neufeldt - rewards for mitigation

Rewards for mi-ga-on

Henry Neufeldt, ICRAF

Climate Change Adapta/on and Mi/ga/on in Agriculture

CCAFS Science Workshop

Playa del Carmen, 1-‐2 December 2010

Payments for Environmental Services (PES)

•  Wunder (2005)

•  Five general criteria for successful PES schemes:

•  Voluntary transac-ons

•  Well defined ES

•  At least one buyer of ES

•  At least one provider of ES

•  Payment condi-onal upon delivery of ES

Structure of PES mechanisms

Compensa/on and Rewards for Environmental Services (CRES)

•  Swallow et al (2009)

•  Three generic types of stakeholders •  Ecosystem stewards (whose ac-ons modify the quan-ty and quality of ES) •  ES beneficiaries (who benefit from ES provided by an ecosystem) •  Intermediaries (who indirectly shape interac-ons among ecosystem stewards, ES

beneficiaries and the ecosystem itself)

•  Defini-on and typology of CRES •  Compensa-on for ES are payments or other forms of res-tu-on made to ES

beneficiaries or ecosystem stewards to offset foregone en-tlements to ES or ecosystem stewardship benefits

•  Rewards for ES are inducements provided to ecosystem stewards to give them incen-ve to enhance or maintain ES

•  Characteris-cs of the mechanisms •  Nature of the contract or agreement •  Transac-on costs •  Type of remunera-on or incen-ves provided •  Market based instruments used •  Temporal paUern of payment

Compensa/on and Rewards for Environmental Services (CRES)

Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing ES: Payments, compensa/on or co-‐investment?

•  Van Noordwijk and Leimona (2010)

•  Four condi-ons •  Realis-c: tangible and sustainable ES rela-ve to BAU •  Voluntary: ES providers and beneficiaries engage through free and informed choice •  Condi-onal: benefits received depend on performance measures agreed by all (from

tangible benefits via maintenance and ac-ons to management plans) •  Pro-‐poor: outcomes support posi-ve bias toward poor stakeholders

•  Investment in different capitals (H, S, N, P, M) as basis for future CRES

•  Three paradigms •  CES -‐ Commodi-zed ES (C I): based on actual service delivery and marketability (e.g. AR

CDM) •  COS -‐ Compensa-ng for missed opportuni-es (C II/III): paying land users for accep-ng

restric-ons (e.g. REDD); poverty aspects through external price differen-a-on •  CIS -‐ Co-‐investment in stewardship (C II-‐IV): focuses on assets; explicitly pro-‐poor

Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing ES: Payments, compensa/on or co-‐investment?

Trade-‐offs in PES/CRES/CIS-‐COS-‐CES

Source: Mayrand and Paquin, 2004

Property and tenure rights

Source: Schlager and Ostrom, 1992

•  Access: The right to enter a defined physical property and enjoy non-‐extrac-ve benefits (primarily recrea-onal ac-vi-es)

•  Withdrawal: The right to extract the resources or products of a system (e.g. catch fish, gather fuel wood and water for irriga-on or human consump-on)

•  Management: The right to regulate internal use paUerns and transform the resource.

•  Exclusion: The right to determine who will have access or withdrawal right, and how those rights may be transferred.

•  Aliena/on: The right to transfer the rights of management and exclusion.

Strategies to maximise benefits and minimize trade-‐offs

•  Clarify and strengthen land tenure

•  Create or strengthen coopera-ve ins-tu-ons to reduce transac-on costs

•  Define cost-‐effec-ve and flexible payments mechanisms

•  Provide flexibility in eligible land uses

•  Facilitate access to start-‐up financing

•  Invest in community capacity-‐building

Source: Mayrand and Paquin, 2004

RES ques/onnaire – ini/al analysis

What type of ecosystem services are rewarded?

Carbon -‐ 51 Water -‐ 33

Biodiversity -‐ 43 Other – 24

Several -‐ 40


How many households are you reaching (or planning to reach)?

10000+ 13 1001-‐9999 11 0-‐1000 38


Who is providing the funds for the scheme?

Government/government agency – 25

Private company examples – Tetra Pak, Camco, Max Hamburger, Coca Cola, Shell, Marriot, Moore Corpora-on, Exxon Mobile, coffee industries, DAWASCO, Brass LNG,

MTV Staying Alive Campaign

Non-‐profit examples – SNV Nepal, WWF, Moore Founda-on

UN-‐ IFAD, UNDP, UNESCO

Carbon markets


What kinds of benefits are given to the providers of the ecosystem services?

Payments – 36 Services – 58 In kind – 36 Other – 19

Payments: Cash vouchers – 1 Share of project -‐ 4 Grants/loans -‐ 1

Markets for products/premium prices – 3 New jobs – 1

Services: Educa-on – 18

Professional support/advisory services – 17 Capacity building/training – 19

In kind: Agricultural inputs – 21 Tools/training books – 4

Other: Microfinance loans Access to markets

Access to family planning Networking

Salaries/wages for local employed

Almost always used in combina/on


Who distributes the rewards (or is designated to)?

Community based ins-tu-ons – 32 Private organiza-on – 15

Non-‐profit organiza-on – 33 Body or agency designed for that purpose – 17

Direct payments to beneficiaries – 17 Other-‐4

Was it necessary to create a new group/organiza/on to distribute the benefits to the ES providers?

Yes – 22 No-‐ 33 N/A-‐ 12


On what kinds of contracts is the RES scheme based?

Please explain the nature of the contract(s) for the ques/on above?

Statutory -‐ 32 Customary -‐ 20

Specific by-‐laws – 23 Other -‐ 15

Contracts with coopera-ves Contracts with individual farmers

Loan subsidies Contracts with villages

Contracts nego-ated with village chiefs on behalf of households


What is the (planned) reward or payment?

Environmental benefits/conserva-on -‐ 2 Rewards per village – 3 Increased produc-on -‐ 2

Payments to household – 12 Commission based

Performance based / percentage of profit -‐ 2 BeUer market access, premium prices -‐ 2

Savings


What are the main challenges you have encountered?

Lack of knowledge/awareness of benefits-‐ 12 Is the project providing benefits? Limited (financial) resources -‐ 10

Tenure -‐ 3 Accountability/lack of transparency

Weather/Drought – 4 Timelines – 2

Lack of regulatory certainty/issues around carbon markets or REDD – 5 Organiza-onal/Monitoring – 4

Changing ajtudes – 2 Transfer of cash to individuals

How to ensure commitment from par-cipants – 2 Big landowners oppose because want access to cheap labour

Coordina-on between local/na-onal/interna-onal -‐ 5


What kinds of conflicts arise (if any)?

Villagers disagree on money distribu-on Conflicts of interest/farmers who join and those that do not – 2

Horizontal conflict between communi-es (?) Role conflicts

Type of tree to plant Integra-on of different needs

Who is gejng what – ensuring equitable benefit sharing -‐ 3 Opposi-on from different interests (ie loggers in rainforest, farmers don’t want to

preserve puma) – 3 Land rights -‐ 3

Environmentally damaging ac-vity of outsiders (ie caUle grazing) Lack of trust -‐ 2

Illegal seUlements Different legal interpreta-ons


How is compliance with the scheme enforced and what kinds of sanc/ons exist for non-‐compliance?

Voluntary -‐ 3 Compliance enforced by law and contract – 11

People excluded from program -‐ 3 Cessa-on of payments – 5

Villages and villagers monitor each other -‐ 5 Monitored by organiza-on -‐ 2

Monitored by third party (ie audits) – 2


Who mediates in conflict situa/ons?

Community based (elders, councils, CBO) -‐ 13 Government -‐ 12

Organiza-on responsible for project -‐ 7


Please evaluate the success rate of the scheme 1 (not successful) to 5 (very successful)

Range Implemen-‐ta-on rate

Fairness distribu-on

Effec-ve-‐ness

Cost efficiency

Poverty reduc-on

Overall evalua-on

1 1 4 3 4 4 2

2 13 7 7 11 6 9

3 11 9 6 12 9 10

4 16 10 23 14 13 20

5 15 19 18 12 18 18


Please give your comments or sugges/ons regarding RES or this survey or what it is that you would be most interested in receiving informa/on on

Details of successful projects A transparency and accountability mechanism Package of relevant policies and objec-ves

Regional workshop/ networking How communi-es share benefits / criteria used to determine payments

How to get projects started How to evaluate ES projects, make them cost effec-ve and adoptable

How to manage mul--‐stakeholder or mul--‐ethnic projects How many projects make land tenure a priority

How to build and finance a carbon sequestra-on project

Lessons and conclusions?

•  Evolving framework from PES to CIS

•  Trade-‐offs between effec-veness, efficiency and equity

•  Few tenure problems reported: can schemes be developed for weaker forms of tenure

•  Not possible to make generaliza-ons

•  Many open ques-ons to address

¡¿ Thanks for a future !?

neufeldt - rewards for mitigation

Documents

quality of es es beneciaries

es providers

delivery of es

dened es

es withdrawal

buyer of es

es characteriscs

sustainable es relave