View
217
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
The INRM research process-the Consultative Group on Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
The INRM research process-the Consultative Group on Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
4. Tradeoffs and options
Analysis of tradeoffs and competing interests Identification of ranges of flexible adaptive options
5. Outcomes
Extrapolation Dissemination Policy implementation Wide-scale adoption
2. INRM research (research on alternative solution)
3c. Human well-being
Risk management Participation of
resource users indecisions
3a. Production function
Quantity of food and fibre Quality Genetic x Environment
matching efficiency
1. Participatory problem analysis
Food insecurity Increasingly poverty Degrading natural environments
3b. Ecosystem functions
Nutrient cycling Carbon sequestration Biodiversity Water balance
6. Feedback
stem-flow
through-fall
rainfall cloudinterception
lateral
outflow
percolation
rechargeinfiltration
surfaceevaporation
transpiration
canopy waterevaporation
uptake
quick-flow
baseflow
{
surface run-on
sub-surfacelateral
inflow
surface run-off
Stream:
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 REWARDMECHANISMS
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 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Level A sites for Implementation +3 +3 . . 6
Level B sites forAssessment 6 assessed
3 selected 4 assessed3 selected . . .
10
No. of sites contingent on relevance, funding, partnerships
Application Domain
Fraction of poor that can potentially
be reached
Net impact on livelihood security-- - 0 + ++ +++
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?
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) 212.092 75.65 78.137 Land area Imillion has) 181.157 29.817 32.549 Pop. density (persons/ha) 1.17 2.54 2.40
Forest 2000 (million ha) 104.99 5.79 9.82 change,1990-2000 (mil ha/yr) (1.31) (0.09) 0.05 in per cent (1.17) (1.42) 0.54 Protection forest (mil has) 20 1 5.7
W.Coastal
Mountain
Piedmont
Peneplain
Swamp
Jambi
Ecological zonesof SumatraIndonesia
‘Alternatives to Slash and Burn’ benchmark areas
India
Papua NewGuinea
India China
Burma
Thailand
VietnamLaos
Cambodia
Malaysia
Indonesia
Philippines
Taiwan
Lampung
Landsat MSS 1973 SPOT 1999
Sumberjaya, South Sumatra, Indonesia
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
0 1 2 3 4 5
intensive agriculture
natural forest
integrated, multifunctional landscape: crops, trees,
meadows and forest patches
Which situation do you think is the most desirable for your country?
abcdef
Time-averaged carbon stocks for Sumatra
Natural forest 254 Mg ha-1
Rubber agroforest 116
Oil palm plantation 91
Cassava/Imperata 39rotation
Potential gain
75 Mg ha-1
Init
ial l
oss
220
Mg
ha-1
0 1000500-500
Profitability at social prices June 1997
$/ha
Plant species richness(#spp/standard plot)
120
90
60
30
Natural forest
Rubber agroforest
Oil-palm monoculture(limited data)
CRAS improved(uncertain data)
PRASimproved(no data)
Approximate domainfor smallholder agroforestry
NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEM (NSS) in Indonesia: Bringing science and knowledge to the table
LandUse
Filter
Road,canal
Interaction
resources/landscape
mosaic
AgreedChanges
Spontaneous
changes
Multistakeholderdialogues
NegotiationProcess
Refined science and knowledge•Bio-physic•Policies
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)
G
Univ,Ngo Comm
Site Level
District
Province
•Act No.22/ 99 LocalGovernment
•Act No.25/ 99 FinancialBalance
•Act No.41/ 99 Forestry
•Act No.5/ 90 NRConservation
•Act No.24/ 82 Spatial Plan
•Gov Decree No.25/ 00Authority of GovernmentLevels
•PP No.62/ 98Dcentralization CertainForest Management ToLocal Gov.
•Ect
LEVELSRelevance Policies toNRM and Regional
Autonomy
Multi-stakeholder NegotiationForum
G
Univ,Ngo Comm
G
Univ,Ngo 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
CONSUMERS
Government in beha lf
of their constituents
Firmsusing “environmental input”
Direct Consumers of environmental output/ services• water users• recreationists• hydropower consumers
• etc.,.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
(Buyers)
International Agencies (GEF, WB, USAID, etc.,) in
Behalf of globalinterests
UPLAND POOR
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)
Phil Setting from: H. Francisco(2002)
VIETNAMSocial 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 grains
aquaculture vegetables
horticulture animal husbandry
North Vietnam: Red River catchment
tributary to Mekong River; hill tribes
VIETNAM
Dong Cao (Hoa Binh)
Watershed protection vs crop productionFood securityWaNuLCAS & 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
Recommended