• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Andy Jarvis - Payment For Ecosystem Services (Pes) And Numbers For Negotiation Cocoon Sept 2009
 

Andy Jarvis - Payment For Ecosystem Services (Pes) And Numbers For Negotiation Cocoon Sept 2009

on

  • 1,521 views

Presentation made by Andy Jarvis from the Decision and Policy Analysis Program of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Delivered at the COCOON meeting in CIAT, Colombia in ...

Presentation made by Andy Jarvis from the Decision and Policy Analysis Program of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Delivered at the COCOON meeting in CIAT, Colombia in September 2009.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,521
Views on SlideShare
1,514
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0

1 Embed 7

http://www.slideshare.net 7

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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

    Andy Jarvis - Payment For Ecosystem Services (Pes) And Numbers For Negotiation Cocoon Sept 2009 Andy Jarvis - Payment For Ecosystem Services (Pes) And Numbers For Negotiation Cocoon Sept 2009 Presentation Transcript

    • Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) as a means of sharing environmental benefits: How numbers provide the basis for dialogue in water-based payment schemes in the Andes Andy Jarvis, Marcela Quintero, Nathalia Uribe, Ruben-Dario Estrada, Jorge Rubiano
    • Contents • The importance of information • Our principles • Three examples of science-based establishment of water- based PES in the Andes – Chingaza – Moyobamba – Fuquene • Outlook
    • CIAT’s work on Ecosystem services • Very focussed on externalities • ES that have a national, regional or international market – Aboveground carbon – Water • Putting the numbers on ES flows in an integrated manner • Learning from broad range of cases • Enabling the poor to engage and benefit from emerging ES market opportunities
    • Reasons for Failures in PES • High failure rate of PES, though Latin America has been a test-bed • Unreal expectations for PES • Lack of equity in benefit sharing • Poor or inappropriate governance structures • Low perceived impact in terms of ES benefits • High potential to create conflict, rather than resolve it Numbers as a basis for dialogue
    • Externalities • An externality is the beneficial or damaging effect caused on a third party by the decision of other(s) • Those who cause the effect do not receive any compensation for the generated benefit, or do not assume the cost of the damaging effect • Environmental externality is determined by the environmental effects of a human activity Example: Watershed services: • When the effect is positive the regulation of streamflows and retention of sediments achieved by externality is considered as an land uses and management environmental service
    • Extreme poverty is as bad or worse than 25 year ago Poverty and Extreme Poverty in rural zones (Percentage of total rural population) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1990 1994 1997 1999 Poverty % 59.9 65.4 45.1 63 53.7 Extreme poverty % 32.7 40.4 40.8 37.6 38.3 Source CEPAL: Panorama Social de América Latina, 2000-2001. PES that promote natural, economic and social benefits
    • CHINGAZA COLOMBIA
    • 1. Antecedentes i. Hay una pérdida histórica de cobertura vegetal en las cuencas abastecedoras de la EAAB. ii. Cambios en el uso de la tierra con efectos adversos a los servicios ambientales. iii. Ahorro en costos de tratamiento y conservación: Caso Nueva York y Caso Quito.
    • i. Pérdida histórica de cobertura vegetal de las cuencas abastecedoras en el Parque y Sistema Chingaza. 1977 2001 Aumento de Pasturas 18,9% Fuente: Ciat, 2007, Estudio contratado por TNC, EAAB, Patrimonio Natural & Parques
    • The numbers behind a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Scheme 50.0 Agua y sedimentos producidos en Chingaza 40.0 Cantidad agua toneladas/ha/año Cantidad de sedimentos m3/ha/año 30.0 20.0 1000 Pasto "natural" 10.0 800 Hectarias Intervenidas 0.0 600 Conservado Uso actual (con Uso fuera parque política ambiental) (sin política ambiental) 400 Vegetación páramo 200 Papa Pasto tecnificado 0 Uso actual (con política ambiental) Uso fuera parque (sin política ambiental) Fuente: Ciat, 2007, Estudio contratado por TNC, EAAB, Patrimonio Natural & Parques
    • Proyecciones Áreas Prioritarias – Opciones 1, 2, 3 Area a intervenir (Has) Costo Aprox ($millones) Ahorros potenciales ($millones)/Año 70.000 60.000 50.000 40.000 30.000 20.000 10.000 0 Opcion 1 Opcion 2 Opcion 3 Opcion 1 Opcion 2 Opcion 3 Area a intervenir (Has) 24.000 40.000 60.000 Toneladas sedimentos evitadas (Millones) 1 1,5 2 Costo Aprox ($millones) 7.400 11.600 16.600 Ahorros potenciales ($millones)/Año 3.500 5.000 7.000
    • Social and economic benefits for the rural poor
    • FUQUENE COLOMBIA
    • Elements Percentage by Catchments P o rc e n ta je s d e E le m e n to s p o r S u b c u e n c a . K rig in g . 3 5 .0 0 3 0 .0 0 2 5 .0 0 NO2 Po r c e n t a je s 2 0 .0 0 NO3 NH3 1 5 .0 0 P P 2O5 1 0 .0 0 5 .0 0 0 .0 0 8 10 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 S ubcuencas
    • Participatory Games Fuquene Lake Case Alternatives Interdependencies Up stream Potato growers Less Minimum tillage sediments, N, P, and more water Economic compensation Sustainable Cattle ranchers Potable water Positive impact on consumers environmental externalities Economic Down stream Compensation
    • MOYOBAMBA PERU
    • Service providing units Soil Types Land Use Hydrological Response Units Digital Elevation Model
    • Moyobamba watershed (Peru) URH No. Área (ha) Sed (Ton) / Sed (Ton)/5 yrs Contribution to the total Ha/ 5 yrs watershed sediments (%) 18 9.1 903 8217 16.5 02 5.8 500 2902 5.8 06 0.9 396 356 0.7 09 0.9 323 291 0.6 12 1.2 261 313 0.6 22 2.2 374 823 1.7 03 1.9 292 555 1.1 19 1.1 239 263 0.5 Total 23.1 3289 13720 27.6
    • Evaluation of land use alternatives for providing environmental services Increase Net Income Better environmental services Employment generation Farmers acceptance Trade off Analysis
    • Examples of land use evaluation Ex ante analysis • Conservation Upper part Potato cropping/conservation agriculture (Colombia) farming – Increases net Sediment yield (10 years) -39% incomes, potato Net Income +18% production, social Labor employment -14% benefits, sediment Social benefits +40% retention and employment; and Middle part Potato and cereals cropping/conservation farming reduce production costs. Sediment yield (10 years) -49% – However the initial Net Income +1% investment can not be Labor employment +62% afforded with current Social benefits +111% small farmers cash flows
    • Moyobamba (Peru) Conventional Conventional Shade-coffee Tree System System with plantations live barriers Sediments -50% -50% -44% (ton/10 yr) Agua -11% -14% (m3/sec) Net Income -9.7% +89% -5.3% (USD) Employement +77% -5% Initial 9 13 176 470 investment (USD)
    • Where to invest for environmental AND social CARBON IN THE benefits (eco-efficiency) AMAZON Áreas prioritarias de inversión Áreas prioritarias con ahorros potenciales de tratamiento agua Área prioritaria sin ahorros potenciales de tratamiento agua Fuentes de sedimentos Mayores Menores
    • Opportunity costs of REDD in threatened Brazilian Amazon forests Börner et al. (submitted), Amazon Initiative (CIAT, CIFOR, ICRAF)
    • Opportunity costs of REDD in threatened Brazilian Amazon forests 30 Opportunity cost R$/tCO 2 25 offset price for temporary emission reductions offset price for permanent emission reductions 20 15 10 5 0 0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 Deforestation avoided (ha) Börner et al. (submitted), Amazon Initiative (CIAT, CIFOR, ICRAF)
    • Potential equity effects of different REDD payment scenarios by tenure category 9000 8089 Fixed price Biomass targeting Quasi-auction 6000 Million R$ 3212 2855 3000 1487 1183 1333 1277 1139 405 371 384 370 261 270 192 0 Largeholdings Smallholdings Settlements Indigenous Extractive lands reserves Börner et al. (submitted), Amazon Initiative (CIAT, CIFOR, ICRAF) Tradeoffs: Maximum environmental benefit at cost of rural smallholder poor?
    • CONCLUSIONS • PES provide a new paradigm for natural resource management…. • …but also a new paradigm for addressing concerns of rural poverty • Establishment of schemes must be based on sound, integrative analysis of natural, social and economic benefits • In CIAT we’re very interested in matching with partners to generate rural livelihoods through PES. We can provide biophysical, economic and social analyses, and you…..
    • A.JARVIS@CGIAR.ORG