2. Introduction CPWF supported a number of research projects in different themes that emerged in parallel with the efforts to implement Environmental Services by the GTZ-CAP. Targeted a range of different basins in the Andes, including Central America and many other in the World. Lessons presented here derive from projects PN15 (Quesungual), PN20 (SCALES) and PN22 (ENV. SERV.) but other projects in the region will be incorporated.
3. Objectives Among several of the questions raised in a synthesis of project findings, we would like to know: What are the lessons to be learnt from the CPWF funded projects on Environmental Services What do these tell us about the potential to scale-up and introduce PES programs in the region and elsewhere.
4.
5.
6. Key components addressed by these frameworks In summary key themes include: Livelihood Assessment Biophysical analysis Legal context Buyer/Seller profiles Cost Benefit/Economics Monitoring and Regulation *
7. Warning Questions Is the framework for assessing the feasibility for PES to help design its implementation easy to apply and repeatable Can the metrics that determine success be quantified? Is the complexity and diversity in assessment criteria a constraint to using a synthesized framework?
8. Source documentation for the synthesis Quintero, M.; Estrada, R.D. Pago por servicios ambientales en Latinoamérica y sus perspectivas en los Andes. Agosto 2006 Diaz, A. M.; Estrada, R. D. Un mecanismo para promover desarrollo rural en los Andes (PN22). Octubre 2006. Castro, A. et al. Improving the efficiency of rainwater use in small holder farms in sub-humid tropics; agricultural and environmental benefits of Quesungual agro forestry system. PN 20 - Sustaining inclusive Collective Action that Links across Economic and Ecological Scales in upper watersheds (SCALES) Asquith, N.M.; Wunder, S.; eds. Payments for watershed services: the Bellagio conversations Fundación Natura Bolivia, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. 2008 Lopa, D.M.; Ellis-Jones, M. Equitable payments for watershed services; feasibility study methodology “a business case approach”. WWF-CARE February 2008. Wunder, S. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. 2005. The Katoomba Group, UNEP; Payments for ecosystem services; getting started: A Primer. May 2008 Rivera P, Mariela. 2008. Determinación De La Dinámica Del Agua En El Sistema Agroforestal Quesungual E Identificación De Factores Suelo-Planta Para El Mejoramiento De La Productividad Del Agua En Los Cultivos. PhD Tesis (draft)
10. Initial Findings & Conclusions CPWF projects did not set out to implement a PES according to any framework but contributed key findings around each framework component
11. PN15 Lessons & Potential Niche land management approach with potential to becoming a paying service The scientific evidence linked the potential service to improvements resulting in word of mouth spread Lesson, important it is to establish the biophysical assessment as a first step for carrying out PES feasibility
12. PN20 Lessons and Potential Contributed greatest by illustrating their approach to livelihood assessment and institutional legal framework assessments. Is there potential for these to become embedded PES user guide toolkits? Lessons, showed that it is not only important to make the initial assessment or to trigger engagement, but to find ways to sustain that engagement, either through continued funding or through the presented 6th operating principle.
13.
14. Building alliances with development projects (GTZ CAP) secure immediate implementation of research findings
15. Advance in the costs and benefits analysis at all the scales (farm, region, national)
16.
Editor's Notes
An introductory slide explaining the background to the project and assessment
I guess here I am still trying to get clear in my mind what exactly we trying to achieve by this study. And I guess the questions are almost the research questions that are to be answered going through this exerciseLessons Learnt?e.g. literature tells us that hydrological service improvements are often based on beliefs rather than scientific proof (Swen Wunder). PN15 provided that evidence base; value of project has been in the actual scientific findings showing the improvements in soils and water, hence making it easier to :sell it or” not necessarily as an ES practice, but rather as a good land management practice, which farmers where quick to take on without any monetary incentives. Therefore begs the question as to whether such research projects (hence the biophysical analysis stage of the feasibility) is actually an important step 1 pre-requisites if any selling of an ES is to succeed.Is framework easy to apply?Answering the questions of the framework are not easy. Feasibility study methodology came out early 2008, after any CPWF project, hence unfair to really ask for the evidence of having answered all the relevant questions before embarking on a PES project. The approach also gives broad guidance, not necessarily the toolkit for implementation. For exampl, PN20 and PN22 both undertook livelihood assessment in different ways; but did either of them give more insight into who could participate?
The three guidance documents where use to understand the key criteria used to assess what makes a successful project.
All previous guidance on how setting up PES schemes point out the need for prerequisites components and a diverse set of questions for each component that must be answered before establishing a full business case for its implementation. Introduction of the Scheme; Livelihood AssessmentDo upstream communities want to participate?Who stands to benefit from the programme?Who stands to lose from the programme?How can payments / rewards be designed to mitigate or eliminate costs to potential losers?Buyers ProfileWho directly abstracts water from the water source (“First tier” buyers)?Who uses water but is dependent on supplied water (“Second tier” buyers)?What do potential buyers in both classes perceive as their water related problems?To what extent are water related problems the result of watershed degradation as opposed to poor water-use management or failing water supply infrastructure?Is there a clear demand for an ecosystem service?Was the financial value clearly stated, i.e was the cost of the problem clearly understood hence providing a cost benefit case for implementation.Was the beneficiary obvious?Did the beneficiary acknowledge the incentivesDid they have the money to contribute payment for this serviceQuantified Biophysical AnalysisWhat watershed services could be improved under a PWS programme?Are there any catchment hotspots which are disproportionately associated with watershed service provision?What intervention technologies should be employed during the trial and scale-up?What are the differential impacts of different conservation technologies on watershed service provision?Defining the geographical target areasOver what area should the trial take place?Over what area and where should the scale-up take place to ensure low level, medium and optimal improvement in experience of improved watershed service provision at catchment level.Legal and policy ReviewNational level analysis should explicitly ascertain whether payments for environmental services in general or payments for watershed services will be legal in the country where they are being considered.Is it legal?Other than buyers and sellers, who should be included in the project and how?Is the proposed seller a credible contractual counterparty with sufficient title and control over land?Fianancial cost benefit analysis of watershed services.The purpose of the cost benefit analysis, which should be undertaken from both upstream /seller and downstream / buyer perspectives is to:· Inform the programme managers as to the likely cost of the trial and scale-up.· Provide an indication as to the scale of benefits PWS intervention could potentiallysupply to beneficiaries / buyers of watershed services.Provide the basis for marketing to potential buyers under the PWS programme.What are upstream net costs?What are downstream net benefits?Do benefits exceed costs?What are buyers likely to be willing to pay?Does willingness to pay exceed costs?Sellers ProfileOrganization” profileLivelihoods analysis (focused, including land use change options)Institutions profile, including tenure and property rightsCost-benefit analysis of provisioning watershed services to sellersFunding and bridging mechanismsRisk analysis scenariosValidation mechanisms, monitoring pla
To what extent have the CPWF projects helped contribute to our understanding of PES schemes?For each project a summary assessment lf how each project contributed to our understanding of the evaluation components is given and hence which can be referred to for future knowledge transfer case studies.
I WILL CUT THE TEXT TO REDUCE TIREDNESS IN PEOPLE AND LEAVE KEY WORDS ONLY FOR ME TO TALK ALONG, SAME IN THE FOLLOWING, for this presentation, congtrary to the document will be better to keep projects independently and highlight some bullet points regarding their contribution to the objective, help me in doing that.Although the projects did not set out to implement a PES according to any framework, each one contributed key findings around each componentPN15 provided a niche land management approach, adding to the growing portfolio of conservation approaches. The scientific evidence linking the potential service to improvements helped its spread in use showing how important it is to establish the biophysical assessment as a first step for new management practices
