Docstoc

PES - the Katoomba Group

Document Sample
PES - the Katoomba Group Powered By Docstoc
					Payment for Environmental Services: A
 Review of Payments for Biodiversity
Services and their Impacts on the Poor
               in Africa

      Brent Swallow and Thomas Yatich
       Environmental Services Theme

           September 2005
                Introduction
Objective of presentation
Is to Review payments for Biodiversity Services in
   Africa Using a RUPES Lens
Outline
   -Biodiversity in the context of CBD
   – van Noordwijk and Tomich framework from
       RUPES
   – Some quick review of cases
   – Implications for future research and development
   (Hypothesis of PES and Biodiversity Conservation;
     Lessons for PES; Gaps and Challenges)
     PBS: Context of Multilateral Agreements
•3 Pillars of CBD are: Conservation, Sustainable
use and benefit sharing yet….
The concept of benefit sharing is narrow.

•Though, article 11 provides for states to:
“…as far as possible and as appropriate, adopt
economically and socially sound measures that
act as incentives for the conservation and
sustainable use of components of biological
diversity.”(CBD, 1992).

•Local/National Values of Biodiversity are not
covered by Intern. Conventions or commitments
•Recognition is Sub-optimal and “Regulatory”
       FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE
PES is appealing but its practice is far from simple
and Implementation Differs from one country to
another. Common to them all are …
Buyers, sellers, investors, supporters and
intermediaries

Van Noordwijk and Tomich (2004) provide the
Conceptual Foundations for PES programs using
RUPES Approach premised upon ability to:
•Generates finance and incentives for services providers
•Improve Mkts and prices by valuing ecosystems according
to their real worth
•Provide rewards and cover costs of ecosystem
conservation
•Improve livelihoods through income generation
RUPES GENERAL CONCEPTUAL MODEL
                                                  Implications

  Natural Capital &                              Biodiversity and
   Properties that                              landscape beauty
   Come with the
      territory              Dynamic             Water quantity,
                             Landscapes        Evenness of flow &
                                                    quality

                                                Terrestrial Carbon
                        Mitigation
 Absence of                                          Storage
                       Increase in
   threats               filtering   Direct benefits                 functions

            Efforts         Environmental                   Environmental
                               Service                         Service
                              Providers                     Beneficiaries
Control of territory
                                    Recognition & rewards /
                                   transaction costs
Source: van Noordwijk and Tomich, 2004
 RUPES BIODIVERSITY CONCEPTUAL MODEL
                                  Implications

   Natural Capital &                                         Biodiversity and
    Properties that                                         landscape beauty
    Come with the
       territory                    Dynamic
                                    Landscapes

    Habitat loss
                                Connectivity
      Invasives
Pesticides use   Hunting-over      Mitigation
&pollution       harvesting        increase in
                                   filtering     Direct benefits                functions
   Absence of
   threats          Efforts       Environmental                        Environmental
                                     Service                              Service
Control of territory                Providers                          Beneficiaries

                                                    Recognition & rewards /
                                                   transaction costs
Source: van Noordwijk, 2004
                IMPLEMENTATION
• Contextual Scenario Leading to PES adoption:
  Increasing awareness of environmental cause and
  effect, the interdependence of stakeholder
  livelihoods, and the potential for economic gain
• Leading to a Negotiation Process to: Identify service
  providers and beneficiaries and assess the relevant
  property rights
• Is there a process to develop PES Approach for
  Adoption?
Four stages in developing ES reward mechanisms
      Stage          Providers,       Interme-       Beneficies,
                    sellers of ES      diaries      buyers of ES
 I    Scoping                         Rapid As-
                                     sessment of
                                    Marketable ES
      Identifying
 II   partners
      Negotia-
III
      tions
      Monitoring
IV    agreement
                     RUPES = Rewarding Upland Poor for the
                     Environmental Services they provide
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title,   Host          Investors       “Buyer”        Nature of       Policy/        Other Details of
start year       Country and   and             Source of      Supplier and    Cultural       the project
and              location      intermediarie   funding        benefits        Context
reference                      s               funds
IL Ngwesi        Kenya, East   Ranch           Tourists and   Group           Wildlife Act   -partnership
Group            of            Owners,         the general    Ranchers.       of 1976        -Locally build
Ranch            Mukogodo,     Lewa            public who     Obtain          encourages     and run
(started         Laikipia      Conser.,        use the eco-   direct          conservatio    -Tourist
1996)            District      Borana          lodge          payment as      n activities   facilities-
(www.uncha
                               Ranch           facilities     members,        at             project activity
rteredoutpo                                    and the        income          community
                                               cultural       through         level and      -Is both a
sts.com/afri                                                                                 tourism and
ca/webpages                                    centre         employment      Maasai
                                                              , improved      culture        eco-tourism
/properties/I                                  Funding:                                      project
l_Ngenzi                                       Income         social          promote
                                               from its       cohesion        collective     -Innovation
                                               facilities     and long-       action         and
                                               and awards     term                           transferability
                                               ($30,000       ecosystems                     -Leadership,
                                               from           benefits like                  empowerment,
                                               Equator        pasture for                    gender equality
                                               initiative     livestock                      and social
                                                                                             inclusion
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA

Project        Host          Investors and   “Buyer”        Nature of      Policy/          Other project
Title, start   Country and   intermediarie   Source of      Supplier and   Cultural         details
year and       location      s               funding        benefits       Context
reference                                    funds



CAMPFIR        Zimbabwe      Rural           Rights to      RDCs and       1975 Parks       -Project has
E.             Implemente    communities     bring sport    wildlife       and Wild         relevant
Started in     d in 37       , safari        hunters are    producer       Life Act,        lessons for
1980           districts     operators/co    sold to tour   communities    diverse          PES
Reference:     with          mpanies         or safari      -benefits      culture and      adoption in
Frost and      appropriate   USAID           operators      (not less      political        Africa
Bond, 2005     authority                                    than 50% to    upheavals-
                                                            community      CAMPFIR
                                                            from           has
                                                            concession     transformed
                                                            and trophy     itself despite
                                                            fees           political
                                                                           upheavals
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title,   Host          Investors and   “Buyer”        Nature of      Policy/         Other project
start year and   Country and   intermediarie   Source of      Supplier and   Cultural        details
reference        location      s               funding        benefits       Context
                                               funds



CBNRM            Namibia       Rep.            -Tourists      The            Framework       Project
Started in       30            Governance      -Rights to     communities    for             promotes:
1996             Conservanci   Bodies          bring sport    who benefit    establishing    -partnership
www.met.gov      -es Spread    formed by       hunters are    either         conservancie    -technical
.na/program      across the    the             sold to tour   directly       s were          assistance
mes/cbnrm/E      country       communities     or safari      thro’ income   legislated in
                               , NASCO,                       ,              1996            -grant
nhancing/                                      operators                                     management
                               MET,            Funding:       employment
                               WWF,                           opportunitie                   -monitoring
                                               WWF,                                          &
                               USAID &         USAID &        s & tourism
                               DFID                           related                        evaluation
                                               DFID
                                                              enterprises                    -
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title,   Host          Investors and   “Buyer”     Nature of      Policy/     Other project
start year and   Country and   intermediarie   Source of   Supplier and   Cultural    details
reference        location      s               funding     benefits       Context
                                               funds


Arabuko/So       Kenya,        Local           Pupae is    Communitie Forestry Bill   -152
koke             Near Gedi     community,      sold to     s from Roka, and EMCA,     households
Kipepeo          Ruins,        East African    European    Matsangoni, 1996           participate
Project          Malindi,      Natural         market      Mida,                      in the
Started in       Coast         History,        -Tourists   Mijomboni                  project
1993             Province      National        who         Benefits:                  -Problems of
www.worldb                     Museums of      enjoying    Direct                     seasonality,
ank.org/afr/                   Kenya,          watching    financial                  cash flow
afr_for/inter                  UNDP GEF,       birds,      benefits                   problems
im/skenya-                     IUCN            monkeys     from                       and de-
3html                                                      butterfly                  gazettement
                                                           collection                 because
                                                           and eco-                   settlement
                                                           tourism                    and
                                                                                      agricultural
                                                                                      development
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title,   Host          Investors and   “Buyer”        Nature of      Policy/        Other project
start year and   Country and   intermediarie   Source of      Supplier and   Cultural       details
reference        location      s               funding        benefits       Context
                                               funds

Wildlife         Kenya,        Wildlife        FoNNAP-        FoNNAP         Policy and     -Project
Lease            Kitengela,    Trust,          buys land      The            regulatory     relies on
program          Kajiado       FoNNAP,         use rights     community      ‘terrain’ is   biophysical
Started in       District      TWF, KWS        (partial and   supplier       contradictor   research for
2000             (20km fro     (Promotes       along          land for       y because of   decision-
Reference:       City Centre   an              animal         conservation   the several    making
Gichohi,         and to the    ecosystem       migratory      while they     laws           -Monitors
2003);           South of      approach to     routes) from   are paid       operating      the
www.conser       Nairobi       wildlife        the Maasai     $4per/acre     within the     ecosystem
vationfinanc     National      management                     per year-      project:       and
e.org/WPC/       Park)         )                              Land used      Wildlife       households
WPC_docu                                                      for both       Act(1976),     -Does not
ments/APPs                                                    livestock      Agric Act      have reliable
_09_Gichohi                                                   and wildlife   (Cap.318),     and
_V2.pdf                                                                      EMCA,          sustainable
                                                                             1999           sources of
                                                                                            income
Hypotheses on PES and Biodiversity Conservation
in Africa
 •The Rate for the adoption of PES would be higher than the rate of
 the adoption of ICDPs in Africa in terms of cost, institutional
 arrangements, regulatory and policy frameworks.
 •Through PES, substantial conservation of biodiversity for national
 and global benefits can be achieved amongst mosaics of land uses
 allowing for multiple and beneficial sources of income from different
 land uses for the achievement of Millennium Development Goals
 (MDGs).
 •Resilience of an environmental service reward scheme depends on
 the ability to monitor its performance based on contextual dynamics,
 learn from the experience and adjust as well as allowing for
 transferability.
 •The adoption of PES in Africa helps in not only perpetuating the
 benefits of social welfare, environmental integrity but also
 environmental justice
 •Reducing threats and Maintaining connectivity between protected
 and dispersal areas creates opportunities for habitat/land restoration
 or rehabilitation.
       Lessons for PES & Biodiversity

• There is potential for Innovation and transferability of PES
approaches in Africa because they can improve livelihoods
& promote environmental integrity

•Gender equity and social inclusion improves locally
initiated and run enterprises biodiversity projects

Other Lessons based on CAMPFIRE (Frost and Bond, 2005)
•Flexibility in terms of form, function, rules and objectives
•Allow diversity based on contextual differences
•Recognize the complexity of Institutional arrangements for
PES and consider and accommodate divergent opinion
•High uncertainty increases transaction costs
•Success and failure
•Complexity can be distracting-put things in perspective
                 Gaps and Challenges
• Unconvincing evidence on links to development objectives, equity,
  improved livelihoods
• No evidence of an enabling policy environment – the interplay
  between various policies (esp. economic and natural resources),
  inadequacy of legal, personnel and regimes structures affect the
  adoption of PES
• Convincing evidence that unclearly defined Property Rights affect
  negotiations and implementation of service rewards
• The costs of negotiating, contracting, implementing, and
  monitoring a PES project are very high
• Within dynamic landscapes, no convincing arguments to show
  that landowners choices would be influenced by the introduction
  of PES

• No convincing evidence that people’s living standards have
  improved under a baseline or status quo scenario

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:8/16/2011
language:English
pages:16