Upload
gonzalo-molina-fidalgo
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Marcela Quintero
CIAT’s Ecosystem Services Strategic Initiative
August 3, 2015Hanoi, Vietnam
E-mail [email protected]
Introduction
Growing interest of research and political sectors globally on understanding the socioeconomic and environmental implications of the increasing loss of ecosystem services in degrading/degraded landscapes (Nkonya et al.,2011).
•The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)•The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB, 2014)•Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
The Importance ofEcosystem Services in Agriculture• Crop yields rely on the provision of ecosystem services,
which can be negatively or positively affected by agriculture, depending on the practices applied for managing crop systems and agricultural landscapes.
• Farmers can be beneficiaries of ecosystem services or coadjutants in their provision.
• Proper management practices at the crop field and landscape level may turn these disservices into ES, with agriculture becoming an ES provider benefiting other actors or sectors.
• Bommarco et al. (2013) presented the important relation between supporting and regulating ES and yield gaps
Selected ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (ED) from and to agriculture (adapted from Stallman, 2011)
What ecosystem services is CIATlooking at, where, and for whom?
Ecosystem Services in the CIAT research agenda
Ecosystem Services in the CIAT research agenda
Ecosystem Services Research Agenda
• Development of tools and methodologies to quantify and map ES associated with different land-uses in agricultural landscapes.
• Economic valuation of ES that benefit agriculture and ES impacted by agriculture to determine the level of investment and incentives required for protecting ecosystem services provided in agricultural landscapes.
• Identification and assessment of alternative land-use and management practices based on their impacts on ES. A special contribution of CIAT on providing scientific evidence on the role of agriculture in both providing and using ES efficiently.
1. Demonstrate delivery2. Put it on the map3. Value the benefits,
measure the threats4. Assess alternative land-
use practices5. Support institutional
innovations
To maintain:
Ecosystem Services Research Agenda
• Direct and indirect contributions of ES to food security, nutrition, and well-being in impoverished rural areas.
• The impact of plausible socioeconomic and climate change scenarios on ES provision.
• Regional and global analyses on the state of knowledge, policy, and action to improve the provision of ES in agricultural landscapes.
1. Demonstrate delivery2. Put it on the map3. Value the benefits,
measure the threats4. Assess alternative land-
use practices5. Support institutional
innovations
To strength:
What ES should be targeted?
Some examples
• Assessment of Conservation Agriculture in the Colombian Andes• Payment for Ecosystem Services in Peru• Sustainable Amazonian Landscapes• Environmental fooprinting• ASSETS: Linkages between Food Security, Human well-being and
Ecosystem Services
Assessment of Conservation Agriculture in the Colombian Andes
Conservation agriculture
Rotation with cover crop
Minimun soil disturbance
Minimun soil disturbance
Permanent land cover
Understanding on-site impacts of conservation tillage
12
T re a tme n t 1 T re a tme n t 2
1 2
H o rizo n
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
% v
olum
etri
c w
ater
Conservation agriculture
Traditional agriculture
% V
olum
etric
Wat
erMore water stored, restoring the buffer
role of paramo
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
1 2 3 4
Size fraction
AO
M (
g/g
)
RT-Horizon 1 CT-Horizon 1 RT-Horizon 2 CT-Horizon 2
Conservation agriculture
Traditional agriculture
Accu
mul
ated
Org
anic
M
atter
(g/g
)
Better soil porosity, filtration, increased
carbon storage
Impact of conservation tillage on soil and water conservation
Resilient system
Quintero et al. 2010
“Reduced tillage and cover crops in potato-based systems improved in a 7-year period the soil organic matter and carbon content in disturbed soils of the páramos of Colombia. The soil carbon concentration in the whole pro-file was 29% higher under conservation tillage than un-der conventional tillage sites and the carbon content was higher by 33%.” (Quintero and Comerford, 2013)
Impact of conservation tillage (CT) on nutrient and soil loss in Colombia
• Effects of CT can not be generalized
• The results showed statistical differences across crops in some, but not all, crop cycles
• Longer-term observations are required to evaluate the impact of the whole rotation
• Depend upon the type of soil and precipitation conditions as well as the fertilizer application timing
Nutrient and sediment losses are generally lower in Inceptisols than in Andosols
CT seems to have a positive effect on reducing nutrient losses in Inceptisols
Due mainly to significant higher nutrient concentrations in runoff water and sediments from potato-IT than potato-CT
Nutrient losses vs. permissible levels
How to achieve reductions in nutrient losses?• Efforts to reduce soil losses had to be combined with adjustment of
nutrient application rates• The reduction of nutrient loss is not achieved via reducing soil loss
ab
a a
b
ab
aba
Residues from precedent cover crop in potato-CT does not limit soil loss relative to potato-IT, especially during those specific events when highest loss typically occurs
Impactos en la cuenca
Institutions for Rewards for Ecosystem Services mechanisms in Peru
Peruvian case study, Canete River watershed – Current situation
Desired situation: REWARDING for ES
Transfer part of their benefits
Investment in conservation alternatives
Watershed’s socioeconomic asymmetries might be balanced by this benefit-sharing mechanism
Research Highlights: Putting the pieces together for designing a PES
Where payments should be targeted to?Identification of service providing areas using hydrological modeling
What should be the payments amount to be made by ES beneficiaries?Estimation of economic value of watershed services for different ES users:
Valuation of water-related ecosystem services*Type of downstream water user
Value of the WES
Current price of water
Irrigated Agriculture (US$ m3) 0.29512 0.023664 Tourism (US$/ind) 15.75 n.a.Urban users Domestic (US$ mon-1) 3.5 3.1 - 15 Commercial (US$ mon-1) 5 6.3 - 44.4
These values are reference values to be used for anticipated negotiation processes.
How payments should be used?Ecosystem conservation measures and social development projects.
Se debería crear un fondo para la gestión del rio Cañete - Pobladores
No9%
Si91%
Creation of a trust fund to provide rewards and incentives for conserving upper watershed ecosystems
Quienes deberia ser los aportantes? - Pobladores
56%
16%
13%
8%
4% 2% 1%Agricultores
Industria - Comercio
Recaudación publica
Hidroeléctrica
Minería
Camisea
Turismo
Who should contribute to the trust fund?
Requirements for the RES schemes design and implementation
• Targeting actions: What and where?• Economic values of ES for the demand as a reference value to negotiate
contributions to a ES Fund• Willingness to pay • Enabling the legal environment• Enabling institutional environment
Progress towards implementation
Quintero, M., Pareja, P., Rivera, G. (Forthcoming).
What is impeding the implementation of RES schemes in watersheds of Peru?
Falta de claridad sobre cuál es la estructura institucional viable y efectiva que administrará la retribución
Municipalidad
EPS
Facultad de recaudación a través de tributos
Facultad de disposición de recursos determinados (FONCOMUN, CANON, etc.)
Facultad de recaudación a través de la tarifa de agua
Facultad de recaudación a través de un cobro voluntario anexado al recibo de agua
Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo Municipal
Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo privado o mixto
Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo privado o mixto
Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo Municipal
Facultad de crear una cuenta independiente.
Facultad de invertir los recursos a través de SNIP
Facultad de hacer retribuciones directas a los caodyuvantes o por subvenciones
Institución Independiente(Empresa privada/ONG/Juntas de Riego)
Facultad de recaudar recursos públicos
Falta de lineamientos para el diseño de mecanismos de RSEH
Gobernabilidad
Facultad de invertir los recursos a través de SNIP
Facultad de hacer retribuciones directas a los caodyuvantes o por subvenciones
Facultad para celebrar contratos y/o acuerdos en tierras con y sin título.
Facultad para celebrar contratos y/o acuerdos en tierras con y sin título.
Capacidad operativa débil e insolvencia económica
Alta morosidad en el pago de tributos
Consejos o Comités de Recursos Hídricos (ANA)
Aun débil capacidad de gestión y gobernanza
Se requiere reconocimiento como cuenca prioritaria por el ANA
Falta claridad sobre el rol y/o las facultades que podrían tener en los mecanismos de RSEH
Grupo impulsor /Comité gestor /Grupo técnico de gestión
Nivel de articulación con la institucionalidad creada por el ANA
Empresa de Luz: Facultad para recuadrar a través de la tarifa de luz o cobro voluntario anexo
Necesidad o no de personería jurídica
DESIGNDIAGNOSTIC
Falta de recursos para la realización de estudios de diagnóstico
Escasa disponibilidad de información técnico-científica
NEGOTIATION OF BENEFIT-SHARING AGREEMENTS
Escasos incentivos para estimular involucramiento de la empresa privada
Potencial de recaudación no explotado (1 beneficiario)
Voluntariedad de la retribución
Falta de recursos para fortalecer las estrategias de comunicación
IMPLEMENTATION
Recursos recaudados insuficientes
Falta de planes financieros
Aportación de beneficiarios no recurrentes y con expectativas de cambio a corto plazo
Inapropiado conocimiento sobre la relación ecosistema - agua
Falta de propuestas técnicas efectivas para la conservación y/o recuperación de SEH
Falta de organizaciones a quien se les delegue la implementación técnica de las alternativas para proveer SEH
Legal bottlenecks
• Inability to transfer voluntary contribution from urban water users to an indenpendent Fund for PES
• How to channel public resources of local governments into PES funds?
• How to ensure sustainability of the fund –voluntary vs mandatory?
Legal and institutional bottlenecks
• Financial independence
• Lack of trust on current organizations
• Lack of guidelines on how to establish new institutions for operating RES (rules and organizations)
Quien debería ser el administrador del fondo - pobladores
EMAPA - Cañete24%
Municipalidad9%
Crear Nueva66%
Otra existente1%
Who should manage the ES trust fund?
RES implementation requires multisectoral coordination for operating
• There is a lack of an institutional structure for an integrated watershed management
• National policy on water resources proposed the creation of watershed councils, however the process of creation is incipient and lack a specific funding for its funtioning
• How to articulate RES into future wateshed councils? intersectorial coordination and need for official guidelines
SERNANP: National Service ofProtected Areas
Local water authority / National water authority
Analysis of bottlenecks in the implementation of Rewards for Ecosystem Services schemes in watersheds of Peru
Overcoming bottlenecks for RES implementation
New Law on RES• Offical recognition of RES,
eventhough are voluntary
• Definition of RES: Rewards and incentives
• Avoid perverse incentives
• Enable transfer of urban water users contributions into RES funds
• Highlights the importance of articulating PES with existing land and water use/management plans
• Offical recognition of RES, eventhough are voluntary
• Definition of RES: Rewards and incentives
• Avoid perverse incentives
• Enable transfer of urban water users contributions into RES funds
• Highlights the importance of articulating PES with existing land and water use/management plans
Remaining gaps
• How to become voluntary contributions in a legally binding to ensure continuity
• Management design that guarantees independency and transparency
• How to become voluntary contributions in a legally binding to ensure continuity
• Management design that guarantees independency and transparency
Canete institutional arrangement for implementation
• Creation of ad-hod watershed committee for PES governance transition towards watershed councils
• National organization that currently manages conservation project will manage the PES Fund
• High replicability potential
• Creation of ad-hod watershed committee for PES governance transition towards watershed councils
• National organization that currently manages conservation project will manage the PES Fund
• High replicability potential
Project components
Mul
ti-sc
ale
appr
oach