Payment for ecosystem services (pes) for

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%

.

Home gardens in Sri Lanka

Kandyan Forest Garden

Typical Kandyan Forest Garden

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

Productive role of KFGs

Protective role of KFGs

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

Why ecosystem valuation?

The logic of PES

Cont…

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

Implementation of PES

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/

Thank You…!