View
116
Download
15
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) for KandyanForest Garden Conservation
W.K.A.M.D.S. Aththanayake
PGIA/2012/115
Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture
Content
• Introduction
• Problem identification
• Methodology
• Discussion
• Suggestion/solutions
• Conclusion
Sri Lanka
Total area 65,610 km2.
The land area is 64,740 km2
Water is 870 km2.
Coastline 1,340 km
The highest point 2,524 m
The GDP (purchasing power parity) of Sri Lanka is $82.02 billion and
GDP(official exchange rate) is $30.01 billion.
Growth rate of GDP of Sri Lanka is 6.8%. and per capita GDP is $4,000.
Agricultural sector 11.7%
Industrial sector 29.9%
The services sector 58.4%
.
Land use in the three districts of Sri Lanka where the Kandyan garden system is practiced
Area in the district (ha)
Kandy Matale Kurunegalle Total area
(ha)
% of Sri Lanka’s
total
Total land 215,770 199,530 477,590 892,890 13.6watersForest 23,000 33,200 10,500 66,500 4.1
Rice 37,967 18,728 109,704 166,399 19.0
Tea 78,249 7,990 376 86,615 35.4
Rubber 5,881 7,036 5,804 18,721 8.4
Cacao 3,015 4,439 522 7,976 94.3
Cinnamon 17 68 12 97 0.4
Cardamom 1,949 2,294 34 4,277 80.7
Cintronella — 90 — 90 3.6
Black pepper 2,652 3,021 388 6,061 66.8
Problem identification
Critical problems in Up country wet zone areas
• Deforestation
• Biodiversity degradation
• Human nutrition problem
• Land slides
• Rapidly reduce of drinking water sources
• Soil erosion
• Land degradation
Cont…
• Idea:
• Those who provide ES get paid for doing so (service
provider gets)
• Those who benefit from ES pay for provision (service
user pays)
• PES are popular for perceived simplicity and cost-
effectiveness
• PES = new paradigm for contractual conservation
Definition and scope of PES
PES are defined as
• voluntary transactions in which
• a well-defined ES (or a land use likely to secure
that service)
• is bought by a (minimum of one) buyer
• from a (minimum of one) provider
• if and only if the provider continuously secures
the provision of the service (conditionality).
Uses of PES
Four areas of application:
1. Carbon trading
2. Water shed management
3. Bio-diversity conservation
4. Land scape beauty enrichment
5. Human nutrition and well-being
PES definitions – betweenhard core and periphery
PES Core
“PES-like” Schemes
PES Core
Other EconomicIncentives
“PES-like” Schemes
PES Core
PES Core
Theory & some private PES
“PES-like” Schemes:Public agro-environmental
schemes; eco-labels(e.g. ecotourism), etc.
Other Economic Incentives:
Any “payment” for any “environmental service” by
“anybody”park-ranger salaries, reforestation
subsidies, etc.
Methodology Identification of Ecosystem Services by
KFGS
Quantification of Ecosystem
Goods and Services in
KFGs
Valuation of Ecosystem
services
Analysis of Benefit Cost
Ratio
Integration with Human
Activities
Discussion
Areas can be adopted in KFGs
• Pollinator protection Eg: Honey bee culture
Introduce nesting places for Carpenter bee (Ambalan paluwa)
• Plant breeding activities Eg: food crops
• Water shed mgt programs
• Inland ornamental fisheries
• Ecotourism
• Indigenous medicinal plants breeding
Can PES improve livelihoods? PES schemes have not led to weakening of land
tenure, and in some cases have strengthened it
Direct evidence from case studies on the impact on livelihoods is limited
Even if initially access constraints for poor, subsequent corrections occurred (e.g. Costa Rica)
Despite seemingly low payment levels, PES is popular with farmers (Costa Rica, Mexico)
Little evidence of local economy impact on prices and employment
Suggestions • Promising tool, with regional differences (PES mainly in LA, emerging
in SEA and Africa)
• Should practice in Sri Lanka
• But, effectiveness difficult to assess because
– Many schemes still too recent
– Insufficient baseline data (no control area)
– Few analyses based on solid monitoring and evaluation methods
• Performance payments (PES) = key for REDD , but upfront conditions needed
• To address DD drivers, PES = promising, but not sufficient need governance investments & extra-sectoral transfers
Conclusion To enhance livelihood/equity outcomes:
• “no-harm” approach
– Narrow focus on environmental goal
– Undesired livelihood/equity side-effects are mitigated (e.g. ‘collective contracting’-provision)
• “pro-poor” approach
– Poverty reduction objectives are explicit side-objectives (e.g. in areas where rural poverty is pervasive)
– participation of the poor is actively pursued (e.g. rewarding upland rural poor for ES)
References • USAID PES Sourcebook
http://www.oired.vt.edu/sanremcrsp/menu_research/PES.Sourcebook.Contents.php
• World Bank - Introduction to PES http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTEEI/Resources/IntroToPES.pdf?&resourceurlname=IntroToPES.pdf
• CIFOR – PEShttp://www.cifor.cgiar.org/pes/_ref/home/index.htm
• Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/Networks/RUPES/index.asp
• The Katoomba Group (Regional Network for China and East-Asia)http://www.katoombagroup.org/
• Ecosystem Marketplacehttp://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/
Recommended