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.

Payment for ecosystem services (pes) for

1,235 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Payment for ecosystem services (pes) for

  1. 1. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) for Kandyan Forest Garden Conservation W.K.A.M.D.S. Aththanayake PGIA/2012/115 Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture
  2. 2. Content • Introduction • Problem identification • Methodology • Discussion • Suggestion/solutions • Conclusion
  3. 3. Sri Lanka Total area 65,610 km2. The land area is 64,740 km2 Water is 870 km2. Coastline 1,340 km The highest point 2,524 m The GDP (purchasing power parity) of Sri Lanka is $82.02 billion and GDP(official exchange rate) is $30.01 billion. Growth rate of GDP of Sri Lanka is 6.8%. and per capita GDP is $4,000. Agricultural sector 11.7% Industrial sector 29.9% The services sector 58.4% .
  4. 4. Home gardens in Sri Lanka
  5. 5. Kandyan Forest Garden
  6. 6. Typical Kandyan Forest Garden
  7. 7. Land use in the three districts of Sri Lanka where the Kandyan garden system is practiced Area in the district (ha) Kandy Matale Kurunegalle Total area (ha) % of Sri Lanka’s total Total land 215,770 199,530 477,590 892,890 13.6 waters Forest 23,000 33,200 10,500 66,500 4.1 Rice 37,967 18,728 109,704 166,399 19.0 Tea 78,249 7,990 376 86,615 35.4 Rubber 5,881 7,036 5,804 18,721 8.4 Cacao 3,015 4,439 522 7,976 94.3 Cinnamon 17 68 12 97 0.4 Cardamom 1,949 2,294 34 4,277 80.7 Cintronella — 90 — 90 3.6 Black pepper 2,652 3,021 388 6,061 66.8
  8. 8. Productive role of KFGs
  9. 9. Protective role of KFGs
  10. 10. Problem identification Critical problems in Up country wet zone areas • Deforestation • Biodiversity degradation • Human nutrition problem • Land slides • Rapidly reduce of drinking water sources • Soil erosion • Land degradation
  11. 11. Why ecosystem valuation?
  12. 12. The logic of PES
  13. 13. Cont…
  14. 14. Cont… • Idea: • Those who provide ES get paid for doing so (service provider gets) • Those who benefit from ES pay for provision (service user pays) • PES are popular for perceived simplicity and cost- effectiveness • PES = new paradigm for contractual conservation
  15. 15. Definition and scope of PES PES are defined as • voluntary transactions in which • a well-defined ES (or a land use likely to secure that service) • is bought by a (minimum of one) buyer • from a (minimum of one) provider • if and only if the provider continuously secures the provision of the service (conditionality).
  16. 16. Uses of PES Four areas of application: 1. Carbon trading 2. Water shed management 3. Bio-diversity conservation 4. Land scape beauty enrichment 5. Human nutrition and well-being
  17. 17. PES definitions – between hard core and periphery PES Core “PES-like” Schemes PES Core Other Economic Incentives “PES-like” Schemes PES Core PES Core Theory & some private PES “PES-like” Schemes: Public agro-environmental schemes; eco-labels (e.g. ecotourism), etc. Other Economic Incentives: Any “payment” for any “environmental service” by “anybody” park-ranger salaries, reforestation subsidies, etc.
  18. 18. Methodology Identification of Ecosystem Services by KFGS Quantification of Ecosystem Goods and Services in KFGs Valuation of Ecosystem services Analysis of Benefit Cost Ratio Integration with Human Activities
  19. 19. Implementation of PES
  20. 20. Discussion Areas can be adopted in KFGs • Pollinator protection Eg: Honey bee culture Introduce nesting places for Carpenter bee (Ambalan paluwa) • Plant breeding activities Eg: food crops • Water shed mgt programs • Inland ornamental fisheries • Ecotourism • Indigenous medicinal plants breeding
  21. 21. Can PES improve livelihoods?  PES schemes have not led to weakening of land tenure, and in some cases have strengthened it  Direct evidence from case studies on the impact on livelihoods is limited  Even if initially access constraints for poor, subsequent corrections occurred (e.g. Costa Rica)  Despite seemingly low payment levels, PES is popular with farmers (Costa Rica, Mexico)  Little evidence of local economy impact on prices and employment
  22. 22. Suggestions • Promising tool, with regional differences (PES mainly in LA, emerging in SEA and Africa) • Should practice in Sri Lanka • But, effectiveness difficult to assess because – Many schemes still too recent – Insufficient baseline data (no control area) – Few analyses based on solid monitoring and evaluation methods • Performance payments (PES) = key for REDD , but upfront conditions needed • To address DD drivers, PES = promising, but not sufficient  need governance investments & extra-sectoral transfers
  23. 23. Conclusion To enhance livelihood/equity outcomes: • “no-harm” approach – Narrow focus on environmental goal – Undesired livelihood/equity side-effects are mitigated (e.g. ‘collective contracting’-provision) • “pro-poor” approach – Poverty reduction objectives are explicit side- objectives (e.g. in areas where rural poverty is pervasive) – participation of the poor is actively pursued (e.g. rewarding upland rural poor for ES)
  24. 24. References • USAID PES Sourcebook http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/menu_research/PES.Sourcebook .Contents.php • World Bank - Introduction to PES http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEEI/Resources/IntroToPES.pdf? &resourceurlname=IntroToPES.pdf • CIFOR – PES http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/home/index.htm • Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/Networks/RUPES/index. asp • The Katoomba Group (Regional Network for China and East-Asia) http://www.katoombagroup.org/ • Ecosystem Marketplace http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/
  25. 25. Thank You…!

×