thomas yatich, b. swallow, j. sang, m. nyabenge,
DESCRIPTION
Are PES-like Iniatives Realistic, Voluntary, Conditional and Pro-poor? Case of Nyando & Yala River Basin. Thomas Yatich, B. Swallow, J. Sang, M. Nyabenge, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya Daniel Bundotich, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture, - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Are PES-like Iniatives Realistic, Voluntary,
Conditional and Pro-poor? Case of Nyando & Yala
River BasinThomas Yatich, B. Swallow, J. Sang, M. Nyabenge,
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya
Daniel Bundotich, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture,
Anantha Duraiappah, and Makiko Yashiro,
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya
2ND World Congress in Agroforestry, United Nations Office, Nairobi
Outline• Why the concern on Nyando Yala
River Basins? Why PES and PES-like?
• What ICRAF and partners have done to address the challenges?
• What are the community and partners iniatives
• Evaluation of PES-like iniatives• Implications of the study• Invitation
Why the concern in Nyando and Yala? Why PES-like?
Why Nyando and Yala? • Land Use changes with implications on the state of Lake Victoria and its environmental services;•Land degradation & soil erosion(e.g. 1/3 of Nyando basin is heavily degraded) ;•Variation in the value of agricultural production•Potential impacts of climatic change and Variability
Why PES-like? •PES mechanisms are still incipient in Africa and in the sites that we are working in across East and West African Highlands•Learn lessons and experiences to inform design of prototype mechanisms
The Nyando and Yala basins of Kenya
Both about 3500 km2
High poverty rates Dense populations Flooding in lower areas Deforestation in upper areas High rates of HIV / AIDS Declining agriculture through 1990s Both contrasting land tenure / settlement types
• Undertaken Tradeoffs analysis among ecosystem services
• Undertake a quick appraisal of PES and PES-like iniatives in the two basins
• Facilitated policy dialogues• Boundary work analysis • Building a coalition to make the case for use
of publicly funded PES for ecosystem restoration.
What is being done by ICRAF and Partners to address these challenges?
RUPES / PRESA time line1998 2002 2009 20112007 20082006 2010
First discussionswith IFAD
RUPES 1began
RUPES 1implemented
RUPES 1Reporting;Development ofRUPES II
RUPES II implemented
PRESAdeveloped
PRESA implemented
Pan-tropical Scopingstudy
ScopingStudy paperspublished
1994
Transvic ProjectSVEM
Propoor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa
Goal: smallholder farmers and residents living in the highlands of East and West Africa benefit from fair and effective agreements between stewards and beneficiaries of ecosystem services.
Objectives: 1. Foster workable environmental
service agreements. 2. Catalyze policy support and private-
sector participation in environmental service agreements
3. Community of Practice: Provide support to researchers, NGOs and government agencies interested in pro-poor rewards for environmental services in Africa
Sites
What have communities and partners undertaken?
• Ecosystem-based livelihood systems aimed at meeting welfare goals (e.g. food-for-work, flood control, spring protection, de-silting dams,
• Iniatives aimed at compliance with the requirements of the National Environment Management Authority;
• Ecosystem restoration initiatives e.g. soil erosion control measures spearheaded by LVEMP;
•Fair Trade Initiatives e.g. the case of Eastern Produce Company Limited
•Biodiversity protection iniatives by communities;
• Community empowerment and exchange programs
•Design and implementation of voucher systems
{Are these iniatives PES or PES-like? Are they conditional, voluntary, realistic, and pro-poor? }
PES-Like Initiatives
Njaa Marafuku Kenya
-Help in meeting the UNCCD objectives at the local level
-Is pro-poor
-Is a Ministry of Agriculture initiative
Muhoroni East Sub-location Widows and Orphans Group
PES-Like Initiatives
Compliance with envtal Management
-Developed because of initial conflicts with adjacent community
-Seen as meeting good citizen requirements
-Could provide opportunities for eco-labelling
Chemomi Factory wetland
PES-Like Initiatives
Public programs for ecosystem restoration
-Other programs: De-silting dykes, clearing irrigation drains
Food-for-work program
PES-Like Initiatives
On-farm improvements and potential to provide Ecosystem services
Mr. Ruguts Farm
Case studies/criteria and Indicators
Realistic Mechanism
ConditionalMechanism
Voluntary Mechanism
Pro-poor
School linked conservation, health & Nutrition initiatives
Initiatives addresses threats to forests, catchments & effects of degradation through re-afforestation
Membership and payment (both in kind & financially ) to benefit from the school feeding programme
Yes. But membership or participation in the school feeding program is due to lack of alternatives
The core of these initiative is meeting welfare and poverty reduction goals. It strongly meets this criterion.
Sunset Birders
Addresses degradation of wetlands and protection of CITES protected species
Harvesters of papyrus get rewarded through increased earnings by adopting good harvesting practices
Harvesters who not adhere to the bylaws are sanctioned. It is voluntary but with regulations
Yes. Apart from sustaining materials, LVSB try to provide alternatives for the local communities
Irrigation linked conservation & rehabilitation programs
Addresses sedimentation of canals, dykes & roads
Conditional upon provision of service-participate in food-for-work
Participation is motivated by household food needs.
Designed to benefit the poor and those with food/nutritional needs.
Criteria-indicator based Evaluation of PES-Like Initiatives
Njaa Marufuku
Tries to address impacts of desertification and nutritional needs
Conditional upon membership and participation group activities
Yes, but driven mostly by membership benefits like income & reduced stigma
Yes. Targeted at meeting the needs of the poor and the HIV/AIDS infected & affected people
Private & publicly funded rehabilitation programs
Addresses sedimentation of canals, dykes & roads
Conditional upon provision of a service-participate in food-for-work
Participation is motivated by household food needs
Designed to benefit the poor and those with food/nutritional needs.
Fair Trade Initiatives
Eco-labelling and premiums address market and corruption related issues
Conditional upon membership with perceived benefits motivating participation
Yes. Members get registered based on the extent they think their interests would be met
There is no guarantee that the participants are the poor, but outgrowers are poor relative to Estate owners
Realistic Conditional Voluntary Pro-poor
Artificially constructed Treatment systems
Compliant- based but try to address pollution of wetlands
Conditional upon NEMA EIA requirements
Some companies voluntarily do this because of pressure from communities & NEMA-not voluntary
Aimed at not harming the poor by not discharging effluents to natural wetlands
LVEMP linked spring protection
Associated projects like agroforestry enhance land cover thereby reducing sediments and regulatory services including disease regulation
Farmers pay a fee for maintenance and participate in spring protection activities but water use is not limited by their participation
Yes. Smallholders participating do not have rights over water but most community members can access and use the water.
Not necessarily. Obtaining water from a nearby source enables farmers to devote saved time on more productive economic activities like agriculture.
Kakamega Sweet potatoes and Tissue Culture project
Addresses nutritional related issues which have resulted from decline in soil fertility due to degradation
Conditional upon membership and participation
Yes to some degree. No one is forced to become a member but this is motivated by the perceived social and health benefits
Yes. Contributes to the nutritional and food needs of the poor mainly women
Realistic Conditional Voluntary Pro-poor
Implications of study 1. The four-point criteria and indicators are
not satisfied by the iniatives, but there are opportunities to ‘tip the balance’
2. Focus on welfare goals and can only be sustained if their welfare goals are realized;
3. There are opportunities provided for by the existing policy and legislative frameworks (MEAs and national-level policies and legislation
Opportunities for students and faculty to help us implement, assess and design our activities
Fields: • Geography and land use systems• Links between land use and ecosystem services• valuation of ecosystem services• economics of alternative land uses and interventions• governance of natural resources and property rights• analysis of policy options and constraints• ex ante and ex post impact assessments• social, gender and equity effects of rewards for environmental services• business case for investment in environmental services
Follow-up
Other ICRAF work on Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Serviceswww.worldagroforestry.org/cres Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/networks/rupes
Please contact us to receive further information• Peter Minang-GRP 6 Leader: [email protected] •Thomas Yatich T.B. – Project Ag. Coordinator: [email protected]•Vanessa Meadu – Communications Officer: [email protected]•Miika Makela-Spatial Analyst: [email protected] •Joyce Kasyoki-Administrative Officer: [email protected]•Catherine Kimengu: [email protected]
PRESA project: http://www. presa.worldagroforestry.org