10 romain-p irard-aichi-target3-payments for ecosystem services-tree-diversity-day-2014-cop12
1. Aichi Target 3 on positive incentives: Can
Payments for Ecosystem Services deliver?
Romain Pirard (CIFOR), Renaud Lapeyre (IDDRI)
Tree Diversity Day, CDB COP12
PyeongChang, South Korea, 10 October 2014
3. OBJECTIVE
What are the governance challenges for PES
to deliver on resource mobilization and incentivizing?
POLICY RELEVANCE
(Resource mobilization + Positive incentives)
• Item 12: “Understanding behavioral change and the performance of economic
instruments, as well as improved guidance and tools to develop positive incentives”;
“exploration of innovative financial mechanisms, inter alia payments for ecosystem
services”
• Item 14: “mobilization of all sources to increase international and domestic
financial flows, inter alia from private sources, public sources and innovative
financing mechanisms”
5. LOMBOK
3 successive PES: voluntary, tax, internalization
Focus on evolution of the scheme governance
CIDANAU
One water company as funder, heavy support by donors
Extensive household surveys on governance, analysis of
incentives (theory of signals)
6. Governance studied from various angles
Role of Multi-stakeholder agencies
Targeting of service providers as participants
Transmission of the economic signal
8. 000
LOMBOK
PES 2
000
60 to 70%
for activities
Regional district
administration
Restoration of recharging area and
Former voluntary payment
independent from water bill
upstream community strengthening programs
PDAM
Regional public water
supply company
IMP
Multi-stakeholder
agency
75% to IMP
25% allocated to
regional budget
PDAM’s
operational costs
internalized in
price of water
External supports
(UNDP, Ford Foundation)
Before
Now
Regional tax added on the
price of water in the water bill
Water consumers
Bestari Community Fund
Former intermediary body
PES 1
5 to 15% to cover
IMP’s costs (new)
Arrows: money flows
In italic: useful information
Boxes: actors
PES 3
9. CIDANAU
Farmer groups
Contractual payment
Water collecting private
company: PT Krakatau Tirta
Water bills
Capacity building and information
External supports
(LP3ES, GTZ, IIED)
Regional public water
supply company
(PDAM)
Intermediary: Multi-
Stakeholder Cidanau
Catchment
Communication Forum
(FKDC)
Approx 120 industrial
users (in Cilegon)
Industry (KTI)
Contractual payment
NGO: Rekonvasi Bhumi
Capacity building and information
Watershed services: replanting
and conserving trees upstream
10. No guarantee of equal power in decision
making
Effectiveness affected by political purposes
11. TARGETING OF SERVICE PROVIDERS
Social connections as most decisive factor
(e.g. through farmer group leader and previous schemes)
Hydrological studies are not used at full potential
(selection more on practical reasons)
Additionality is unlikely
(e.g. 88% had previous motivations such as productive trees)
12. IS THE SIGNAL LOST IN TRANSLATION?
Motivations much more than financial
(e.g. 35% display social motivations: pressure, external choice,
do like neighbor, good reputation…)
Significant problems of information sharing
(Rules are partially known, but payment aspects remain confused)
What about procedural equity?
(Lack of ownership, responsibilities associated to farmer group leader)
13. LESSONS
Local PES complex and expensive… a credible source
of funding?
Qualified market-based… yet governance is a great
challenge for implementation (additionality and incentivizing)
Mandatory approaches prove valid for funding… but innovative
approaches not to be dismissed
14. FURTHER READING
Pirard R., de Buren, and R. Lapeyre, 2014, Do PES improve governance of forest
restoration?, Forests, 5 (3), pp. 404-24.
Pirard, R. and R. Lapeyre, 2014, Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem
services: A rough guide to the literature jungle, Ecosystem Services, 9, pp. 106-14.
Lapeyre, R. and R. Pirard, 2013, Payments for environmental services and market-based
instruments: next of kin or false friends? IDDRI Working Paper N°14/13,
Institute for Sustainable development and International Relations (IDDRI), Paris.
Pirard, R., 2012, Payments for Environmental Services (PES) in the public policy
landscape: “Mandatory” spices in the Indonesian recipe, Forest Policy and Economics,
18, pp. 23-29.
Pirard, R., 2012, Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A
lexicon, Environmental Science & Policy, 19-20, pp. 59-68.
Pirard, R., Billé, R. and T. Sembrés, 2010, Upscaling Payments for Environmental
Services (PES): Critical Issues, Tropical Conservation Science, 3(3), pp. 249-61.