Transcript R U P E S

REWARDING
THE UPLAND POOR (in Asia)
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
That They Provide
(R U P E S)
Marian S. delos Angeles
Environmental Policy Economist
International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Programme
Bogor, Indonesia
PRESENTATION
INRM and research and development in agro-forestry
RUPES
SETTING FOR DEVELOPING MARKETS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES:
INDONESIA
PHILIPPINES
VIETNAM
1. Participatory problem analysis
Food insecurity
 Increasingly poverty
 Degrading natural environments
2. INRM research (research on alternative solution)
3a. Production function
3c. Human well-being
3b. Ecosystem functions
 Quantity of food andfibre
 Quality
 Genetic x Environment
matching efficiency
 Risk management
 Participation of
resource users in
decisions




Nutrient cycling
Carbon sequestration
Biodiversity
Water balance
4. Tradeoffs and options
 Analysis of tradeoffs and competing interests
 Identification of ranges of flexible adaptive options
The INRM
research process
-the Consultative Group
on Agricultural Research
(CGIAR)
5. Outcomes




Extrapolation
Dissemination
Policy implementation
Wide-scale adoption
6. Feedback
rainfall
cloud
interception
canopy water
evaporation
transpiration
surface
evaporation
through-fall
stem-flow
Stream:
surface
run-off
{
quickflow
infiltration
recharge
lateral
outflow
uptake
surface
run-on
subsurface
lateral
inflow
base
flow
percolation
WHY Programme RUPES?

Benefits and costs of conservation are
borne unevenly
– beneficiaries do not pay
– providers do not get compensated
– costs are borne by disadvantaged groups
– in cases where payments are made, they
do not reach the poor providers
Evolving Consortium

Center for Int’l Forestry Research (CIFOR)

World Resources Institute (WRI)

World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Winrock International

Conservation International

Economy and Environment Program for
Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), IDRC

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

national level partners

other investors
OUTPUTS

identification of ES in a range of settings
– costs and benefits;
– distribution
– land use options

an array of mechanisms developed and tested with poor
communities that will reward them for ES supplied

transparent enabling institutional environment
– supported at various levels

awareness to enhance ES raised among government
officials, producers and consumers of these services

effective partnerships among consortium members and
regional, national and local organizations
WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES?

watershed protection services
( WPS)

biodiversity conservation (BCS)

carbon sequestration and
storage (CSS)
WHAT SERVICES?

watershed protection services ( WPS)
– hydrological functions
How much water?
When?
Where?
What quality?
– Upstream and downstream users
– Transboundary
WHAT SERVICES?

biodiversity conservation (BC)
– anthropogenic value, or human-centered
• use value
– consumption and production
– recreation, amenity
– option
• non-use value
– existence
– bequest
– intrinsic value
– local and non-locals
WHAT SERVICES?

carbon sequestration and storage
(CSS)
– stocks
– flows
– mostly global
WHICH REWARD MECHANISMS
for watershed protection?

market-based
– tradable water rights, marketable permits
– development of property rights
– bilateral agreements between providers and users

revenue share from surrogate markets
– electricity pricing
– water tariffs
– irrigation service fees


social recognition
public investments
WHICH REWARD
MECHANISMS for
biodiversity conservation?


share from bioprospecting/royalty fees
concessionary finance:
– DEBT FOR NATURE SWAP (FPE)
– DEVPT. ASSISTANCE (SIBP)

revenue from eco-tourism fees

direct payments for conservation easements

increased market access - eco-labeling
allocation from trust funds
tax breaks


WHICH REWARD
MECHANISMS
for carbon sequestration and
storage?


revenue from payments for carbon
credits/offsets
budget allocation from carbon taxes
WHICH GENERAL
MECHANISMS?


Tenure security
Trust funds
– general
– specific

Cross compliance mechanisms
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How can these services and their benefits
be quantified?
– amounts provided and how?
– WPS
• streamflows and water quality
• erosion and sediment transport
• impacts of changes in land-use
– BCS
• indices and scale
• levels and interactions
– CSS
• net impact; over-all land-use
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How are/will be the rewards made to
the providers?
– Who are the providers?
– economic costs of supplying these services
• financial and opportunity costs
– bundle rewards for jointly provided services?
– property rights

What are the amounts to be collected
from the beneficiaries, if any?
– Who are the gainers and how much?
– valuation of benefits from using these services
DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONS

What form and manner of collection
and reward?
–
–
–
–

mechanisms for payments
mechanisms for receiving the reward
forging agreements and NSS
monitoring of services, payments and
transfers
What are the institutional
requirements?
– policies
– types and levels of stakeholders
– reducing transactions costs
• (information, contracting, enforcement)
– forging partnerships
– establishing national facility ?
STRATEGY QUESTIONS

Which services, where?
– Current ICRAF sites
– Current IFAD sites
– Sites of collaborators

What levels of engagement?
– Collaboration with partners: site level & policy
• international: IUCN, WRI, Winrock Int’l, CFI, CI
• national: NARS governments; donors & lenders
• local: communities, lgu’s, ngo’s, civil society
– four years 2002-2006
– sites in Asia
• Phil, Indonesia, Vietnam (tentative, level 1)
• Thailand, China (tentative, level 2
• Nepal, India, etc. (tentative, level 3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
TRANSFER MECHANISMS

Two aspects :

PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES BY BENEFICIARIES

REWARD TO PROVIDERS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
RUPES Site Development Processes
Number of action pilot sites for environmental services agreements
Year
Level A sites for
Implementation
1
2
3
4
5
Total
+3
+3
.
.
6
Level B sites for
Assessment
6 assessed
3 selected
3 selected
4 assessed
.
.
.
10
No. of sites contingent on relevance, funding, partnerships
Application Domain
Fraction of poor
that can potentially
be reached
Only feasible for exceptional cases,
huge opportunities for nearly all
or somewhere in between?
How can we increase the
likelihood of ++ impacts for
many of the upland poor?
-- 0 + ++ +++
Net impact on livelihood security
Where should we start -- with the
most likely ‘winners’?
RUPES: initial work
Environmental service market development
for Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam
potentials
RUPES: likely location of initial work
Key Statistics
INDONESIA
PHILIPPINES
Viet Nam
Population (million)
Land area Imillion has)
Pop. density (persons/ha)
212.092
181.157
1.17
75.65
29.817
2.54
78.137
32.549
2.40
Forest 2000 (million ha)
change,1990-2000 (mil ha/yr)
in per cent
Protection forest (mil has)
104.99
(1.31)
(1.17)
20
5.79
(0.09)
(1.42)
1
9.82
0.05
0.54
5.7
China
In dia
India
Burma
Ecological zones
of Sumatra
Indonesia
Taiwan
V ie tn a m
La o s
Th a il an d
Ph ilip pines
Ca mbodia
Malays ia
Pa pua Ne w
Gu in ea
Indones ia
‘Alternatives to Slash and
Burn’ benchmark areas
Jambi
Lampung
W.Coastal
Mountain
Piedmont
Peneplain
Swamp
Sumberjaya, South Sumatra, Indonesia
Landsat MSS 1973
SPOT 1999
the
use of fire for large scale oil palm
establishment
as
a weapon both by large-scale
companies and smallholders in conflict
Slash-and-burn
techniques used by
smallholders for the establishment of
rubber plantation
ten
sites; collaboration with CIFOR and
EU assisted
Rubber seedlings can be
transplanted into gaps
in existing agroforests
“Sisipan”
Clonal planting material successfully established with
limited weeding in a system post slash & burn
fully segregated
landscape
fully integrated
landscape
natural forest
integrated, multifunctional
landscape: crops, trees,
meadows and forest
patches
intensive agriculture
0
1
2
3
4
5
a
b
c
d
e
f
Which situation do you think is the most desirable for your country?
Time-averaged carbon stocks for Sumatra
Natural forest
254 Mg ha-1
Rubber agroforest 116
Oil palm plantation 91
Potential gain
75 Mg ha-1
Cassava/Imperata
rotation
39
Plant species richness
(#spp/standard plot)
Natural forest
120
Rubber agroforest
90
CRAS improved
(uncertain data)
60
30
-500
0
PRAS
improved
(no data)
Oil-palm
Approximate domain
for smallholder agroforestry
monoculture
(limited data)
500
1000 $/ha
Profitability at social prices June 1997
NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEM (NSS) in Indonesia:
Bringing science and knowledge to the table
Refined science and knowledge
•Bio-physic
•Policies
Land
Use
Filter
Interaction
resources/
landscape
mosaic
Road,canal
Negotiation
Process
Agreed
Changes
Spontaneous
changes
Multi
stakeholder
dialogues
NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEM for
Indonesia:
Decentralization process and regional autonomy,
particularly related to the distribution of NRM
authorities in government levels.
Localized negotiation efforts to capture local contexts
State forest land delineation
Recognition of Adat Rights
Socialized Forest Community Management
Multi Level Negotiation of NSS (Case Of Indonesia)
Relevance Policies to
NRM and Regional
Autonomy
LEVELS
Multi-stakeholder Negotiation
Forum
G
Site Level
•Act No.22/99 Local
Government
Comm
Univ,Ngo
•Act No.25/99 Financial
Balance
G
•Act No.41/99 Forestry
•Act No.5/90 NR
Conservation
District
•Act No.24/82 Spatial Plan
•Gov Decree No.25/00
Authority of Government
Levels
•PP No.62/98
Dcentralization Certain
Forest Management To
Local Gov.
•Ect
Comm
Univ,Ngo
G
Province
Comm
PHILIPPINE SETTING
Sites with entitlements
• Community-based forest management:
– secondary forests
• Social Forestry in agrarian reform areas
• Protected Areas, although delineation slow
• lands of indigenous peoples
with Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
– on-going process
PHILIPPINE SETTING

Economic Instruments:
Potential Directions for Refinement
– various resource user fees in Protected
Areas
• devise mechanism for allocating revenues from
the Integrated Protected Area Fund
– hydropower fees for watershed protection,
recently passed Power Sector Reform Act
• ensure upland providers share in revenues
– on going formulation of bioprospecting
fees, royalties and sharing mechanisms
CHAIN OF PROVIDERS
(Sellers)
International
Agencies
(GEF, WB, USAID, etc.,)
providing development
assistance
Public Sector
Investment in
Environment
(DENR, LGU, SCU)
Private/ Business
Sector
(Water Districts,
Hydropower Plants, Water
Bottling Co., etc)
UPLAND POOR
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
CONSUMERS
(Buyers)
Inter national Agencies
(GE F, WB, USAI D, etc.,) in
B ehal f of global
interests
Gover nmen t
in beha lf
of thei r constituents
Firms
using “environmental input”
Dir ect Consumers
of envi ronment al output/ser
• water users
• recreati oni sts
• hy dropower consumers
• etc.,.
Phil Setting from: H. Francisco(2002)
VIETNAM
Social Capital: COMMUNES
Increasing Market Orientation
• 20 hectare, 50 year contracts forest & ag’l lands
» tradeable
• irrigation fees, auctions for aquaculture
Land-use options flexibility:
tree plantations
aquaculture
horticulture
grains
vegetables
animal husbandry
North Vietnam: Red River catchment
tributary to Mekong River; hill tribes
VIETNAM
Dong Cao (Hoa Binh)
Watershed protection vs crop production
Food security
WaNuLCAS & subcatchment models, AKT &PRA, FFS
Cho Don Upland
Dissemination of new soil conservation techniques
ToT, extension school, ‘landcare’
Ha Giang Remote upland
Extension of upland development
FFS and ´landcare´
WRI
& ICRAF