framework for peatland PES
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Towards a framework for peatland PES

on

  • 631 views

Talk by Andrew Moxey at VNN peatland workshop, Leeds 18th January 2012

Talk by Andrew Moxey at VNN peatland workshop, Leeds 18th January 2012

Statistics

Views

Total Views
631
Views on SlideShare
502
Embed Views
129

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 129

http://sustainableuplands.org 128
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Towards a framework for peatland PES Towards a framework for peatland PES Presentation Transcript

  • Towards a framework for peatland Payments for Ecosystem Services Andrew Moxey “VNN workshop on assessing & valuing peatland ecosystem services” Presentation on 18/01/2012, Leeds
  • Introduction• Markets neglect most ecosystem services need to correct for various, overlapping market failures• Range of policy options: Carrots, Sticks and Sermons – pros & cons of each• PES is one topical option; lure of private funding...
  • PES in theory• Voluntary provision• Beneficiaries pay (bundling, layering, piggy-backing)• Service providers paid directly• Additionality• Conditionality
  • PES in practice?• Conditional on actions not outcomes• Intermediaries take/make payments• Publicly rather than privately funded – e.g. agri-environment schemes (PES-like)• Voluntary additionality uncertain and reversible
  • Conditionality?• Uncertain causality – complex relationships – distant outcomes, both spatially & temporally• Payment on result is an inadequate incentive – risk of poor outcome through no fault of land manager – timelag on payment won’t cover immediate costs payment for actions more commonplace
  • Use of public intermediaries• (Often) Many providers, many beneficiaries – diffuse effects – transaction costs of negotiating contracts/payments – governance issues• Public funding – novelty of PES (i.e. private sector unfamiliarity) – public good nature of many (but not all) ES – free rider problems
  • Additionality• Uncertain causality & asymmetric information• Inadequate monitoring – poor baselining – leakage – measurement, reporting & verification problems• Often uncoordinated spatially – patchy take-up, poor targetting – individual sites rather than landscape scale
  • Spatial coordination• ES delivery affected by scale & connectivity Coordination/collective action problem• Possible natural landscape unit for water-based ES• Less obvious for GHG emissions or biodiversity• Administrative transboundary/sectoral issues – government failures in promoting integrated land use
  • Voluntary provision?• Freedom of entry & exit – take-up may not be as hoped for – ES gains may be reversed if market signals change• Incentive structures? – opportunity costs – transaction costs (inc. unfamiliarity) – asymmetric information – risks & timeframes – capacity?
  • Property rights, reference pointsReference point ofsocietal expectations Regulatory obligations Voluntary provision (Polluter pays) (Beneficiary pays) Increasing desired ES delivery
  • Regulatory approach?• Avoid uncertainty/reversibility of voluntary provision• Direct state management of peatland – ala Forestry Commission?• Pro/prescribed private peatland management – site designations? – cross compliance?• High political & economic costs?
  • Agri-environmental schemes• Different terminology & structures across UK• Upfront capital payments plus annual payments• Limited duration & subject to political whim• Not value of ecosystem services delivered• Income forgone & costs incurred (inc. transaction) – WTO constraint, politically difficult to get relaxed
  • Effectiveness?• Based on best management practices, but...• Critical evaluation by European Court of Auditors• Lack of routine, comprehensive monitoring• Vague descriptions/recording of actions• Targeting & spatial coordination design issues• High administrative costs...
  • Still, a tempting pot of cash...• Total UK CAP expenditure c.£3500m/yr• CAP & SSSIs c.£10m/yr across UK peatlands – some way short of perceived funding needs• Current CAP proposals unlikely to increase this?• Private funds via PES an alternative?
  • Towards Peatland PES?• Need greater acceptance of ideas – awareness raising – involve providers & beneficiaries in design process – build confidence & capacity (inc. within govt)• Need greater market confidence in delivery – better data on causality – better monitoring (avoiding “lemons”) – greater permanance (e.g. long term easements) – (public or NGO) proof of concept demonstrations
  • Towards Peatland PES?• Need better incentive structures – data on opportunity and transaction costs – ES values rather than income foregone – creation of intermediary bodies• Need better spatial coordination – facilitation of neighbour interaction – agglomeration bonuses? – insights from cooperative models in other sectors?
  • Pro-PES regulation?• Establishing compliance markets• Allowing voluntary arrangements – CSR, water company deals with land managers• Setting monitoring & performance standards• Rewarding value rather than income foregone• Promoting integrated land use – (e.g.) spatial planning processes? Joined-up govt?
  • Conclusions• PES need to overcome various market failures – information, coordination, free rider problems• Technical and social remedies needed – better data on site conditions, costs, performance etc. – stakeholder engagement, social learning, governance• Public sector role – direct funding – promoting/demonstrating feasibility – supporting market creation through pro-PES regulation