Neufeldt - Rewards for mitigation

329 views
276 views

Published on

Henry Neufeldt (ICRAF) Rewards for mitigation (presentation from Mitigation session at CCAFS Science Workshop, December 2010)

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
329
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Neufeldt - Rewards for mitigation

  1. 1. Climate  Change  Adapta/on  and  Mi/ga/on  in  Agriculture   Rewards  for  mi-ga-on   Henry  Neufeldt,  ICRAF   CCAFS  Science  Workshop   Playa  del  Carmen,  1-­‐2  December  2010  
  2. 2. Payments  for  Environmental  Services  (PES)  •  Wunder  (2005)  •  Five  general  criteria  for  successful  PES  schemes:   •  Voluntary  transac-ons   •  Well  defined  ES   •  At  least  one  buyer  of  ES   •  At  least  one  provider  of  ES   •  Payment  condi-onal  upon  delivery  of  ES  
  3. 3. Structure  of  PES  mechanisms  
  4. 4. Compensa/on  and  Rewards  for  Environmental  Services  (CRES)   •  Swallow  et  al  (2009)   •  Three  generic  types  of  stakeholders   •  Ecosystem  stewards  (whose  ac-ons  modify  the  quan-ty  and  quality  of  ES)   •  ES  beneficiaries  (who  benefit  from  ES  provided  by  an  ecosystem)   •  Intermediaries  (who  indirectly  shape  interac-ons  among  ecosystem  stewards,  ES   beneficiaries  and  the  ecosystem  itself)   •  Defini-on  and  typology  of  CRES   •  Compensa-on  for  ES  are  payments  or  other  forms  of  res-tu-on  made  to  ES   beneficiaries  or  ecosystem  stewards  to  offset  foregone  en-tlements  to  ES  or  ecosystem   stewardship  benefits   •  Rewards  for  ES  are  inducements  provided  to  ecosystem  stewards  to  give  them  incen-ve   to  enhance  or  maintain  ES   •  Characteris-cs  of  the  mechanisms   •  Nature  of  the  contract  or  agreement   •  Transac-on  costs   •  Type  of  remunera-on  or  incen-ves  provided   •  Market  based  instruments  used   •  Temporal  paUern  of  payment  
  5. 5. Compensa/on  and  Rewards  for  Environmental  Services  (CRES)  
  6. 6. Principles  for  fairness  and  efficiency  in  enhancing  ES:   Payments,  compensa/on  or  co-­‐investment?  •  Van  Noordwijk  and  Leimona  (2010)  •  Four  condi-ons   •  Realis-c:  tangible  and  sustainable  ES  rela-ve  to  BAU   •  Voluntary:  ES  providers  and  beneficiaries  engage  through  free  and  informed  choice   •  Condi-onal:  benefits  received  depend  on  performance  measures  agreed  by  all  (from   tangible  benefits  via  maintenance  and  ac-ons  to  management  plans)   •  Pro-­‐poor:  outcomes  support  posi-ve  bias  toward  poor  stakeholders  •  Investment  in  different  capitals  (H,  S,  N,  P,  M)  as  basis  for  future  CRES  •  Three  paradigms   •  CES  -­‐  Commodi-zed  ES  (C  I):  based  on  actual  service  delivery  and  marketability  (e.g.  AR   CDM)   •  COS  -­‐  Compensa-ng  for  missed  opportuni-es  (C  II/III):  paying  land  users  for  accep-ng   restric-ons  (e.g.  REDD);  poverty  aspects  through  external  price  differen-a-on   •  CIS  -­‐  Co-­‐investment  in  stewardship  (C  II-­‐IV):  focuses  on  assets;  explicitly  pro-­‐poor  
  7. 7. Principles  for  fairness  and  efficiency  in  enhancing  ES:   Payments,  compensa/on  or  co-­‐investment?  
  8. 8. Trade-­‐offs  in  PES/CRES/CIS-­‐COS-­‐CES   Source:  Mayrand  and  Paquin,  2004  
  9. 9. Property  and  tenure  rights  •  Access:  The  right  to  enter  a  defined  physical  property  and  enjoy  non-­‐extrac-ve   benefits  (primarily  recrea-onal  ac-vi-es)  •  Withdrawal:  The  right  to  extract  the  resources  or  products  of  a  system  (e.g.  catch   fish,  gather  fuel  wood  and  water  for  irriga-on  or  human  consump-on)  •  Management:  The  right  to  regulate  internal  use  paUerns  and  transform  the   resource.  •  Exclusion:  The  right  to  determine  who  will  have  access  or  withdrawal  right,  and  how   those  rights  may  be  transferred.  •  Aliena/on:  The  right  to  transfer  the  rights  of  management  and  exclusion.   Source:  Schlager  and  Ostrom,  1992  
  10. 10. Strategies  to  maximise  benefits  and  minimize  trade-­‐offs  •  Clarify  and  strengthen  land  tenure  •  Create  or  strengthen  coopera-ve  ins-tu-ons  to  reduce  transac-on  costs  •  Define  cost-­‐effec-ve  and  flexible  payments  mechanisms  •  Provide  flexibility  in  eligible  land  uses  •  Facilitate  access  to  start-­‐up  financing  •  Invest  in  community  capacity-­‐building   Source:  Mayrand  and  Paquin,  2004  
  11. 11. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis  What  type  of  ecosystem  services  are  rewarded?     Carbon  -­‐  51   Water  -­‐  33   Biodiversity  -­‐  43   Other  –  24   Several  -­‐  40  
  12. 12. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis  How  many  households  are  you  reaching  (or  planning  to  reach)?   10000+                13   1001-­‐9999    11   0-­‐1000                  38  
  13. 13. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   Who  is  providing  the  funds  for  the  scheme?   Government/government  agency  –  25   Private  company  examples  –  Tetra  Pak,  Camco,  Max  Hamburger,  Coca  Cola,  Shell,  Marriot,  Moore  Corpora-on,  Exxon  Mobile,  coffee  industries,  DAWASCO,  Brass  LNG,   MTV  Staying  Alive  Campaign   Non-­‐profit  examples  –  SNV  Nepal,  WWF,  Moore  Founda-on     UN-­‐  IFAD,  UNDP,  UNESCO   Carbon  markets  
  14. 14. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   What  kinds  of  benefits  are  given  to  the  providers  of  the  ecosystem  services?     Payments  –  36   Services  –  58   In  kind  –  36   Other  –  19   Payments:   Cash  vouchers  –  1   Share  of  project  -­‐  4   In  kind:   Grants/loans  -­‐  1   Agricultural  inputs  –  21  Markets  for  products/premium  prices  –  3   Tools/training  books  –  4   New  jobs  –  1   Other:   Services:   Microfinance  loans   Educa-on  –  18   Access  to  markets   Professional  support/advisory  services  –  17   Access  to  family  planning   Capacity  building/training  –  19   Networking   Salaries/wages  for  local  employed   Almost  always  used  in  combina/on    
  15. 15. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   Who  distributes  the  rewards  (or  is  designated  to)?   Community  based  ins-tu-ons  –  32   Private  organiza-on  –  15   Non-­‐profit  organiza-on  –  33     Body  or  agency  designed  for  that  purpose  –  17   Direct  payments  to  beneficiaries  –  17   Other-­‐4  Was  it  necessary  to  create  a  new  group/organiza/on  to  distribute   the  benefits  to  the  ES  providers?   Yes  –  22   No-­‐  33   N/A-­‐  12  
  16. 16. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   On  what  kinds  of  contracts  is  the  RES  scheme  based?   Statutory  -­‐  32   Customary  -­‐  20   Specific  by-­‐laws  –  23   Other  -­‐  15  Please  explain  the  nature  of  the  contract(s)  for  the  ques/on  above?   Contracts  with  coopera-ves       Contracts  with  individual  farmers       Loan  subsidies       Contracts  with  villages     Contracts  nego-ated  with  village  chiefs  on  behalf  of  households  
  17. 17. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis  What  is  the  (planned)  reward  or  payment?     Environmental  benefits/conserva-on  -­‐  2   Rewards  per  village  –  3   Increased  produc-on  -­‐  2   Payments  to  household  –  12   Commission  based    Performance  based  /  percentage  of  profit  -­‐  2   BeUer  market  access,  premium  prices  -­‐  2   Savings  
  18. 18. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   What  are  the  main  challenges  you  have  encountered?     Lack  of  knowledge/awareness  of  benefits-­‐  12   Is  the  project  providing  benefits?     Limited  (financial)  resources  -­‐  10   Tenure  -­‐  3   Accountability/lack  of  transparency     Weather/Drought  –  4   Timelines  –  2  Lack  of  regulatory  certainty/issues  around  carbon  markets  or  REDD  –  5   Organiza-onal/Monitoring  –  4   Changing  ajtudes  –  2   Transfer  of  cash  to  individuals     How  to  ensure  commitment  from  par-cipants  –  2   Big  landowners  oppose  because  want  access  to  cheap  labour     Coordina-on  between  local/na-onal/interna-onal  -­‐  5  
  19. 19. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   What  kinds  of  conflicts  arise  (if  any)?     Villagers  disagree  on  money  distribu-on     Conflicts  of  interest/farmers  who  join  and  those  that  do  not  –  2   Horizontal  conflict  between  communi-es  (?)   Role  conflicts   Type  of  tree  to  plant   Integra-on  of  different  needs   Who  is  gejng  what  –  ensuring  equitable  benefit  sharing  -­‐  3  Opposi-on  from  different  interests  (ie  loggers  in  rainforest,  farmers  don’t  want  to   preserve  puma)  –  3     Land  rights  -­‐  3   Environmentally  damaging  ac-vity  of  outsiders  (ie  caUle  grazing)   Lack  of  trust  -­‐  2   Illegal  seUlements   Different  legal  interpreta-ons  
  20. 20. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis  How  is  compliance  with  the  scheme  enforced  and  what  kinds  of   sanc/ons  exist  for  non-­‐compliance?   Voluntary  -­‐  3   Compliance  enforced  by  law  and  contract  –  11   People  excluded  from  program  -­‐  3   Cessa-on  of  payments  –  5   Villages  and  villagers  monitor  each  other  -­‐  5   Monitored  by  organiza-on  -­‐  2   Monitored  by  third  party  (ie  audits)  –  2  
  21. 21. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   Who  mediates  in  conflict  situa/ons?  Community  based  (elders,  councils,  CBO)  -­‐  13   Government  -­‐  12   Organiza-on  responsible  for  project  -­‐  7  
  22. 22. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis   Please  evaluate  the  success  rate  of  the  scheme     1  (not  successful)  to  5  (very  successful)  Range   Implemen-­‐ Fairness   Effec-ve-­‐ Cost   Poverty   Overall   ta-on  rate   distribu-on   ness   efficiency   reduc-on   evalua-on  1   1   4   3   4   4   2  2   13   7   7   11   6   9  3   11   9   6   12   9   10  4   16   10   23   14   13   20  5   15   19   18   12   18   18  
  23. 23. RES  ques/onnaire  –  ini/al  analysis  Please  give  your  comments  or  sugges/ons  regarding  RES  or  this  survey  or  what   it  is  that  you  would  be  most  interested  in  receiving  informa/on  on     Details  of  successful  projects   A  transparency  and  accountability  mechanism   Package  of  relevant  policies  and  objec-ves   Regional  workshop/  networking   How  communi-es  share  benefits  /  criteria  used  to  determine  payments   How  to  get  projects  started   How  to  evaluate  ES  projects,  make  them  cost  effec-ve  and  adoptable   How  to  manage  mul--­‐stakeholder  or  mul--­‐ethnic  projects   How  many  projects  make  land  tenure  a  priority   How  to  build  and  finance  a  carbon  sequestra-on  project  
  24. 24. Lessons  and  conclusions?  •  Evolving  framework  from  PES  to  CIS  •  Trade-­‐offs  between  effec-veness,  efficiency  and  equity  •  Few  tenure  problems  reported:  can  schemes  be  developed  for  weaker  forms  of   tenure  •  Not  possible  to  make  generaliza-ons  •  Many  open  ques-ons  to  address  
  25. 25. ¡¿  Thanks  for  a  future  !?  

×