The document discusses climate change adaptation and mitigation through payments for environmental services (PES) in agriculture, focusing on criteria for successful schemes, stakeholder roles, and types of ecosystem services. It highlights strategies to maximize benefits while minimizing trade-offs, as well as the challenges and conflicts that can arise in implementation. The document emphasizes the need for flexible payment mechanisms, strong land tenure, and community engagement to enhance effectiveness and equity in environmental service rewards.

1. Climate
Change
Adapta/on
and
Mi/ga/on
in
Agriculture
Rewards
for
mi-ga-on
Henry
Neufeldt,
ICRAF
CCAFS
Science
Workshop
Playa
del
Carmen,
1-­‐2
December
2010

2. Payments
for
Environmental
Services
(PES)
• Wunder
(2005)
• Five
general
criteria
for
successful
PES
schemes:
• Voluntary
transac-ons
• Well
defined
ES
• At
least
one
buyer
of
ES
• At
least
one
provider
of
ES
• Payment
condi-onal
upon
delivery
of
ES

3. Structure
of
PES
mechanisms

4. Compensa/on
and
Rewards
for
Environmental
Services
(CRES)
• Swallow
et
al
(2009)
• Three
generic
types
of
stakeholders
• Ecosystem
stewards
(whose
ac-ons
modify
the
quan-ty
and
quality
of
ES)
• ES
beneficiaries
(who
benefit
from
ES
provided
by
an
ecosystem)
• Intermediaries
(who
indirectly
shape
interac-ons
among
ecosystem
stewards,
ES
beneficiaries
and
the
ecosystem
itself)
• Defini-on
and
typology
of
CRES
• Compensa-on
for
ES
are
payments
or
other
forms
of
res-tu-on
made
to
ES
beneficiaries
or
ecosystem
stewards
to
offset
foregone
en-tlements
to
ES
or
ecosystem
stewardship
benefits
• Rewards
for
ES
are
inducements
provided
to
ecosystem
stewards
to
give
them
incen-ve
to
enhance
or
maintain
ES
• Characteris-cs
of
the
mechanisms
• Nature
of
the
contract
or
agreement
• Transac-on
costs
• Type
of
remunera-on
or
incen-ves
provided
• Market
based
instruments
used
• Temporal
paUern
of
payment

5. Compensa/on
and
Rewards
for
Environmental
Services
(CRES)

6. Principles
for
fairness
and
efficiency
in
enhancing
ES:
Payments,
compensa/on
or
co-­‐investment?
• Van
Noordwijk
and
Leimona
(2010)
• Four
condi-ons
• Realis-c:
tangible
and
sustainable
ES
rela-ve
to
BAU
• Voluntary:
ES
providers
and
beneficiaries
engage
through
free
and
informed
choice
• Condi-onal:
benefits
received
depend
on
performance
measures
agreed
by
all
(from
tangible
benefits
via
maintenance
and
ac-ons
to
management
plans)
• Pro-­‐poor:
outcomes
support
posi-ve
bias
toward
poor
stakeholders
• Investment
in
different
capitals
(H,
S,
N,
P,
M)
as
basis
for
future
CRES
• Three
paradigms
• CES
-­‐
Commodi-zed
ES
(C
I):
based
on
actual
service
delivery
and
marketability
(e.g.
AR
CDM)
• COS
-­‐
Compensa-ng
for
missed
opportuni-es
(C
II/III):
paying
land
users
for
accep-ng
restric-ons
(e.g.
REDD);
poverty
aspects
through
external
price
differen-a-on
• CIS
-­‐
Co-­‐investment
in
stewardship
(C
II-­‐IV):
focuses
on
assets;
explicitly
pro-­‐poor

7. Principles
for
fairness
and
efficiency
in
enhancing
ES:
Payments,
compensa/on
or
co-­‐investment?

9. Trade-­‐offs
in
PES/CRES/CIS-­‐COS-­‐CES
Source:
Mayrand
and
Paquin,
2004

10. Property
and
tenure
rights
• Access:
The
right
to
enter
a
defined
physical
property
and
enjoy
non-­‐extrac-ve
benefits
(primarily
recrea-onal
ac-vi-es)
• Withdrawal:
The
right
to
extract
the
resources
or
products
of
a
system
(e.g.
catch
fish,
gather
fuel
wood
and
water
for
irriga-on
or
human
consump-on)
• Management:
The
right
to
regulate
internal
use
paUerns
and
transform
the
resource.
• Exclusion:
The
right
to
determine
who
will
have
access
or
withdrawal
right,
and
how
those
rights
may
be
transferred.
• Aliena/on:
The
right
to
transfer
the
rights
of
management
and
exclusion.
Source:
Schlager
and
Ostrom,
1992

11. Strategies
to
maximise
benefits
and
minimize
trade-­‐offs
• Clarify
and
strengthen
land
tenure
• Create
or
strengthen
coopera-ve
ins-tu-ons
to
reduce
transac-on
costs
• Define
cost-­‐effec-ve
and
flexible
payments
mechanisms
• Provide
flexibility
in
eligible
land
uses
• Facilitate
access
to
start-­‐up
financing
• Invest
in
community
capacity-­‐building
Source:
Mayrand
and
Paquin,
2004

12. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
What
type
of
ecosystem
services
are
rewarded?
Carbon
-­‐
51
Water
-­‐
33
Biodiversity
-­‐
43
Other
–
24
Several
-­‐
40

13. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
How
many
households
are
you
reaching
(or
planning
to
reach)?
10000+
13
1001-­‐9999
11
0-­‐1000
38

14. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
Who
is
providing
the
funds
for
the
scheme?
Government/government
agency
–
25
Private
company
examples
–
Tetra
Pak,
Camco,
Max
Hamburger,
Coca
Cola,
Shell,
Marriot,
Moore
Corpora-on,
Exxon
Mobile,
coffee
industries,
DAWASCO,
Brass
LNG,
MTV
Staying
Alive
Campaign
Non-­‐profit
examples
–
SNV
Nepal,
WWF,
Moore
Founda-on
UN-­‐
IFAD,
UNDP,
UNESCO
Carbon
markets

15. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
What
kinds
of
benefits
are
given
to
the
providers
of
the
ecosystem
services?
Payments
–
36
Services
–
58
In
kind
–
36
Other
–
19
Payments:
Cash
vouchers
–
1
Share
of
project
-­‐
4
In
kind:
Grants/loans
-­‐
1
Agricultural
inputs
–
21
Markets
for
products/premium
prices
–
3
Tools/training
books
–
4
New
jobs
–
1
Other:
Services:
Microfinance
loans
Educa-on
–
18
Access
to
markets
Professional
support/advisory
services
–
17
Access
to
family
planning
Capacity
building/training
–
19
Networking
Salaries/wages
for
local
employed
Almost
always
used
in
combina/on

16. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
Who
distributes
the
rewards
(or
is
designated
to)?
Community
based
ins-tu-ons
–
32
Private
organiza-on
–
15
Non-­‐profit
organiza-on
–
33
Body
or
agency
designed
for
that
purpose
–
17
Direct
payments
to
beneficiaries
–
17
Other-­‐4
Was
it
necessary
to
create
a
new
group/organiza/on
to
distribute
the
benefits
to
the
ES
providers?
Yes
–
22
No-­‐
33
N/A-­‐
12

17. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
On
what
kinds
of
contracts
is
the
RES
scheme
based?
Statutory
-­‐
32
Customary
-­‐
20
Specific
by-­‐laws
–
23
Other
-­‐
15
Please
explain
the
nature
of
the
contract(s)
for
the
ques/on
above?
Contracts
with
coopera-ves
Contracts
with
individual
farmers
Loan
subsidies
Contracts
with
villages
Contracts
nego-ated
with
village
chiefs
on
behalf
of
households

18. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
What
is
the
(planned)
reward
or
payment?
Environmental
benefits/conserva-on
-­‐
2
Rewards
per
village
–
3
Increased
produc-on
-­‐
2
Payments
to
household
–
12
Commission
based
Performance
based
/
percentage
of
profit
-­‐
2
BeUer
market
access,
premium
prices
-­‐
2
Savings

19. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
What
are
the
main
challenges
you
have
encountered?
Lack
of
knowledge/awareness
of
benefits-­‐
12
Is
the
project
providing
benefits?
Limited
(financial)
resources
-­‐
10
Tenure
-­‐
3
Accountability/lack
of
transparency
Weather/Drought
–
4
Timelines
–
2
Lack
of
regulatory
certainty/issues
around
carbon
markets
or
REDD
–
5
Organiza-onal/Monitoring
–
4
Changing
ajtudes
–
2
Transfer
of
cash
to
individuals
How
to
ensure
commitment
from
par-cipants
–
2
Big
landowners
oppose
because
want
access
to
cheap
labour
Coordina-on
between
local/na-onal/interna-onal
-­‐
5

20. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
What
kinds
of
conflicts
arise
(if
any)?
Villagers
disagree
on
money
distribu-on
Conflicts
of
interest/farmers
who
join
and
those
that
do
not
–
2
Horizontal
conflict
between
communi-es
(?)
Role
conflicts
Type
of
tree
to
plant
Integra-on
of
different
needs
Who
is
gejng
what
–
ensuring
equitable
benefit
sharing
-­‐
3
Opposi-on
from
different
interests
(ie
loggers
in
rainforest,
farmers
don’t
want
to
preserve
puma)
–
3
Land
rights
-­‐
3
Environmentally
damaging
ac-vity
of
outsiders
(ie
caUle
grazing)
Lack
of
trust
-­‐
2
Illegal
seUlements
Different
legal
interpreta-ons

21. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
How
is
compliance
with
the
scheme
enforced
and
what
kinds
of
sanc/ons
exist
for
non-­‐compliance?
Voluntary
-­‐
3
Compliance
enforced
by
law
and
contract
–
11
People
excluded
from
program
-­‐
3
Cessa-on
of
payments
–
5
Villages
and
villagers
monitor
each
other
-­‐
5
Monitored
by
organiza-on
-­‐
2
Monitored
by
third
party
(ie
audits)
–
2

22. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
Who
mediates
in
conflict
situa/ons?
Community
based
(elders,
councils,
CBO)
-­‐
13
Government
-­‐
12
Organiza-on
responsible
for
project
-­‐
7

23. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
Please
evaluate
the
success
rate
of
the
scheme
1
(not
successful)
to
5
(very
successful)
Range
Implemen-­‐ Fairness
Effec-ve-­‐ Cost
Poverty
Overall
ta-on
rate
distribu-on
ness
efficiency
reduc-on
evalua-on
1
1
4
3
4
4
2
2
13
7
7
11
6
9
3
11
9
6
12
9
10
4
16
10
23
14
13
20
5
15
19
18
12
18
18

24. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
Please
give
your
comments
or
sugges/ons
regarding
RES
or
this
survey
or
what
it
is
that
you
would
be
most
interested
in
receiving
informa/on
on
Details
of
successful
projects
A
transparency
and
accountability
mechanism
Package
of
relevant
policies
and
objec-ves
Regional
workshop/
networking
How
communi-es
share
benefits
/
criteria
used
to
determine
payments
How
to
get
projects
started
How
to
evaluate
ES
projects,
make
them
cost
effec-ve
and
adoptable
How
to
manage
mul--­‐stakeholder
or
mul--­‐ethnic
projects
How
many
projects
make
land
tenure
a
priority
How
to
build
and
finance
a
carbon
sequestra-on
project

25. Lessons
and
conclusions?
• Evolving
framework
from
PES
to
CIS
• Trade-­‐offs
between
effec-veness,
efficiency
and
equity
• Few
tenure
problems
reported:
can
schemes
be
developed
for
weaker
forms
of
tenure
• Not
possible
to
make
generaliza-ons
• Many
open
ques-ons
to
address

26. ¡¿
Thanks
for
a
future
!?