Henry Neufeldt (ICRAF) Rewards for mitigation (presentation from Mitigation session at CCAFS Science Workshop, December 2010)

1. Climate
Change
Adapta/on
and
Mi/ga/on
in
Agriculture
Rewards
for
mi-ga-on
Henry
Neufeldt,
ICRAF
CCAFS
Science
Workshop
Playa
del
Carmen,
1-­‐2
December
2010

2. 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

3. Structure
of
PES
mechanisms

4. 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

5. Compensa/on
and
Rewards
for
Environmental
Services
(CRES)

6. 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

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

9. Trade-­‐offs
in
PES/CRES/CIS-­‐COS-­‐CES
Source:
Mayrand
and
Paquin,
2004

10. Property
and
tenure
rights
• 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.
Source:
Schlager
and
Ostrom,
1992

11. 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

12. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
What
type
of
ecosystem
services
are
rewarded?
Carbon
-­‐
51
Water
-­‐
33
Biodiversity
-­‐
43
Other
–
24
Several
-­‐
40

13. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
How
many
households
are
you
reaching
(or
planning
to
reach)?
10000+
13
1001-­‐9999
11
0-­‐1000
38

14. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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

15. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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
In
kind:
Grants/loans
-­‐
1
Agricultural
inputs
–
21
Markets
for
products/premium
prices
–
3
Tools/training
books
–
4
New
jobs
–
1
Other:
Services:
Microfinance
loans
Educa-on
–
18
Access
to
markets
Professional
support/advisory
services
–
17
Access
to
family
planning
Capacity
building/training
–
19
Networking
Salaries/wages
for
local
employed
Almost
always
used
in
combina/on

16. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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

17. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
On
what
kinds
of
contracts
is
the
RES
scheme
based?
Statutory
-­‐
32
Customary
-­‐
20
Specific
by-­‐laws
–
23
Other
-­‐
15
Please
explain
the
nature
of
the
contract(s)
for
the
ques/on
above?
Contracts
with
coopera-ves
Contracts
with
individual
farmers
Loan
subsidies
Contracts
with
villages
Contracts
nego-ated
with
village
chiefs
on
behalf
of
households

18. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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

19. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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

20. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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

21. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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

22. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
Who
mediates
in
conflict
situa/ons?
Community
based
(elders,
councils,
CBO)
-­‐
13
Government
-­‐
12
Organiza-on
responsible
for
project
-­‐
7

23. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
Please
evaluate
the
success
rate
of
the
scheme
1
(not
successful)
to
5
(very
successful)
Range
Implemen-­‐ Fairness
Effec-ve-­‐ Cost
Poverty
Overall
ta-on
rate
distribu-on
ness
efficiency
reduc-on
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

24. RES
ques/onnaire
–
ini/al
analysis
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

25. 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

26. ¡¿
Thanks
for
a
future
!?