LESSONS FROM THE PROJECT INTEGRATED SILVOPASTORAL APPROACHES TO ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT José A. Gobbi Grupo GAMMA, CATIE Turrialba, Costa Rica jgobbi@catie.ac.cr

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project Funding: GEF & LEAD-FAO Implementing agency: World Bank Coordination: CATIE (Costa Rica) CIPAV (Colombia) NITLAPAN (Nicaragua) Project dealing with ES in an Agricultural landscape Duration: 5 years (August 2002–August 2007)

Objectives To improve eco-systems functioning of degraded pasture lands in Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua To provide global environmental services and local socio economic benefits

Bul-Bul & Paiwas Quindio Esparza

Livestock Farms Participating in the Project Farms with PES Control farms Total Colombia 80 30 110 Nicaragua 107 137 Costa Rica 105 28 133 292 88 380 Small and medium farmers Livestock is main source income

Payment for Environmental Services Farmers receive a payment for the environmental services generated through the implementation of silvopastoral systems Implements SPS => payment is applied The payment is based on a Land Use Change Index Payment is at the farm level (to avoid “leakege”), time span: 4 years

Index for Biodiversity Index According to the Capacity of Different Land Use Types to Increase BD and Capture C # Land Use Types Index for Carbon Index for Biodiversity Total Index 1 Short cycle crops 2 Degraded Pasture 3 Natural pastures without trees 0,1 0,2 4 Improved pastures without trees 0,4 0,5 5 Unshaded semi-pernnial crops 0,3 6 Natural pastures, low tree density 1 0,6 7 Nat. past. with recently planted trees 8 Live fences, recently established 9 Improved pastures with recently planted trees 0,7 10 Monoculture fruit tree plantation 11 Gramineous fodder bank 0,8 12 Improved pasture with low tree density 0,9 13 Fodder bank with woody species 14 Natural pasture with high tree density 1,0 1 < 30 trees Ha-1

Index for Biodiversity Index According to the Capacity of Different Land Use Types to Increase BD and Capture C # Land Use Types Index for Carbon Index for Biodiversity Total Index 15 Diversified fruit tree plantation 0,6 0,5 1,1 16 Multi-story live fence or windbreak 17 Diversified fodder bank 1,2 18 Monoculture timber plantation 0,4 0,8 19 Shade-grown coffee 0,7 1,3 20 Improved pasture with high tree density 2 21 Natural bamboo stands (guadua) 22 Diversified timber plantation 1,4 23 Early secondary growth 24 Riparian forest 1,5 25 Intensive silvopastoral system 1,0 1,6 26 Disturbed secondary forest 0,9 1,7 27 Secondary forest 1,9 28 Primary forest 2,0 2 > 30 trees Ha-1

Index for Biodiversity # Land Use Types Index for Carbon Index for Biodiversity Total Index 1 Short cycle crops 2 Degraded Pasture 3 Natural pastures without trees 0,1 0,2 4 Improved pastures without trees 0,4 0,5 5 Unshaded semi-pernnial crops 0,3 6 Natural pastures, low tree density 1 0,6 7 Nat. past. With recently planted trees 8 Live fences, recently established 9 Improved pastures with recently planted trees 0,7 10 Monoculture fruit tree plantation 11 Gramineous fodder bank 0,8 12 Improved pasture with low tree density 0,9 13 Fodder bank with woody species 14 Natural pasture with high tree density 1,0 Land use change index 15 Diversified fruit tree plantation 0,6 0,5 1,1 16 Multi-story live fence or windbreak 17 Diversified fodder bank 1,2 18 Monoculture timber plantation 0,4 0,8 19 Shade-grown coffee 0,7 1,3 20 Improved pasture with high tree density 2 21 Natural bamboo stands (guadua) 22 Diversified timber plantation 1,4 23 Early secondary growth 24 Riparian forest 1,5 25 Intensive silvopastoral system 1,0 1,6 26 Disturbed secondary forest 0,9 1,7 27 Secondary forest 1,9 28 Primary forest 2,0

Incremental = Score year t – Score of the Baseline Since we want to promote land use changes, we pay for the additional Environmental Services generated by the implementation of SPS in relation to a baseline established at year 0 Farm score Additional Baseline Years Incremental = Score year t – Score of the Baseline

Land Use Changes in Costa Rica (year 1: 2004) DP = Degraded pastures PNsA = Natural pastures without trrees PNcA = Natural pastures with trees PMcA = Improved pastures with trees CV = Live fences Tac = Secondary growth Bosq = Secondary and Riparian forests A total of 753 ha were changed (about 19,5% of the project´s area) Degraded pastures decreased 34,5% Improved pastures (with and without trees) increased 251% Significant increase (114%) in live fences, + 42 km

COMMENTS AND GUIDELINES 2. COMMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Participation Contracts should be simple clear roles for farmers and for the project Let farmers choose the type and scale of land use change Target areas: choose areas critical for the ES

If New Technologies Are Involved Be sure necessary inputs are available Be sure there is access to “know how” Be prepared for farmer’s experimentation

Payment System (1) Pay for the product (ES), not for the promise of ES if you generate ES, then you are paid if you do not generate ES, then you are not paid The farmer should be clear about this from the beginning ES should be clearly identified => payment system

Payment System (2) It has to be easy to understand by the farmer action A pays $X1 action B pays $X2 PES should provide clear signs on which are desirable land uses and which are not Avoid perverse incentives (recognize baseline)

Payment System (3) Advantages of a LUCI as a tool for devising a PES system: its application seems to be cheaper than other alternatives relatively easy to understand by farmers adjustable/perfectible as more info on ES is available need research on biophysical links between the different land use types and the ES generated (credibility)

Payment System (4) PES may need additional regulatory framework: e.g., no fires, no cutting trees …but, keep it simple The focus of the payment systems should be on the generation of ES

Monitoring (1) For effects of the PES on Land Use Changes Control group need some “carrot” to stimulate participation sometimes difficult to have a “true” control group check for expectations in the area of the project Difficult to control for TA many organizations in the area can provide TA

Monitoring (2) For effects of Land Use Changes on Income, Labor Long-term monitoring (need movie, not a picture) at farm level (can use farm registers) …but also follow key variables at regional and national level (milk, gasoline prices) Keep an eye on policy initiatives that may change the rules of the game

Sustainability of the PES Identify the demand (who, where) for the different ES Identify how they want the ES to be provided Develop market strategy to sell your ES

Thank you

Payment System PES Baseline US$ 10 / point Value of the point for the LUCI US$ 75 Payment span Annual payments 4 year

Photo-map of the Farm

Example to calculate points for the farm 2003 Land use types (baseline) 2004 Land use types

Calculating the PES for the Baseline and Year 1 Land Use Type Index Baseline (2003) Year 1 (2004) Area Index x Area Natural pastures without trees 0,1 15 1,5 3 0,0 Natural pastures, low tree density 0,6 5 3,0 Improved pastures, low tree density 0,9 10 9,0 Secondary growth 1,4 2 2,8 Total 20 4,5 14,8 Incremental score 10,3 Payment for the Baseline (US$ 10 x oint of the Baseline) 45,0 Payment Year 1 (US$ 75 x incremental score) 772,50

Amounts Paid for ES in Costa Rica Baseline Year 2004 Average amount/farm (US $) 238 (14–500) 557 (68–1527) Average amount/ha 8 (2,1–14,1) 19,73 (4,7–48,7)