20
Legal and Policy Framework for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Thailand Orapan Nabangchang Presented by Radda Larpnun Regional workshop on Payment for Environmental Services Hanoi, Vietnam 24-25 November 2014

Legal and Policy Framework for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Thailand

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Legal and Policy Framework

for Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)

in Thailand

Orapan NabangchangPresented by

Radda Larpnun

Regional workshop on Payment for Environmental Services

Hanoi, Vietnam

24-25 November 2014

Outline of presentation

• The experience of date

• On-going PES Projects

in Thailand

• 20 Steps in the design

and implementation

process

• Legal aspects of PES in

Thailand

• Conclusion

2

The experience to date

• Most of the funding for natural resources conservation is primarily CSR investments that result in producing ecosystems services.

• Villagers involved in conservation activities are more like wageworkers and not quite fitting the definition of service providers.

• Challenge is to demonstrate the direct and indirect benefits of ecosystems services so as to create real demands for the provision of ecosystems services which will be more difficult than fund raising for wildlife

• Inpaeng community project has all the components of a PES project That is, there are services providers involved in reforestation and sellers and there are baselines from which to measure the ‘additionally’. But why did this experience never take off elsewhere?

• Thailand doesn’t really have a ‘PES’ project

3

16 PES projects

at the design stage

4

A review of the legal and policy framework for payments for ecosystem services (PES) in Thailand 5

BEDO (Thung Jo – water

stream)

CBFCM(Mae Sa)

CATSPA (Doi Intanon

National Park)

CATSPA

(Klong-lan National Park)

CATSPA

(Huai Kha Khaneng Wildlife

Sanctuary)

BEDO–Klong Prasong,

Krabi province (Man-

grove Forest)

CATSPA

(Tarutao National Park)

ECOBEST

CBFCM Project

(Koh Phangnan)

BEDO–Chumporn

province (Mangrove

Forest)

CBFCM Project –

(Tha Chin River)

CATSPA (Eastern Forest)

BEDO (Ang Rea Nai

Wildlife Sanctuary)

ECOBEST (Dong

Phayayen-Khao Yai)

CBFCM Project

(Lam Se Bai) Ubon Ratchathani

province

Nakorn Pathom &

Samutsakorn Provincet

THAILAND’S

NATIONAL PARKS,

WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES

AND NON-HUNTING AREAS

National Park

Wildlife Sanctuary

Marine National Park

Non-Hunting Area

Map Design & Artwork © David Unkovich 1999

Modif ed from a Royal Forest Departement Map

Map 1. Location of ongoing PES projects in Thailand.

be measured and how they can be monitored. For example, cameras will be installed at the locations of the water sources, mineral licks and food patches, and through the use of GPS systems, the villagers (service providers) will collect data on the number, timing and type of wildlife that benef t from these resources. T is will provide concrete evidence of the improvement in the ecosystems – and will reduce the incidence of crop raiding by elephants, resulting in less damage to crops and property and reduction in the levels of fear of raids by elephants among local people.

Implementation costs. T e cost of launching this pilot PES project is divided into two categories: (i)

investment costs for the various proposed activities and (ii) costs for monitoring and evaluation.

Service providers. T e service providers are local people from six villages that border the sanctuary. T e majority of the 2247 households are af ected by elephants raiding crops. For these households the damage costs from crops grown (such as cassava, rice and rubber) property damage and medical expenses related to elephant crop-raiding incidences was equivalent to between 14 and 34% of their average household income. When asked if they would be interested in participating in activities to restore the ecosystem within the sanctuary, more than 90% of the 200 villagers interviewed said that they would be

On-going PES Projects in Thailand (DNP)

Area Legal concerns Ecosystems services Project

Proponent

Initial

Source of

Funding

Catalyzing Sustainability of Thailand’s Protected Area System

Watershed forest

about 300,000 rai

in 3 villages

(Mae Ga-Luang, Pa

Morn, Khun Klang),

Chiang Mai

Site located in protected

area (Doi Inthanon

National Park)

Watershed DNP UNDP-GEF

Nakhon Sawan

Site located in Klong Lan

National Park and Huey

Kha Kaeng Wildlife

Sanctuary

Wildlife habitat DNP UNDP-GEF

Mae Wong National Park Wildlife habitat

Watershed

DNP UNDP-GEF

Satun Province:

Southern Region

Tarutao Marine National

Park

Eco-tourism and

recreational value

DNP UNDP-GEF

Eastern Forest

Complex

3 Wildlife Sanctuaries

and 5 National Parks

Wildlife habitat and

watershed

DNP UNDP-GEF

5

On-going PES Projects in Thailand (REO)

Area Legal concerns Ecosystems services Project

Proponent

Initial Source

of Funding

Community Forestry Based Catchment Management

Mae Sa

watershed, Chiang

Mai

Protected Area Watershed

Recreation

REO UNDP-GEF

Lam Sebai

Community Forest,

Northeast Thailand

Community Forest, Water supply and

water purification

functions

REO UNDP-GEF

Tha Chin river

outlet, Central

Thailand

Private land Water quality

improvement

Mangroves’ coastal

protection function; fish

spawning ground and

habitat

REO UNDP-GEF

Phangan Island,

Southern Thailand

Site located in Marine

National Park

Mangroves

Coral reefs

REO UNDP-GEF

6

On-going PES Projects in Thailand (BEDO)

7

Area Legal concerns Ecosystems

services

Project Proponent

Initial Source of

Funding

Ang Rue Nai Wildlife

Sanctuary (ARNWS)

Site located in

wildlife sanctuary

therefore has high

level of restriction

regarding access

Wildlife habitat Biodiversity-

Economy-Based

Development

Organization

(BEDO)

Not yet identified

Klong prasom: Krabi Property rights

unclear

Mangroves BEDO Local villagers

who benefit

Thung Jor, Chiang

Mai

Site located in

wildlife sanctuary

therefore has high

level of restriction

regarding access

Watershed BEDO Provincial Water

Work

Pathiu district,

Chumphon

Property rights

unclear

Mangroves BEDO CPF a

subsidiary of CP

Santisuk district,

Nan Province

Property rights

unclear

BEDO CPF a

subsidiary of CP

On-going PES Projects in Thailand (ECO-BEST)

8

Area Legal concerns Ecosystems

services

Project

Proponent

Initial Source

of Funding

Dong Phayayen-

Khao Yai Complex

Site locate

Protected Area

therefore has

high level of

restriction

regarding access

Watershed ECO-BEST EU, German

Government,

RTG,

Helmholtz

university

Klong Nadi,

Nakhon Sri

Thammarat

Property rights

unclear

Watershed ECO-BEST EU, German

Government,

RTG,

Helmholtz

university

A detailed look at one of the pilot sites under CBFCM: MAESA Pilot Project

9

Target area and justification

Watershed area in Pong Yang district which is the watershed of Mae Sa river

Area is rich in biodiversity

High risk of forest encroachment

High risk of forest fires

Intensifying problems of water contamination from agricultural chemicals in the upstream area and from elephant

sanctuary located in the midstream area

Increasing competition for water use for agriculture, tourism and households

Ecosystems Services Watershed functions

Recreation-ecotourism

Activity Forest patrol to reduce rate of encroachment

Making and maintaining forest fire lines

Restoring watershed forests

Increase efficiency in water usage (reduce water shortage downstream)

Indicator Reduced incidences of forest fire

Increasing biodiversity

Reduced area of degraded forests

Services Provider Local communities in Pong Yang Sub-district

Beneficiaries of ES (potential buyers) Water users in the midstream and downstream area (households, tourism sector)

Information gap There is inadequate baseline information on the status quo situation:

Rate of deforestation

Statistics on the incidences of forest fires

Biodiversity resources

Water flow

Water quality

Volume of water uses among different users

Economic Analysis of ES Needs to be undertaken both the benefits of ecosystems services as well as the costs, i.e., costs for undertaking

conservation activities and opportunity costs for land use changes or changes in agricultural practices

Capacity Building Needs Technical skills in undertaking conservation activities

Technical skills in collecting, compiling and analyzing the scientific information

Training on economic valuation

Management skills

Legal and Institutional issues Site is located in a Protected Area (Doi Suthep Pui National Park) and hence the issue of legitimacy of occupants and

entitlement to be receiving reward and/or compensation

The 20 steps in the design and

implementation process

Step The progress

1 Selecting the geographical area

2 Cataloging the ES to be supplied

3 Identifying the sources of ES demand

4 Identifying potential ES supply

5 Defining the type and degree of agent

6 Selecting the ES buyers

7 Securing funds to pay for the ES

8 Determining the types of returns to ES suppliers

9 Bio-physical modeling

10 Estimating marginal benefits of supply10Source: Jeff Bennett. Crawford School Australian National University

The 20 steps (continued)

11

Step The progress

11 Estimating individual marginal cost

12 Developing the payment system

13 Selecting the ES suppliers

14 Determining the payments from buyer

15 Establishing the payment transfer mechanism

16 Determining the supplier measure

17 Establishing a monitoring

18 Establishing a penalty non-compliance

19 Contracting the ES

20 Assessing the PES scheme

Source: Jeff Bennett. Crawford School Australian National University

12

Legal aspects of PES in Thailand

• There is at present, no legal framework that directly concerns PES.

• There are laws that are relevant to the specific types of land, which are likely to be PES sites.

• Almost all of the PES and PES-like projects are located in public land which are covered by different pieces of legislation and varying levels of protection

• Existing legal framework is not ‘enabling’ by nature.

• Some amendments or exemptions will have to be made to allow service providers to carry out measures in public areas where there are ‘legal’ entry restrictions.

13

• If the starting point is to pass a law, then it will be a long and drawn out process.

• However, the policy framework is supportive and there are laws which recognizes the role of local communities in natural resources management which can be used as references for ‘relaxing’ the restrictions imposed by the laws that aim first and foremost to protect the natural resources.

14

Legal aspects of PES in Thailand

Conclusion

• Though lagging behind other countries in this

Region, Thailand has benefited from the PES

experiences of other countries.

• The on-going projects, though in their very

earlier stages, demonstrated the complexities

involved and stakeholders are already starting

their learning processes.

15

• Some of the projects discussed in this report, though called PES projects are essentially a modified form of CSR. There is nothing wrong with CSR projects, do not address missing markets, nor create incentives to undertake conservation measures on a sustainable basis.

• The existing legal framework though not explicitly endorsing the concept of creating incentives for service providers (particularly local communities), can be relaxed in specific cases if this would enable the implementation of pilot projects.

• Anticipating criticisms that PES can be used as a tool for legitimizing occupants in Protected Area, it must be made clear that payment is:• conditional,

• Involvement does not in increase entitlement to property rights to land, or rights of access to natural resources.

16

Conclusion

• There is critical need for target group specific capacity building from

the national level down to local communities. Of critical need

appears to be training needs for those who are involved as

counterparts in both CATSPA and CBFCM projects

• One of the major challenges is to create recognition of the benefits

from ecosystems service.

• There is a need for a formal institutional framework to create

tangible incentives for the private sectors.

• Without strategic and innovative approaches to involve the

private sectors, CSR investments is most likely to be spread so

thin and serving publicity purposes of private companies with

little tangible outcome in improving the environment.

17

Conclusion

• there is high potential for poverty alleviation with

estimated number of forest-dependent people being

between 1 to 2 million people

• All PES sites were selected primarily on considerations

over the biophysical conditions of the sites.

• Although poverty alleviation was not the determining

factor for sites selection, income effect is an expected

outcome of all projects

18

Conclusion

• There is potential as well as need to use PES as

a tool for biodiversity conservation.

– At present, biodiversity conservation in Thailand relies

heavily on legal measures. Without effective control

measures, various pieces of legislations cited earlier

have their limitations.

19

Conclusion

Khob Khun Ka : Thank You : Ca’m O’n

[email protected]

[email protected]