Presentation to international symposium on Defying Nature’s End: the African Context,

1. Compensation and Rewards for Ecosystem Services in the tropics: Interface between conservation, poverty reduction and social justice Brent Swallow, Theme Leader for Environmental Services World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya Presentation to international symposium on Defying Nature’s End: the African Context, Antananarivo, Madagascar, 22 June 2006

2. Background • Increasing interest in “payments for ecosystem services:” • Costa Rica forestry programme for bundled ecosystem services • (replicated in other national programmes, especially in Meso America) • Catskills and New York City watershed / water quality case • (replicated in several sites in Latin America and now moving to Africa) • Biodiversity / wetland offsets in the United States • (wide interest among environment management agencies, eg Uganda) • Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol • (interest in voluntary carbon sequestration; other MEAs) • Community-based ecotourism in Zimbabwe • (replication in many communities in Namibia, Kenya etc.)

3. Background Increasing interest on the interface between “payments for ecosystem services,” poverty reduction and social justice: • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2005 notes tradeoffs between conservation and poverty and encourages innovative approaches (and Sachs response) • Government programmes designed around dual goals of conservation and development (eg Mexico, South Africa) • Impact assessment studies (eg IIED reviews; Cornell study of Costa Rica forestry programme; CIFOR in Bolivia; ICRAF et al. on conditional property rights in Indonesia) – • Bottom line: • forest conservation – uncertain, due to leakage & scale effects • ecosystem services – uncertain, due to variation, scale & temporal effects (even in US) • pro-poor – can be, depending upon design – recognition, rights, non-monetary rewards, and livelihood options are key.

4. Background • IFAD support for ICRAF-led project on “Rewarding the poor of Asia for environmental services (RUPES)” – and extension to Africa • IISD Development Dividend Task Force; UNDP’s MDG Carbon • Katoomba Group meeting for East and Southern Africa (Oct 2005) • UNEP high-level workshop on Pro-poor markets for ecosystem services, plus followup work on MDG / MEA interface (Nov 2005) • IDRC -- scoping study of Compensation for Ecosystem Services

5. Pan-Tropical Scoping Study of Compensation and Reward for Ecosystem Services -- 2006 • Commissioned by IDRC’s Rural Poverty and Environment Programme • developing research agenda esp. re links to poverty & social justice • Intensive short project (Jan – June 2006; remainder of 2006) • Regional workshops in Latin America (Quito, Ecuador), Africa (Nairobi, Kenya) & Asia (Bangalore, India) • 6 issue papers, report to IDRC, about 40 papers at regional workshops • 20-person core group + 100 “volunteers” • Led by ICRAF, with 6 core collaborators

6. Partners Coordination; Leading Conc framework, IP2 and IP3; Inputs into all regional workshops Leading regional workshops, regional policy reviews, inputs into IP1 (gender), IP3 (case studies), IP4 (governance) Leading IP1, IP4 & IP5; input into IP2 (valuation), contributions to LA reg wrkshp Ecoagriculture Partners Rights & Resources Initiative Katoomba Group & Ecosystem Marketplace RUPES

7. Ecosystem Structure & Function Ecosystem Service Intermediaries Pressure and threats Ecosystem Service Beneficiaries Conservation Ecosystem Service Conservers & Modifiers Investment & management Conceptual Foundations 1. Components and actors Ecosystem Services Production Regulating Cultural Production function

8. Ecosystem Service Intermediaries Pressure and threats Ecosystem Service Beneficiaries Conservation Ecosystem Service Conservers & Modifiers Investment & management Conceptual Framework 2. Generic types of compensation and reward for ecosystem services CES3: compensation for foregone use (eg. tradable harvest rights) Ecosystem Services Ecosystem Structure & Function CES1: compensation for damage (eg pollution, biodiversity offsets) RES1: reward for threat reduction RES2: reward for conservn or investment CES2: compensation for foregone damage (eg. tradable pollution permits)

9. Brent Swallow and Leimona Beria Key issues 1. Links between CRES mechanisms, ecosystem services and human well-being (integrating MA, SL, 5 capitals frameworks) 2. Compensation and reward relative to rights, duties & regulations 3. Level and basis of agreement: outcomes, actions, co-management plans, objectives 4. Spatial and temporal scales in mechanism design, m&e 5. Government roles and governance context (social justice) 6. Private sector: regulation, CSR, sustainability, paying twice 7. Past and future trends 8. Managing ecosystem service tradeoffs (eg C x BD, C x W)

10. Brent Swallow and Leimona Beria Regional perspectives

11. Africa context (esp. East and Southern Africa): • Substantial community ecotourism experience in East and Southern Africa • Some experience with carbon sequestration and biofuel projects (at least 20 across the continent) • Growing interest in CRES for water quality (eg Nairobi) • Some innovative national programmes providing local incentives for ecosystem management, eg South Africa’s Working for Water programme, and biodiversity offsets in Uganda • Fairly conducive statutory policy environment for CRES due to decentralization and reform of environment, water & land policies • General lack of awareness of rewards and compensation at all levels: policy, researcher, community

12. Some Africa experience: • Vanilla / jetropha experience in Kenya – shows difficulty of meeting CDM requirements, with SD increasing risks • Agroforestry for carbon sequestration in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania for VERs – low to good farmer returns, tradeoffs with water, invasiveness concerns, technical challenges • Kitengela / Nairobi Park wildlife lease programme to reward Maasai pastoralists to retain collective and wildlife use in buffer and corridor zone. Shows value of research input; challenge to sustain finance and interest.

13. Asia context: • Major differences within and between South Asia, Southeast Asia, and China • Significant state involvement in management of common pool resources and direction of the economy • India has largest experience with smallscale CDM projects, mostly in energy efficiency and energy substitution • Concerns about joint forest management as an unfinished project – need to focus on greater tenure security and local management • India: Public interest litigation, backed by science, as a tool for improved environmental management

14. Some Asia experience: • Pollution from textile industry in the Noyyal river basin, Tamil Nadu – use of valuation to assess damage; inequities in allocation to landless people • Watershed management projects under RUPES (Philippines, Nepal, Indonesia): building up the case for rewards for watershed protection through science, legal and institutional arrangements, and appeals to sustainability and corporate social responsibility of companies

15. Latin America context: • Programmes at different scales • Sub-regional differences between Meso-America (replicating Costa Rica?), Andes (many small cases in a general context of in-governability), and the Brazilian Amazon (strong and large govt pgms) • Substantial experience with forest projects (afforestation, forest conservation, agroforestry) for watershed protection and biodiversity conservation • Some evidence of benefits for the poor, especially in Bolivia; national programmes in Mexico and Costa Rica are starting to focus more attention on the poor • Controversy over concepts and practice of payments for ecosystem services

16. Latin America experience: Reciprocity fund for watershed services in El Angel, Ecuador – financing protection of the paramo through voluntary contributions by downstream irrigation communities, managed through the Carchi Consortium COINBIO project of the Mexico National Forestry Commission – financing forest management in the indigenous and campesino communities of southern Mexico, with cash payments on the basis of degree of forest conservation ProAmbiente Programme of the Brazilian Amazon – supporting sustainable land / forest management in 10 sites around Amazon, with 500 hhs per site, through a combination of cash, public services, and agricultural extension.

17. - “We reject all the initiatives that involve the sale of Environmental Services in the territories of indigenous peoples, peasant and Afro-Ecuadorian communities...” • “We reject the use of the Kyoto Protocol's so-called Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) .. • - “We reject the signing of further contracts in our communities for the sale of Environmental Services with national or international NGOs, municipalities or individuals…” • Statement from an international meeting on “Environmental Services: Nature as a Merchandise”, held on 19 and 20 May in Puyo in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The meeting was attended by representatives of all the country's indigenous nationalities, other traditional peoples and national and international NGOs. http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/106/viewpoint.html#Issue

18. “PES schemes, as their name indicates, were created to protect or improve ecosystems and thus have a strong emphasis on conservation themes. This means that the poor are not necessarily the starting point in the design and implementation. However, the case study presentations in the workshop demonstrate that the poorest sectors have not been negatively affected. On the contrary, certain positive tendencies for the poor were seen, some monetary and others not, resulting from improvements in ecosystems and secondary effects (cases from Bolivia, México, FONAG, Pimampiro, Colombia).” Final statement from organizers of the Latin America regional workshop in Quito, April 2006 (RISAS)

19. Create a user profile to logon Web Site www.worldagroforestry.org/es