Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Presa Startup Overview For Outcome Mapping March 1 2010

734 views

Published on

PRESA promotes healthy landscapes and sustainable rural livelihoods through market-based reward mechanisms for environmental services.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Presa Startup Overview For Outcome Mapping March 1 2010

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Overview of ICRAF’s work on rewards for environmental services <ul><li>Introduction to key concepts and research questions </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of the RUPES project and pan-tropical scoping study </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of PRESA including the pentagon of hypothesis </li></ul>
  3. 3. Key concepts of PRESA <ul><li>Definition of rewards for environmental services: </li></ul><ul><li>realistic, voluntary, and conditional mechanisms for rewarding ecosystem stewards for legitimate actions foregone or positive actions undertaken beyond social expectations </li></ul>Including: biodiversity offsets, eco-tourism, eco-labelling, self-organized deals between beneficiaries and stewards, tradeable emission permits
  4. 4. Trends in the East and West African highlands <ul><li>Governance and policy: </li></ul><ul><li>decentralization </li></ul><ul><li>policies supportive of community & private-sector involvement in NRM (esp. water, forestry, wildlife) </li></ul><ul><li>limits of pure regulatory approaches </li></ul><ul><li>more interest in economic instruments for environment </li></ul><ul><li>interest in REDD and carbon market </li></ul><ul><li>Legal pluralism and implications for ecosystems </li></ul><ul><li>Resources: </li></ul><ul><li>water scarcity </li></ul><ul><li>water quality declines </li></ul><ul><li>forest loss </li></ul><ul><li>increase in trees on farm </li></ul><ul><li>land degradation & soil fertility loss </li></ul><ul><li>Business interests in ecosystems: </li></ul><ul><li>community ecotourism </li></ul><ul><li>biodiversity </li></ul><ul><li>ecolabelled products </li></ul><ul><li>biofuels </li></ul><ul><li>carbon market </li></ul><ul><li>water / hydro-power interest in </li></ul><ul><li>watershed services </li></ul>
  5. 5. Challenges: <ul><li>Increasing market demand for food, fuel and fiber (provisioning ES) </li></ul><ul><li>Regulating and support services in general decline with increased latent demand </li></ul><ul><li>Desire for simple policy solutions leads to simplistic understanding of cause-effect (eg deforestation as major cause of floods) </li></ul>Opportunities: <ul><li>Devolution of authority for NRM </li></ul><ul><li>Greater penetration of markets and private sector into utility sectors </li></ul><ul><li>Global trend toward flexible environmental policies </li></ul><ul><li>Interest in REDD for mitigating climate change, while maintaining resilience and options </li></ul>
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. Incentives, compensation and reward typologies for sustaining ecosystem services (source: Pan-tropical scoping study)
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. Action Research Mode <ul><li>In a range of settings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification/confirmation and monitoring of environmental services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and use options, benefits and costs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>An array of mechanisms developed and tested with poor communities </li></ul><ul><li>Transparent enabling institutional environment </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness raised among government officials, producers and consumers of these services </li></ul><ul><li>Effective partnerships formed among consortium members: regional, national and local </li></ul>
  10. 10. RUPES Action Research Sites Areas of Interest
  11. 11. Kulekhani, Nepal Kalahan Manila Kalahan Sumberjaya Lampung Bungo Jambi Singkarak West Sumatra Bakhun Bakun
  12. 12. RUPES II: <ul><li>Extensions of lessons and methods to a larger number of partners and sites, especially local NGOs </li></ul><ul><li>More emphasis on engaging the private sector </li></ul><ul><li>More emphasis on policy </li></ul><ul><li>Greater emphasis on avoided deforestation consistent with REDD debate </li></ul>
  13. 13. Key concepts of PRESA <ul><li>Definition of Rewards for Environmental Services : </li></ul><ul><li>realistic, voluntary, and conditional mechanisms for rewarding ecosystem stewards for legitimate actions foregone or positive actions undertaken beyond social expectations </li></ul><ul><li>Three levels of pro-poor rewards: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>don’t harm the poor; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>include the poor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>positively biased towards the poor </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. Site-level activities <ul><li>Develop and adapt assessment methods and approaches used in the Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services (RUPES) programme from ICRAF Southeast Asia </li></ul><ul><li>Appraise causal links between RES, incentives, resource use, institutions and environmental services. </li></ul><ul><li>Determine appropriate targets for enhancing environmental services and livelihoods. </li></ul><ul><li>Develop institutions to support reward mechanisms that are effective, equitable and sensitive to the needs of marginalized groups. </li></ul><ul><li>Develop and test prototype reward mechanisms. </li></ul><ul><li>Establish, implement and facilitate operational reward mechanisms. </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor, evaluate and assess impacts. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Policy and private-sector activities <ul><li>1. Conduct a survey of private and parastatal firms to determine factors motivating and constraining their participation in RES </li></ul><ul><li>2. Evaluate the business case for rewards from perspectives of private sector, parastatals and beneficiaries of watershed services. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Review and synthesize site-level results for policy. </li></ul><ul><li>4. Identify policy factors that constrain the business case for rewards and convene consultations among stakeholders. </li></ul><ul><li>5. Present results at international fora. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Community of Practice <ul><li>Disseminate and adapt RUPES Technical Advisory Notes </li></ul><ul><li>Support application of tools, methodologies and mechanisms among a community of practice </li></ul><ul><li>Establish relations with international, regional and national organizations interested in RES </li></ul><ul><li>Convene side events at Katoomba Africa or other relevant international meetings </li></ul>
  18. 18. Criteria for site selection <ul><li>High probability of a workable reward scheme for environmental services; </li></ul><ul><li>Geographical priorities of IFAD or regions of its investment projects; </li></ul><ul><li>Geographical interests of partners; </li></ul><ul><li>Environmental services of interest to agroforestry and IFAD </li></ul><ul><li>ICRAF’s ongoing or active research programs </li></ul>
  19. 19. Sites
  20. 20. PRESA – building on RUPES: Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services <ul><li>Strengths: </li></ul><ul><li>Network of sites </li></ul><ul><li>Nested scale approach </li></ul><ul><li>Tools and approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Recognition of smallholder farmers in sites </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding key dimensions of rewards: realistic, conditional, voluntary, pro-poor </li></ul><ul><li>Country-level uptake and ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Prototype mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Boundary spanning </li></ul><ul><li>Weaknesses: </li></ul><ul><li>over-emphasis on core sites </li></ul><ul><li>site choice driven by intermediaries </li></ul><ul><li>too long to get to working mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>insufficient links to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>similar initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>private sector </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IFAD loan projects </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. Pentagon of Defining Research Questions Questions / Hypotheses Realistic Efficiency Acceptability Sustainability Poverty
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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?
  24. 24. 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?
  25. 25. Sustainability <ul><li>Q1. Under what conditions will payments for environmental services lead to sustainable improvements in ecosystem stewardship? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>new norms of acceptable behavior </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased uptake of new technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>equity investment by beneficiaries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>new forms of livelihood that reduce pressure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>growth in markets for products consistent with sustainability </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. Poverty <ul><li>Q1. What combination of actions on negative and positive incentives are most likely to meet one of four levels of pro-poor: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Doesn’t harm the poor; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More than offsets harm to the poor; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fairly includes the poor; or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Differentially benefits the poor. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Q2. Does the exclusion of socially-marginalized people undermine the effectiveness and sustainability of mechanisms? </li></ul><ul><li>Q3. Are mechanisms that involve voluntary engagement in labour-intensive enterprises most likely to differentially benefit the poor (eg reverse auctions for conservation investment)? </li></ul>
  27. 27. <ul><li>Opportunities for students and faculty to help us implement, assess and design our activities </li></ul><ul><li>Fields: </li></ul><ul><li>Geography and land use systems </li></ul><ul><li>Links between land use and ecosystem services </li></ul><ul><li>valuation of ecosystem services </li></ul><ul><li>economics of alternative land uses and interventions </li></ul><ul><li>governance of natural resources and property rights </li></ul><ul><li>analysis of policy options and constraints </li></ul><ul><li>ex ante and ex post impact assessments </li></ul><ul><li>social, gender and equity effects of rewards for environmental services </li></ul><ul><li>business case for investment in environmental services </li></ul>
  28. 28. 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 <ul><li>Please contact us to receive further information </li></ul><ul><li>Thomas Yatich T.B. – Project Ag. Coordinator: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Vanessa Meadu – Communications Officer: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Miika Makela-Spatial Analyst: [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Catherine Kimengu-Administrative [email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>Godfrey Mwaloma-Communication [email_address] </li></ul>PRESA project: http://www.presa.worldagroforestry.org

×