Icraf at ifad on res rupes presa part 1


Published on

ICRAF (World Agroforestry Centre) presentation to International Fund for Agricultural Development, end-May, 2011 on Rewards for Environmental Services / Payments for Environmenal Services

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The Vietnamese Decision No. 380/QD - TTG provides that hydroelectric plants, local water utility and tourist agencies should pay providers of environmental services
  • Icraf at ifad on res rupes presa part 1

    2. 2. Presentation Outline <ul><li>Our challenge </li></ul><ul><li>Synthesis of RUPES 1: Proof of concept </li></ul><ul><li>Activities and outputs in RUPES 2 and PRESA: Proof of practice </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul><ul><li>Way forward </li></ul>
    3. 3. ICRAF’s 3 major networks of action research and learning sites on RES and climate change issues: Pro poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa (2008 – 2011) covering 8 sites in 5 countries ( Tanzania, Kenya, Guinea, Uganda & Malawi ) Rewards for, Use of and Shared Investment in Pro-poor Environmental Services schemes in Asia (2002-2012) covering 12 sites in 8 countries (China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal, India, plus Thailand and Cambodia - upcoming) Global partnership devoted entirely to research on the tropical forest margins with 12 benchmark sites in the Amazon, Congo Basin and Southeast Asia
    4. 4. Bac Kan RUPES SITES IN ASIA
    5. 5. PRESA Sites
    6. 6. <ul><li>Concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental services are a collection of biophysical outcomes that are the consequence of proper management of natural resources with considerable impact on human beings and wide natural processes. </li></ul><ul><li>Rather than control and command environmental policies, the concept of PES attempts to harness market forces, including the global community to increase positive economic and environmental outcomes. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Redirecting development pathways towards environmental integrity Positive incentives are needed to reward rural poor for the envirponmental services they can/do provide
    8. 8. Free and prior informed consent Efficiency Fairness Balancing act is needed
    9. 10. <ul><li>But PES actors are highly heterogeneous-- policy-makers and regulators and private sector as ES buyer, intermediaries, and local communities as ES providers have different knowledge, perceptions and ambitions which they all use to justify their individual actions. </li></ul><ul><li>And PES is knowledge-intensive! </li></ul>
    10. 11. Initial interest Effective increase in ES Signed contract External investors and regulators: learning curve Learning curve for local stakeholders (actors) of land use change Smooth implemen- tation? Efficient + Fair reward systems require a two-way learning curve Negotiations
    11. 13. <ul><li>RES mechanisms differ from ‘command & control’ </li></ul><ul><li>Conditional : a “performance” basis for the rewards /payments rather than an entitlement based on nominal entities </li></ul><ul><li>Voluntary : engagement of both ES providers and beneficiaries in a negotiated scheme through free choice at the individual level </li></ul>RUPES 1 Synthesis <ul><li>Knowledge and understanding of context: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Realistic : RES schemes are based on scientifically sound assessment of relationships of land use changes and ES provision. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pro-poor: RES schemes must consider multiple dimensions of poverty </li></ul></ul>Context Mechanism <ul><li>Payment for Environmental Services (PES) or Co-Investment in Environmental Stewardship </li></ul><ul><li>Co-investment and shared responsibility for stewardship, with a focus on “ integrative livelihood assets ” (natural + human + social capital) rather than only financial can be expected to provide future flows of ES </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Current findings show that per-capita financial transfer from PES remain small </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collective actions, social mobilization and secure land access are main components and can act as conditional RES and reduce poverty </li></ul></ul>Outcomes &Impacts + =
    12. 14. PES Paradigms Conditionality <ul><li>CES: C ommoditized E nvironmental S ervices </li></ul><ul><li>Direct interaction of ES providers & beneficiaries </li></ul><ul><li>Recurrent monetary payments based on supply and demand </li></ul><ul><li>No explicit poverty target </li></ul><ul><li>Actual ES delivery & direct marketability </li></ul><ul><li>COS: C ompensating for O pportunities S kipped </li></ul><ul><li>Paying for accepting restrictions </li></ul><ul><li>Achievement of a condition or effort </li></ul><ul><li>Poverty target added with certain conditions </li></ul><ul><li>CIS: C o- I nvestment in (landscape) S tewardship </li></ul><ul><li>Entrust the local resource management </li></ul><ul><li>Full trust of management plan & local monitoring with high social capital </li></ul><ul><li>flexible contract , broad sanctions </li></ul>van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010) Proxies, recurrent Plans investment 'Real' ES, recurrent
    13. 15. <ul><li>Replicable tools for assessment, negotiation and design of R/PES schemes </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid Hydrological Assessment (RaHA) </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid Carbon Stock Assessment (RaCSA) </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid Biodiversity Appraisal (RaBA) </li></ul><ul><li>Participatory Landscape Appraisal (PaLA) </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid Tenure Assessment (RaTA) </li></ul><ul><li>Reverse auctions </li></ul><ul><li>Others (visit:http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/projects/tulsea) </li></ul>
    14. 16. <ul><li>Efficiency principle </li></ul><ul><li> Realistic: causal pathways to enhance ES are clear, </li></ul><ul><li>real opportunity + implementation costs are offset, or benefits outweigh the costs </li></ul><ul><li> Conditional: performance-based contracts, agreed MRV system for monitoring, reporting and verification </li></ul><ul><li>Fairness principle </li></ul><ul><li> Voluntary: meets the Free and Prior Informed Consent standards; willingness to accept responsibilities </li></ul><ul><li> Pro-poor: at minimum not increasing inequity, attention to gender balance </li></ul>
    15. 17. RUPES 2 – Rewards for, Use of and Shared Investment in Pro-poor Environmental Services <ul><li>Goal : Rewards for provision of environmental services flow to poor people in an Asian context. </li></ul>Outputs, impacts and lessons
    16. 18. <ul><li>Cidanau </li></ul><ul><li>An activity-based reward for watershed ES from private companies </li></ul><ul><li>Financial reward for local infrastructure and smallholder business improvement </li></ul><ul><li>Extension and scaling up at provincial level </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting local intermediary: Communication Forum of Cidanau </li></ul><ul><li>Bungo </li></ul><ul><li>Rubber eco-certification </li></ul><ul><li>Improving the quality of smallholder rubber production </li></ul><ul><li>Supported by Bridgestone </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborating with Indonesian Institute of Ecolabeling </li></ul><ul><li>Singkarak </li></ul><ul><li>Community based- voluntary carbon market </li></ul><ul><li>Potential organic coffee </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental Education Centre </li></ul><ul><li>Agro-ecotourism </li></ul><ul><li>Integrated Lake Management with Ministry of Environment </li></ul><ul><li>Supported by FAO RAP – Assisted Natural Regeneration to combat Imperata grassland </li></ul><ul><li>Aceh </li></ul><ul><li>Contributing to Green-growth economy after recovery from tsunami </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinated by UNESCAP & WWF Indonesia </li></ul><ul><li>Sumberjaya </li></ul><ul><li>A performance-based reward for sedimentation reduction from HEP </li></ul><ul><li>Scale up to watershed level for collective financial reward </li></ul><ul><li>Selected as a best practice for a national GEF-UNDP project coordinated by MoF </li></ul>
    17. 19. <ul><li>Kuningan </li></ul><ul><li>Local level rewards for watershed services </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting a local NGO: KANOPI </li></ul><ul><li>Policy advocacy RES between districts </li></ul><ul><li>Kapuas Hulu </li></ul><ul><li>Scoping study on watershed hydrological function using RHA tool </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting the consortium WWF-CARE-IIED </li></ul><ul><li>Dieng </li></ul><ul><li>Scoping study on RES feasibility at a horticulture-rich but severely degraded watershed </li></ul><ul><li>Food security issue on potato farming </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting Safe Dieng NGO </li></ul>INDONESIA <ul><li>Central Sulawesi </li></ul><ul><li>IFAD Investment Project site with Ministry of Agriculture </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration with Mars Symbioscience Indonesia to improve the cocoa agroforestry and promote RES scheme for smallholders. </li></ul><ul><li>Lombok </li></ul><ul><li>Community based- forest management </li></ul><ul><li>Gender study on role of women’s knowledge in increasing the sustainable NRM </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting a local NGO to monitor an established RES for providing good water quality for urban dwellers. </li></ul>
    18. 20. PHILIPPINES AND VIETNAM <ul><li>Bac Kan </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting the PDD of REALU projects </li></ul><ul><li>Developing RES scheme for forest ES </li></ul><ul><li>Improving existing ecotourism scheme </li></ul><ul><li>Bakun </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborating with Cordillera Highlands Agriculture Resource Management Project </li></ul><ul><li>HEP royalty benefit-transfer to local indigenous group </li></ul><ul><li>Kalahan </li></ul><ul><li>Voluntary carbon market scheme by Ikalahan indigenous group in collaboration with FAO RAP </li></ul><ul><li>Supported by Mitsubishi company in developing carbon Project Identification Note </li></ul><ul><li>Potential bundling ES with watershed and biodiversity conservation </li></ul><ul><li>A best practice site for forest protection and NTFP marketing </li></ul><ul><li>Lantapan </li></ul><ul><li>A case study of water rights and conflicts </li></ul><ul><li>A sentinel site for Landcare </li></ul><ul><li>Supporting policy advocacy of RES , and RES design at district level </li></ul>
    19. 21. <ul><li>Shivapuri-Nagargun National Park (SNNP) </li></ul><ul><li>Managed by Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) </li></ul><ul><li>a major source of drinking water in Kathmandu (around 21% of piped water) other services: HEP plant, irrigation, tourism </li></ul><ul><li>Two villages inside the park Park-people conflict (wildlife, no access to forests) </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration with ICIMOD </li></ul><ul><li>Loktak Lake </li></ul><ul><li>Floodplain wetlands with unique floating lands called phumdis i.e. thick mats of vegetation intermixed sediments </li></ul><ul><li>Presence of Keibul Lamjao National Park for globally threathened species of Brow Antlered Deer </li></ul><ul><li>Construction of Ithai barrage of HEP converted a naturally fluctuating lake into a reservoir </li></ul><ul><li>Wetlands India and Loktak Development Authority : restoration strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Tibet Plateau </li></ul><ul><li>Incentivizing improved management of both degraded and un-degraded grasslands. </li></ul><ul><li>Conditional on maintaining sustainable stocking levels on lands to which herders have legal use rights. </li></ul>NEPAL <ul><li>Kulekhani Watershed </li></ul><ul><li>Hilly region watershed extends over 8 VDCs </li></ul><ul><li>Community forestry – on hill slopes, intensive agriculture on the slopes </li></ul><ul><li>Hydropower station below – reservoir based </li></ul><ul><li>17% of hydropower in the country (92 MW) </li></ul><ul><li>Government royalty collected from Hydropower generation by NEA; 12% channeled back to the district </li></ul><ul><li>Collaboration with ICIMOD </li></ul>
    20. 22. <ul><li>The development of reward for ecosystem services schemes for grass land by the China’s State Council in 2007, China </li></ul><ul><li>Ecological land use plan for Xishuangbanna Prefecture 2010, China </li></ul><ul><li>The Indian National Environment Policy on the role of economic incentives for environmental conservation in 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>The Indonesian Environmental Protection and Management focusing on economic instruments for ecosystem services: Act No. 32/2009 and regulations of the Ministry of Forestry on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Country (REDD). </li></ul><ul><li>The Nepali Leasehold Forestry Policy in 2002: degraded forest is leased for 40 years (renewable) to groups of poor households as a resource base for their exclusive use. </li></ul><ul><li>The draft of Philippines Climate Change Act of 2008 and a final review of Sustainable Forest Management Act (SFMA) in 2008. </li></ul><ul><li>The Vietnamese Decision No. 380/QD – TTG: ES buyers should pay ES providers </li></ul>National level impacts
    21. 23. Making a case for Watershed service rewards Sara Namirembe This programme is implemented by the World Agroforestry Centre, with funding from the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the European Commission and the government of Finland. The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders.
    22. 24. Focus <ul><li>Can watersheds be managed sustainably through negotiated agreements between landowners in targeted hotspots and potential beneficiaries? </li></ul><ul><li>PRESA seeks to generate evidence on feasibility of rewards for environmental services (RES) through action research at local level to inform and influence actions at landscape and country levels </li></ul>
    23. 25. Analysis of watershed service payments RES principle Issues Realistic Hydrologically effective Financially affordable Voluntary Sellers willing to accept payment; Buyers willing to pay Conditional Performance based contracts/agreements Propoor Does no harm Improves the lives of the poor
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.