Marcela Quintero

CIAT’s Ecosystem Services Strategic Initiative

August 3, 2015Hanoi, Vietnam

E-mail m.Quintero@cigar.org

Introduction

Growing interest of research and political sectors globally on understanding the socioeconomic and environmental implications of the increasing loss of ecosystem services in degrading/degraded landscapes (Nkonya et al.,2011).

•The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)•The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB, 2014)•Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

The Importance ofEcosystem Services in Agriculture• Crop yields rely on the provision of ecosystem services,

which can be negatively or positively affected by agriculture, depending on the practices applied for managing crop systems and agricultural landscapes.

• Farmers can be beneficiaries of ecosystem services or coadjutants in their provision.

• Proper management practices at the crop field and landscape level may turn these disservices into ES, with agriculture becoming an ES provider benefiting other actors or sectors.

• Bommarco et al. (2013) presented the important relation between supporting and regulating ES and yield gaps

Selected ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (ED) from and to agriculture (adapted from Stallman, 2011)

What ecosystem services is CIATlooking at, where, and for whom?

Ecosystem Services in the CIAT research agenda

Ecosystem Services in the CIAT research agenda

Ecosystem Services Research Agenda

• Development of tools and methodologies to quantify and map ES associated with different land-uses in agricultural landscapes.

• Economic valuation of ES that benefit agriculture and ES impacted by agriculture to determine the level of investment and incentives required for protecting ecosystem services provided in agricultural landscapes.

• Identification and assessment of alternative land-use and management practices based on their impacts on ES. A special contribution of CIAT on providing scientific evidence on the role of agriculture in both providing and using ES efficiently.

1. Demonstrate delivery2. Put it on the map3. Value the benefits,

measure the threats4. Assess alternative land-

use practices5. Support institutional

innovations

To maintain:

Ecosystem Services Research Agenda

• Direct and indirect contributions of ES to food security, nutrition, and well-being in impoverished rural areas.

• The impact of plausible socioeconomic and climate change scenarios on ES provision.

• Regional and global analyses on the state of knowledge, policy, and action to improve the provision of ES in agricultural landscapes.

1. Demonstrate delivery2. Put it on the map3. Value the benefits,

measure the threats4. Assess alternative land-

use practices5. Support institutional

innovations

To strength:

What ES should be targeted?

Some examples

• Assessment of Conservation Agriculture in the Colombian Andes• Payment for Ecosystem Services in Peru• Sustainable Amazonian Landscapes• Environmental fooprinting• ASSETS: Linkages between Food Security, Human well-being and

Ecosystem Services

Assessment of Conservation Agriculture in the Colombian Andes

Conservation agriculture

Rotation with cover crop

Minimun soil disturbance

Minimun soil disturbance

Permanent land cover

Understanding on-site impacts of conservation tillage

12

T re a tme n t 1 T re a tme n t 2

1 2

H o rizo n

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

% v

olum

etri

c w

ater

Conservation agriculture

Traditional agriculture

% V

olum

etric

Wat

erMore water stored, restoring the buffer

role of paramo

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

1 2 3 4

Size fraction

AO

M (

g/g

)

RT-Horizon 1 CT-Horizon 1 RT-Horizon 2 CT-Horizon 2

Conservation agriculture

Traditional agriculture

Accu

mul

ated

Org

anic

M

atter

(g/g

)

Better soil porosity, filtration, increased

carbon storage

Impact of conservation tillage on soil and water conservation

Resilient system

Quintero et al. 2010

“Reduced tillage and cover crops in potato-based systems improved in a 7-year period the soil organic matter and carbon content in disturbed soils of the páramos of Colombia. The soil carbon concentration in the whole pro-file was 29% higher under conservation tillage than un-der conventional tillage sites and the carbon content was higher by 33%.” (Quintero and Comerford, 2013)

Impact of conservation tillage (CT) on nutrient and soil loss in Colombia

• Effects of CT can not be generalized

• The results showed statistical differences across crops in some, but not all, crop cycles

• Longer-term observations are required to evaluate the impact of the whole rotation

• Depend upon the type of soil and precipitation conditions as well as the fertilizer application timing

Nutrient and sediment losses are generally lower in Inceptisols than in Andosols

CT seems to have a positive effect on reducing nutrient losses in Inceptisols

Due mainly to significant higher nutrient concentrations in runoff water and sediments from potato-IT than potato-CT

Nutrient losses vs. permissible levels

How to achieve reductions in nutrient losses?• Efforts to reduce soil losses had to be combined with adjustment of

nutrient application rates• The reduction of nutrient loss is not achieved via reducing soil loss

ab

a a

b

ab

aba

Residues from precedent cover crop in potato-CT does not limit soil loss relative to potato-IT, especially during those specific events when highest loss typically occurs

Impactos en la cuenca

Institutions for Rewards for Ecosystem Services mechanisms in Peru

Peruvian case study, Canete River watershed – Current situation

Desired situation: REWARDING for ES

Transfer part of their benefits

Investment in conservation alternatives

Watershed’s socioeconomic asymmetries might be balanced by this benefit-sharing mechanism

Research Highlights: Putting the pieces together for designing a PES

Where payments should be targeted to?Identification of service providing areas using hydrological modeling

What should be the payments amount to be made by ES beneficiaries?Estimation of economic value of watershed services for different ES users:

Valuation of water-related ecosystem services*Type of downstream water user

Value of the WES

Current price of water

Irrigated Agriculture (US$ m3) 0.29512 0.023664 Tourism (US$/ind) 15.75 n.a.Urban users Domestic (US$ mon-1) 3.5 3.1 - 15 Commercial (US$ mon-1) 5 6.3 - 44.4

These values are reference values to be used for anticipated negotiation processes.

How payments should be used?Ecosystem conservation measures and social development projects.

Se debería crear un fondo para la gestión del rio Cañete - Pobladores

No9%

Si91%

Creation of a trust fund to provide rewards and incentives for conserving upper watershed ecosystems

Quienes deberia ser los aportantes? - Pobladores

56%

16%

13%

8%

4% 2% 1%Agricultores

Industria - Comercio

Recaudación publica

Hidroeléctrica

Minería

Camisea

Turismo

Who should contribute to the trust fund?

Requirements for the RES schemes design and implementation

• Targeting actions: What and where?• Economic values of ES for the demand as a reference value to negotiate

contributions to a ES Fund• Willingness to pay • Enabling the legal environment• Enabling institutional environment

Progress towards implementation

Quintero, M., Pareja, P., Rivera, G. (Forthcoming).

What is impeding the implementation of RES schemes in watersheds of Peru?

Falta de claridad sobre cuál es la estructura institucional viable y efectiva que administrará la retribución

Municipalidad

EPS

Facultad de recaudación a través de tributos

Facultad de disposición de recursos determinados (FONCOMUN, CANON, etc.)

Facultad de recaudación a través de la tarifa de agua

Facultad de recaudación a través de un cobro voluntario anexado al recibo de agua

Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo Municipal

Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo privado o mixto

Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo privado o mixto

Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo Municipal

Facultad de crear una cuenta independiente.

Facultad de invertir los recursos a través de SNIP

Facultad de hacer retribuciones directas a los caodyuvantes o por subvenciones

Institución Independiente(Empresa privada/ONG/Juntas de Riego)

Facultad de recaudar recursos públicos

Falta de lineamientos para el diseño de mecanismos de RSEH

Gobernabilidad

Facultad de invertir los recursos a través de SNIP

Facultad de hacer retribuciones directas a los caodyuvantes o por subvenciones

Facultad para celebrar contratos y/o acuerdos en tierras con y sin título.

Facultad para celebrar contratos y/o acuerdos en tierras con y sin título.

Capacidad operativa débil e insolvencia económica

Alta morosidad en el pago de tributos

Consejos o Comités de Recursos Hídricos (ANA)

Aun débil capacidad de gestión y gobernanza

Se requiere reconocimiento como cuenca prioritaria por el ANA

Falta claridad sobre el rol y/o las facultades que podrían tener en los mecanismos de RSEH

Grupo impulsor /Comité gestor /Grupo técnico de gestión

Nivel de articulación con la institucionalidad creada por el ANA

Empresa de Luz: Facultad para recuadrar a través de la tarifa de luz o cobro voluntario anexo

Necesidad o no de personería jurídica

DESIGNDIAGNOSTIC

Falta de recursos para la realización de estudios de diagnóstico

Escasa disponibilidad de información técnico-científica

NEGOTIATION OF BENEFIT-SHARING AGREEMENTS

Escasos incentivos para estimular involucramiento de la empresa privada

Potencial de recaudación no explotado (1 beneficiario)

Voluntariedad de la retribución

Falta de recursos para fortalecer las estrategias de comunicación

IMPLEMENTATION

Recursos recaudados insuficientes

Falta de planes financieros

Aportación de beneficiarios no recurrentes y con expectativas de cambio a corto plazo

Inapropiado conocimiento sobre la relación ecosistema - agua

Falta de propuestas técnicas efectivas para la conservación y/o recuperación de SEH

Falta de organizaciones a quien se les delegue la implementación técnica de las alternativas para proveer SEH

Legal bottlenecks

• Inability to transfer voluntary contribution from urban water users to an indenpendent Fund for PES

• How to channel public resources of local governments into PES funds?

• How to ensure sustainability of the fund –voluntary vs mandatory?

Legal and institutional bottlenecks

• Financial independence

• Lack of trust on current organizations

• Lack of guidelines on how to establish new institutions for operating RES (rules and organizations)

Quien debería ser el administrador del fondo - pobladores

EMAPA - Cañete24%

Municipalidad9%

Crear Nueva66%

Otra existente1%

Who should manage the ES trust fund?

RES implementation requires multisectoral coordination for operating

• There is a lack of an institutional structure for an integrated watershed management

• National policy on water resources proposed the creation of watershed councils, however the process of creation is incipient and lack a specific funding for its funtioning

• How to articulate RES into future wateshed councils? intersectorial coordination and need for official guidelines

SERNANP: National Service ofProtected Areas

Local water authority / National water authority

Analysis of bottlenecks in the implementation of Rewards for Ecosystem Services schemes in watersheds of Peru

Overcoming bottlenecks for RES implementation

New Law on RES• Offical recognition of RES,

eventhough are voluntary

• Definition of RES: Rewards and incentives

• Avoid perverse incentives

• Enable transfer of urban water users contributions into RES funds

• Highlights the importance of articulating PES with existing land and water use/management plans

• Offical recognition of RES, eventhough are voluntary

• Definition of RES: Rewards and incentives

• Avoid perverse incentives

• Enable transfer of urban water users contributions into RES funds

• Highlights the importance of articulating PES with existing land and water use/management plans

Remaining gaps

• How to become voluntary contributions in a legally binding to ensure continuity

• Management design that guarantees independency and transparency

• How to become voluntary contributions in a legally binding to ensure continuity

• Management design that guarantees independency and transparency

Canete institutional arrangement for implementation

• Creation of ad-hod watershed committee for PES governance transition towards watershed councils

• National organization that currently manages conservation project will manage the PES Fund

• High replicability potential

• Creation of ad-hod watershed committee for PES governance transition towards watershed councils

• National organization that currently manages conservation project will manage the PES Fund

• High replicability potential

Project components

Mul

ti-sc

ale

appr

oach

Marcela Quinterom.Quintero@cigar.org

Thanks for your attention