10 romain-p irard-aichi-target3-payments for ecosystem services-tree-diversity-day-2014-cop12
DESCRIPTION
Trees, landscapes, restoration,Tree Diversity Day 2014, CBD, biodiversity, seedlings, policy, indigenous people, payments for ecosystem services, CIFOR, Aichi Targets, forestsTRANSCRIPT
Aichi Target 3 on positive incentives: Can Payments for Ecosystem Services deliver?
Tree Diversity Day, CDB COP12PyeongChang, South Korea, 10 October 2014
Romain Pirard (CIFOR), Renaud Lapeyre (IDDRI)
OBJECTIVE
What are the governance challenges for PESto deliver on resource mobilization and incentivizing?
POLICY RELEVANCE(Resource mobilization + Positive incentives)
• Item 12: “Understanding behavioral change and the performance of economicinstruments, as well as improved guidance and tools to develop positive incentives”;“exploration of innovative financial mechanisms, inter alia payments for ecosystemservices”
• Item 14: “mobilization of all sources to increase international and domesticfinancial flows, inter alia from private sources, public sources and innovativefinancing mechanisms”
INDONESIAN CASE STUDIES
LOMBOK
3 successive PES: voluntary, tax, internalization
Focus on evolution of the scheme governance
CIDANAU
One water company as funder, heavy support by donors
Extensive household surveys on governance, analysis ofincentives (theory of signals)
Governance studied from various angles
Role of Multi-stakeholder agencies
Targeting of service providers as participants
Transmission of the economic signal
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER AGENCIES
AS INTERMEDIARIES
000
000
LOMBOK
Regional district administration
Restoration of recharging area andupstream community strengthening programs
PDAMRegional public water
supply company
PES 2IMP
Multi-stakeholder agency
60 to 70% for activities
25% allocated to regional budget
75% to IMP
PDAM’s operational costs internalized in price of water
Former voluntary payment independent from water bill
External supports(UNDP, Ford Foundation)
Before
Now
Regional tax added on theprice of water in the water bill
Water consumers
Bestari Community FundFormer intermediary body
PES 1
5 to 15% to cover IMP’s costs (new)
Arrows: money flows
Boxes: actors
In italic: useful information
PES 3
CIDANAU
Water bills
External supports(LP3ES, GTZ, IIED)
Regional public water supply company
(PDAM)
Intermediary: Multi-Stakeholder Cidanau
Catchment Communication Forum
(FKDC)
Approx 120 industrial users (in Cilegon)
Water collecting private company: PT Krakatau Tirta
Industry (KTI)
Farmer groups
Contractual payment
Contractual paymentNGO: Rekonvasi Bhumi
Capacity building and information
Capacity building and information
Watershed services: replanting and conserving trees upstream
No guarantee of equal power in decision making
Effectiveness affected by political purposes
TARGETING OF SERVICE PROVIDERS
Social connections as most decisive factor(e.g. through farmer group leader and previous schemes)
Hydrological studies are not used at full potential(selection more on practical reasons)
Additionality is unlikely(e.g. 88% had previous motivations such as productive trees)
IS THE SIGNAL LOST IN TRANSLATION?
Motivations much more than financial(e.g. 35% display social motivations: pressure, external choice, do like neighbor, good reputation…)
Significant problems of information sharing(Rules are partially known, but payment aspects remain confused)
What about procedural equity?(Lack of ownership, responsibilities associated to farmer group leader)
LESSONS
Local PES complex and expensive… a credible sourceof funding?
Qualified market-based… yet governance is a greatchallenge for implementation (additionality and incentivizing)
Mandatory approaches prove valid for funding… but innovativeapproaches not to be dismissed
FURTHER READINGPirard R., de Buren, and R. Lapeyre, 2014, Do PES improve governance of forest restoration?, Forests, 5 (3), pp. 404-24.
Pirard, R. and R. Lapeyre, 2014, Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A rough guide to the literature jungle, Ecosystem Services, 9, pp. 106-14.
Lapeyre, R. and R. Pirard, 2013, Payments for environmental services and market-based instruments: next of kin or false friends? IDDRI Working Paper N°14/13, Institute for Sustainable development and International Relations (IDDRI), Paris.
Pirard, R., 2012, Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in the public policy landscape: “Mandatory” spices in the Indonesian recipe, Forest Policy and Economics, 18, pp. 23-29.
Pirard, R., 2012, Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon, Environmental Science & Policy, 19-20, pp. 59-68.
Pirard, R., Billé, R. and T. Sembrés, 2010, Upscaling Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Critical Issues, Tropical Conservation Science, 3(3), pp. 249-61.