Transcript Document
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 Natural Capital & Properties that Come with the territory Dynamic Landscapes Implications Biodiversity and landscape beauty Water quantity, Evenness of flow & quality Absence of threats Mitigation Increase in filtering Terrestrial Carbon Storage Direct benefits functions Efforts Environmental Service Environmental Service Providers Beneficiaries Control of territory Recognition & rewards / transaction costs Source: van Noordwijk and Tomich, 2004
RUPES BIODIVERSITY CONCEPTUAL MODEL Implications Natural Capital & Properties that Come with the territory Dynamic Landscapes Biodiversity and landscape beauty Habitat loss Invasives
Pesticides use &pollution Hunting-over harvesting Connectivity Mitigation increase in filtering
Direct benefits
Absence of threats
Efforts Control of territory Environmental Service Providers Source: van Noordwijk, 2004 functions Environmental Service Beneficiaries Recognition & rewards / transaction costs
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
I
Stage Scoping Providers, sellers of ES Interme diaries Rapid As sessment of Marketable ES Beneficies, buyers of ES
II
Identifying partners
III IV
Negotia tions Monitoring agreement RUPES = Rewarding Upland Poor for the Environmental Services they provide
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title, start year and reference
IL Ngwesi Group Ranch (started 1996) ( www.uncha
rteredoutpo sts.com/afri ca/webpages /properties/I l_Ngenzi
Host Country and location
Kenya, East of Mukogodo, Laikipia District
Investors and intermediarie s
Ranch Owners, Lewa Conser., Borana Ranch
“Buyer” Source of funding funds Nature of Supplier and benefits
Tourists and the general public who use the eco lodge facilities and the cultural centre Funding: Income from its facilities and awards ($30,000 from Equator initiative Group Ranchers. Obtain direct payment as members, income through employment , improved social cohesion and long term ecosystems benefits like pasture for livestock
Policy/ Cultural Context
Wildlife Act of 1976 encourages conservatio n activities at community level and Maasai culture promote collective action
Other Details of the project
-partnership -Locally build and run -Tourist facilities project activity -Is both a tourism and eco-tourism project -Innovation and transferability -Leadership, empowerment, gender equality and social inclusion
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title, start year and reference Host Country and location Investors and intermediarie s “Buyer” Source of funding funds Nature of Supplier and benefits Policy/ Cultural Context Other project details
CAMPFIR E.
Started in 1980 Reference: Frost and Bond, 2005 Zimbabwe Implemente d in 37 districts with appropriate authority Rural communities , safari operators/co mpanies USAID Rights to bring sport hunters are sold to tour or safari operators RDCs and wildlife producer communities -benefits (not less than 50% to community from concession and trophy fees 1975 Parks and Wild Life Act, diverse culture and political upheavals CAMPFIR has transformed itself despite political upheavals -Project has relevant lessons for PES adoption in Africa
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title, start year and reference Host Country and location Investors and intermediarie s “Buyer” Source of funding funds Nature of Supplier and benefits Policy/ Cultural Context Other project details
CBNRM Started in 1996 www.met.gov
.na/program mes/cbnrm/E nhancing/ Namibia 30 Conservanci -es Spread across the country Rep. Governance Bodies formed by the communities , NASCO, MET, WWF, USAID & DFID -Tourists -Rights to bring sport hunters are sold to tour or safari operators Funding: WWF, USAID & DFID The communities who benefit either directly thro’ income , employment opportunitie s & tourism related enterprises Framework for establishing conservancie s were legislated in 1996 Project promotes: -partnership -technical assistance -grant management -monitoring & evaluation
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title, start year and reference Host Country and location Investors and intermediarie s “Buyer” Source of funding funds Nature of Supplier and benefits Policy/ Cultural Context Other project details
Arabuko/So koke Kipepeo Project Started in 1993 www.worldb
ank.org/afr/ afr_for/inter im/skenya 3html Kenya, Near Gedi Ruins, Malindi, Coast Province Local community, East African Natural History, National Museums of Kenya, UNDP GEF, IUCN Pupae is sold to European market -Tourists who enjoying watching birds, monkeys Communitie s from Roka, Matsangoni, Mida, Mijomboni Benefits: Direct financial benefits from butterfly collection and eco tourism Forestry Bill and EMCA, 1996 -152 households participate in the project -Problems of seasonality, cash flow problems and de gazettement because settlement and agricultural development
OVERVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY PROJECTS IN AFRICA
Project Title, start year and reference Host Country and location Investors and intermediarie s “Buyer” Source of funding funds Nature of Supplier and benefits Policy/ Cultural Context Other project details
Wildlife Lease program Started in 2000 Reference: Gichohi, 2003); www.conser
vationfinanc e.org/WPC/ WPC_docu ments/APPs _09_Gichohi _V2.pdf
Kenya, Kitengela, Kajiado District (20km fro City Centre and to the South of Nairobi National Park) Wildlife Trust, FoNNAP, TWF, KWS (Promotes an ecosystem approach to ) wildlife management FoNNAP buys land use rights (partial and along animal migratory routes) from the Maasai FoNNAP The community supplier land for conservation while they are paid $4per/acre per year Land used for both livestock and wildlife Policy and regulatory ‘terrain’ is contradictor y because of the several laws operating within the project: Wildlife Act(1976), Agric Act (Cap.318), EMCA, 1999 -Project relies on biophysical research for decision making -Monitors the ecosystem and households -Does not have reliable and sustainable 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