Upload
ccafs-cgiar-program-climate-change-agriculture-and-food-security
View
244
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Henry Neufeldt (ICRAF) Rewards for mitigation (presentation from Mitigation session at CCAFS Science Workshop, December 2010)
Citation preview
Rewards for mi-ga-on
Henry Neufeldt, ICRAF
Climate Change Adapta/on and Mi/ga/on in Agriculture
CCAFS Science Workshop
Playa del Carmen, 1-‐2 December 2010
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
Structure of PES mechanisms
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
Compensa/on and Rewards for Environmental Services (CRES)
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
Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing ES: Payments, compensa/on or co-‐investment?
Trade-‐offs in PES/CRES/CIS-‐COS-‐CES
Source: Mayrand and Paquin, 2004
Property and tenure rights
Source: Schlager and Ostrom, 1992
• 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.
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
RES ques/onnaire – ini/al analysis
What type of ecosystem services are rewarded?
Carbon -‐ 51 Water -‐ 33
Biodiversity -‐ 43 Other – 24
Several -‐ 40
RES ques/onnaire – ini/al analysis
How many households are you reaching (or planning to reach)?
10000+ 13 1001-‐9999 11 0-‐1000 38
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
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 Grants/loans -‐ 1
Markets for products/premium prices – 3 New jobs – 1
Services: Educa-on – 18
Professional support/advisory services – 17 Capacity building/training – 19
In kind: Agricultural inputs – 21 Tools/training books – 4
Other: Microfinance loans Access to markets
Access to family planning Networking
Salaries/wages for local employed
Almost always used in combina/on
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
RES ques/onnaire – ini/al analysis
On what kinds of contracts is the RES scheme based?
Please explain the nature of the contract(s) for the ques/on above?
Statutory -‐ 32 Customary -‐ 20
Specific by-‐laws – 23 Other -‐ 15
Contracts with coopera-ves Contracts with individual farmers
Loan subsidies Contracts with villages
Contracts nego-ated with village chiefs on behalf of households
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
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
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
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
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
RES ques/onnaire – ini/al analysis
Please evaluate the success rate of the scheme 1 (not successful) to 5 (very successful)
Range Implemen-‐ta-on rate
Fairness distribu-on
Effec-ve-‐ness
Cost efficiency
Poverty reduc-on
Overall 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
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
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
¡¿ Thanks for a future !?