Innovations for equity in smallholder PES: bridging research and practice

Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh conference 21st March 2014

THE CHIMPANZEE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PILOT PES SCHEME IN

UGANDA

Paul Hatanga M, Project ManagerChimpanzee Sanctuary & Wildlife Conservation Trust (Chimpanzee Trust )

Email: conservation@ngambaisland.org

Presentation OutlineProject context

BackgroundProblemOpportunities

Project DesignPES Scheme design & implementation Strategies for inclusion of small holders

Lessons learned Personal reflectionsConclusion

Project contextChimpanzees require suitable forest habitats to survive.The Albertine rift forest system in Uganda is important for chimpanzee corridorsUganda has about 5000 wild chimpanzees . 10% are found outside protected forests in western Uganda (Uganda Chimpanzee Population Census, 2002) Uganda’s deforestation rate is currently 92,000ha (approx. 2.6%). It is more than twice(5.1%) outside protected areas.Without innovative conservation approaches, it is estimated that there will be no more forest ecosystems left in the next 15 years.PES offers a great opportunity to address the problem but there is limited evidence of its effectivenessMap

Context continued……..Chimpanzee Trust Uganda

Mission-To promote chimpanzee conservation & environmental management for sustainable development

ProgramsNgamba Island Chimpanzee SanctuaryConservation of Wild chimpanzees and their habitatsEnvironmental education and partnerships

PES Scheme context in Chimpanzee Trust Uganda

Achieve sustainable management of chimpanzee habitats outside protected areas in AR

PROJECT DESIGN

PES Scheme

Evaluation

Forest&

Forest Owner

How we are doing it?Divide target recipients into two groups before the intervention

Target population 140 Villages

Random assignment

Treatment-70 villages Control-70 villages

Don’t give PES

Give Program

Participant characteristicsAverage household size: 793% of household heads are maleHalf of household heads completed primary schoolAverage per capita weekly income: 4 USDForest land sizes

Median forest size 0.80 ha Average forest size 1.54 ha75% of participants had less than average land size

Land ownershipOnly 2.8% of the forest owners have registered land titles52% own 1 piece of land 36% own 2 pieces of land

Land disputes:32% of PFOs had a dispute on their landUsually relating to land boundaries

PES SCHEME DESIGN-Project developers levelLessons from drawn from else where-IIED i.e. Costa Rica, Bolsa Floresta scheme, ECOTRUST etcRound table discussions by partners

Forest interventions and measurementsPackage for paymentsScheme and research design

National level consultation workshopLegal advice from NEMA & Chimpanzee Trust LawyerBuyer side-Hydro power company, oil company, water companyPre- design consultations with target beneficiaries and potential buyers of ES.

PES SCHEME DESIGN-Farmer level

Community consultation

Voluntary application by participants

Verification of

participants

Forest assessment

baselineContract negotiation and signing

Sign up payment

Monitoring- Community

based

Annual payment

Scheme Design-The deal!Incentive cash payment Approx. $35/ha/yearSensitize, create awareness, trainMonitor and advise PFOsSeedlings for reforestation/enrichment planting

Forest management based on agreed interventions e.g.,

Regulated harvestingEnrichment plantingRe-forestationNo opening new land for agriculture

Strategies for small-holder involvementConsultation meeting

Subcounty levelVillage level-involving village leadersPrivate forest owner level consultation meeting

Application and contract processEnsured consent at household levelVerified land-ownership with local leaders to minimize land related conflictsAssessed presence and status of applying forest

Community monitoringIdentified from communityInterviewed jointly with local leadersTrained in project and its structures

Accessible payment modality. Minimize bank charges and walking distances

PFO identity cardCopies of all documentation

The frequently asked questions With monitors and local leaders

Contract signing results

18%

82%

Proportion of applicants (413) signing contracts

Not signed Signed contracts

42%

51%

7%

Compliance Monitoring -Year 1

Complied Partly Complied Didn’t comply

54%38%

9%

Compliance Performance-Year 2

Complied Partly Complied Didn’t Comply

Performance Results

Explanations for performance

Compliance performance;Improved trust and confidence in projectCommunity monitoring and extension supportHigh motivation to get withheld payment amount (25%)

Non compliance; Low survival of planted seedlings in year 1Family and community land use management disagreements with contracted PFOs. Most non complying PFOs have small forest area & would rather convert to agriculture

(In Year 1, median was 1.2ha & In year 2, median was 0.9ha)

Challenges of involving small holdersDealing with unclear land tenure required more time in assessment and verificationProtracted family negotiations to obtain consentSeasonal priorities vary and delay engagementShort term benefits versus long-term benefitsProblem animalsPressures for hire-purchase agreements

Lesson’s learntLand Ownership: In areas where land documentation is not in place, land-based conflicts may affect level of participation. Working with local leaders to verify landownership increased confidence

Community Monitoring: Working with community based monitors improves trust and provides effective feedback to participants

Conservation Cost: The project interventions have cost to participants and non participants. Not integrated in calculation

Partnerships: Identification of proper capacity needs for scheme implementers e.g. Post Bank executing payments, NEMA/CSWCT

Design of Randomized Experiments: Randomized controlled experiments require very close collaboration between implementers and evaluators to minimize contamination and ensure consensus e.g. mode of payment was feared to affect the study

Leveraging funding: Collaboration with IIED and impact evaluation specialists helped leverage funding for the research projects

Private Sector Investment: Private sector would like to commit funding but is carefully waiting for evidence

CSO, Gov’t, Donor & Research Partnership: Promotes win-win collaboration

Personal reflectionsParticipation across gender. Who drives the agenda?Culture and tradition. What is the place of communally accepted cultural and traditional norms? How do we consciously influence themWhat stake do the non-forest owners have? How do we spread benefits beyond direct beneficiariesTiming of negotiations. Who sets the time “enough” & what are the pertinent issues across the boardDocumentation of social impacts. What system is in place to have these documented.? How about social learning. What system is in place to cultivate social learning amongst the peersThe buyers, the sellers, the proponents….where do they meet to share concerns. Government commitment & enabling policy. Is it there? Is it enabling, facilitating or just directional without ability to proactively influence.PES schemes in areas with poor land tenure/documentation systems have potential of enhancing management rights

Next StepsFinalize analysis of research findingsPresentation of project results in national and international foraGenerating policy documents/briefsPublication of research findingsLobbying government commitment for PES policy and allocation of fundingMarketing the PES scheme based on evidence generatedScaling up

Conclusion Small holder farmers have potential to respond with consistent engagement within acceptable communal normsGovernment-Civil society partnership Research and implementation projects are rigorousWe are looking forward to analysis and publication of results on PES effectiveness in mid 2014.Short narration

Thank you