Presa Startup Overview For Outcome Mapping March 1 2010

PRESA– Pro-Poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa Thomas Yatich and Miika Makela, PRESA Overview for outcome mapping March 1, 2010, Brackenhurst, Limuru-Kenya

Overview of ICRAF’s work on rewards for environmental services
Introduction to key concepts and research questions
Overview of the RUPES project and pan-tropical scoping study
Overview of PRESA including the pentagon of hypothesis

Key concepts of PRESA
Definition of rewards for environmental services:
realistic, voluntary, and conditional mechanisms for rewarding ecosystem stewards for legitimate actions foregone or positive actions undertaken beyond social expectations
Including: biodiversity offsets, eco-tourism, eco-labelling, self-organized deals between beneficiaries and stewards, tradeable emission permits

Trends in the East and West African highlands
Governance and policy:
decentralization
policies supportive of community & private-sector involvement in NRM (esp. water, forestry, wildlife)
limits of pure regulatory approaches
more interest in economic instruments for environment
interest in REDD and carbon market
Legal pluralism and implications for ecosystems
Resources:
water scarcity
water quality declines
forest loss
increase in trees on farm
land degradation & soil fertility loss
Business interests in ecosystems:
community ecotourism
biodiversity
ecolabelled products
biofuels
carbon market
water / hydro-power interest in
watershed services

Challenges:
Increasing market demand for food, fuel and fiber (provisioning ES)
Regulating and support services in general decline with increased latent demand
Desire for simple policy solutions leads to simplistic understanding of cause-effect (eg deforestation as major cause of floods)
Opportunities:
Devolution of authority for NRM
Greater penetration of markets and private sector into utility sectors
Global trend toward flexible environmental policies
Interest in REDD for mitigating climate change, while maintaining resilience and options

RUPES / PRESA time line 1998 2002 2009 2011 2007 2008 2006 2010 First discussions with IFAD RUPES 1 began RUPES 1 implemented RUPES 1 Reporting; Development of RUPES II RUPES II implemented PRESA developed PRESA implemented Pan-tropical Scoping study Scoping Study papers published

Incentives, compensation and reward typologies for sustaining ecosystem services (source: Pan-tropical scoping study)

Supported by IFAD Coordinated by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Implemented with local, national and international partners RUPES aims to enhance the livelihoods and reduce the poverty of upland poor in Asia while supporting environmental conservation at the global and local levels

Action Research Mode
In a range of settings
Identification/confirmation and monitoring of environmental services
and use options, benefits and costs
An array of mechanisms developed and tested with poor communities
Transparent enabling institutional environment
Awareness raised among government officials, producers and consumers of these services
Effective partnerships formed among consortium members: regional, national and local

RUPES Action Research Sites Areas of Interest

Kulekhani, Nepal Kalahan Manila Kalahan Sumberjaya Lampung Bungo Jambi Singkarak West Sumatra Bakhun Bakun

RUPES II:
Extensions of lessons and methods to a larger number of partners and sites, especially local NGOs
More emphasis on engaging the private sector
More emphasis on policy
Greater emphasis on avoided deforestation consistent with REDD debate

Key concepts of PRESA
Definition of Rewards for Environmental Services :
realistic, voluntary, and conditional mechanisms for rewarding ecosystem stewards for legitimate actions foregone or positive actions undertaken beyond social expectations
Three levels of pro-poor rewards:
don’t harm the poor;
include the poor
positively biased towards the poor

PRESA Goal and Objectives G oal: smallholder farmers and residents living in the highlands of East and West Africa benefit from fair and effective agreements between stewards and beneficiaries of ecosystem services. Objectives: 1. Foster workable environmental service agreements. 2. Catalyze policy support and private-sector participation in environmental service agreements 3. Build a community of practice to provide support to researchers, NGOs and government agencies interested in pro-poor rewards for environmental services in Africa

Site-level activities
Develop and adapt assessment methods and approaches used in the Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services (RUPES) programme from ICRAF Southeast Asia
Appraise causal links between RES, incentives, resource use, institutions and environmental services.
Determine appropriate targets for enhancing environmental services and livelihoods.
Develop institutions to support reward mechanisms that are effective, equitable and sensitive to the needs of marginalized groups.
Develop and test prototype reward mechanisms.
Establish, implement and facilitate operational reward mechanisms.
Monitor, evaluate and assess impacts.

Policy and private-sector activities
1. Conduct a survey of private and parastatal firms to determine factors motivating and constraining their participation in RES
2. Evaluate the business case for rewards from perspectives of private sector, parastatals and beneficiaries of watershed services.
3. Review and synthesize site-level results for policy.
4. Identify policy factors that constrain the business case for rewards and convene consultations among stakeholders.
5. Present results at international fora.

Community of Practice
Disseminate and adapt RUPES Technical Advisory Notes
Support application of tools, methodologies and mechanisms among a community of practice
Establish relations with international, regional and national organizations interested in RES
Convene side events at Katoomba Africa or other relevant international meetings

Criteria for site selection
High probability of a workable reward scheme for environmental services;
Geographical priorities of IFAD or regions of its investment projects;
Geographical interests of partners;
Environmental services of interest to agroforestry and IFAD
ICRAF’s ongoing or active research programs

PRESA – building on RUPES: Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services
Strengths:
Network of sites
Nested scale approach
Tools and approaches
Recognition of smallholder farmers in sites
Understanding key dimensions of rewards: realistic, conditional, voluntary, pro-poor
Country-level uptake and ownership
Prototype mechanisms
Boundary spanning
Weaknesses:
over-emphasis on core sites
site choice driven by intermediaries
too long to get to working mechanisms
insufficient links to:
similar initiatives
private sector
IFAD loan projects

Pentagon of Defining Research Questions Questions / Hypotheses Realistic Efficiency Acceptability Sustainability Poverty

Realistic / effective Q1. What are the critical spaces in watersheds and mixed-use landscapes where on-farm land use has greatest off-farm effects (eg riverine areas)? Q2. What are likely time paths of landscape degradation and restoration (lags, hysteresis effects)? Q3. What elements of agroforestry and other land use systems are most important for landscape function (eg anchoring and binding for landslide risk)? Ulugurus, Tanzania Sasumua, central Kenya Western Usambaras, Tanzania

Efficiency Q1. Are there strong negative incentives for farmers to practice good environmental stewardship or the private sector to invest in ecosystem services (eg rural taxation, monopoly on power supply)? Q2. What are the strongest elements of the business case for investment in ecosystem management (compliance, reputation, market niche, cost)? Q3. What is the possibility of using reverse auction approaches for countering problems of asymmetric information?

Acceptability / Fairness Q1. How does the form of conditional payment affect their acceptance in local communities (eg. property rights, monetary payments, public services) Q2. What are the tradeoffs between fairness and efficiency in geographic and social targeting of positive incentives / payments (eg case of REDD in Indonesia)? Q3. Do mechanisms with positive incentives undermine social norms of responsible behavior?

Sustainability
Q1. Under what conditions will payments for environmental services lead to sustainable improvements in ecosystem stewardship?
new norms of acceptable behavior
Increased uptake of new technologies
equity investment by beneficiaries
new forms of livelihood that reduce pressure
growth in markets for products consistent with sustainability

Poverty
Q1. What combination of actions on negative and positive incentives are most likely to meet one of four levels of pro-poor:
Doesn’t harm the poor;
More than offsets harm to the poor;
Fairly includes the poor; or
Differentially benefits the poor.
Q2. Does the exclusion of socially-marginalized people undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of mechanisms?
Q3. Are mechanisms that involve voluntary engagement in labour-intensive enterprises most likely to differentially benefit the poor (eg reverse auctions for conservation investment)?

Opportunities for students and faculty to help us implement, assess and design our activities
Fields:
Geography and land use systems
Links between land use and ecosystem services
valuation of ecosystem services
economics of alternative land uses and interventions
governance of natural resources and property rights
analysis of policy options and constraints
ex ante and ex post impact assessments
social, gender and equity effects of rewards for environmental services
business case for investment in environmental services

Follow-up Other ICRAF work on Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services www.worldagroforestry.org/cres Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/networks/rupes
Please contact us to receive further information
Thomas Yatich T.B. – Project Ag. Coordinator: [email_address]
Vanessa Meadu – Communications Officer: [email_address]
Miika Makela-Spatial Analyst: [email_address]
Catherine Kimengu-Administrative [email_address]
Godfrey Mwaloma-Communication [email_address]
PRESA project: http://www.presa.worldagroforestry.org

Presa Startup Overview For Outcome Mapping March 1 2010

by Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa ICRAF on Apr 01, 2010

Accessibility

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 3

Statistics

Presa Startup Overview For Outcome Mapping March 1 2010 — Presentation Transcript