Pro-Poor PES-CES Compensating the Rural Poor for Ecosystem Services: Adapting Communities or Adapting/Embedding PES-CES Schemes? Herman Rosa, Nelson Cuéllar, Susan Kandel, Barry Shelley “Pro-poor payments for environmental services – implications for donor assistance” Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) Copenhagen, October 13, 2006 PROGRAMA SALVADOREÑO DE INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE DESARROLLO Y MEDIO AMBIENTE SALVADORAN RESEARCH PROGRAM ON DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT

Pro-Poor PES-CES Proposed Questions for this Workshop In what contexts pro-poor PES … a) would be difficult to implement? b) could be worth considering?

Pro-Poor PES-CES Payment for Environmental Services (PES) Not Always Welcomed In May 2006 groups of indigenous, afro-ecuadoran and campesino origin demanded: “(...) the ANULMENT of all the contracts to sell environmental services from territories of indigenous, afro-ecuadoran and campesino peoples, nations and communities in Ecuador” (Puyo Declaration: In Arenal (Costa Rica), some producers are unwilling to enter into the official PES scheme because they distrust the government and fear they will lose control over their lands (Porras y Hope, 2005)

Pro-Poor PES-CES PES and Poor Rural Communities: Three Contrasting Perspectives 1.PES is only a conservation tool. Adding explicitly the objective of community involvement for poverty reduction will impede efficient functioning of PES schemes and reduce conservation benefits for all. 2.PES is a tool for poverty reduction and sustainable natural resource management, but requires addressing the constraints that poor communities face in existing PES schemes. 3.CES (Compensation for Ecosystem Services) is an empowering tool for poor rural communities. CES can improve their well-being while strengthening and drawing attention to their role in as stewards of the resource base.

Pro-Poor PES-CES Choices of communities and their supporters before the contrasting PES/CES perspectives 1.ADOPT conservation focused PES schemes if they have secure rights to natural resources at a significant scale and quality, as well as the technical and entrepreneurial capacities to gain successful entry into these markets. 2.ADAPT communities through capacity building so that they can enter into those schemes. Complementarily, seek to develop/shape/tailor PES schemes so that they take into account communities conditions and concerns. 3.EXPLORE alternative scenarios and complementary avenues until a CES strategy emerges that is contextually embedded and furthers community-defined goals.

Pro-Poor PES-CES Conditions for successful adaptation of communities to PES schemes 1.Cultural values that do not resist commodification and market relations. 2.Secure control over natural resources so that PES initiatives are not perceived as undermining that control. 3.Adequate stock of human and social capital to ensure effective collective action and reduced transaction costs. 4.Supporting organizations and intermediaries that do not subordinate communities to their own goals or material gain.

Pro-Poor PES-CES Benefits provided by NATURAL Ecosystems (Gretchen Daly) Benefits provided by Ecosystems (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) Ecosystem Services: Contrasting Definitions

Provisioning Services Food  Crops  Livestock  Capture Fisheries  Aquaculture  Wild Foods Fiber  Timber  Cotton, hemp, silk  Wood Fuel Genetic resources Biochemicals Freshwater Goods produced or provided by ecosystems Photo credit (top): Tran Thi Hoa (World Bank),

Regulating Services Air Quality Regulation Climate Regulation  Global (CO 2 sequestration)  Regional and local Erosion regulation Water purification Disease regulation Pest regulation Pollination Natural Hazard regulation Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes

Cultural Services Spiritual and Religious Values Knowledge Systems Educational values Inspiration Aesthetic Values Social Relations Sense of Place Recreation and Ecotourism Non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems Photo credits ( top to bottom): W. Reid, Mary Frost, Staffan Widstrand, unknown.

Pro-Poor PES-CES Exploring complementary avenues … First things must come first Poor rural communities depend heavily on the resource base and their management decisions seek FIRST to guarantee their self-provisioning of food, water, fuel and spiritual well being.Poor rural communities depend heavily on the resource base and their management decisions seek FIRST to guarantee their self-provisioning of food, water, fuel and spiritual well being. Communities welcome support to strengthen rights, improve practices, and strengthen institutions to guarantee self-provisioning.Communities welcome support to strengthen rights, improve practices, and strengthen institutions to guarantee self-provisioning. 1 Practices for Self-Provisioning (food, water, fuel, spiritual well-being)

Pro-Poor PES-CES Exploring complementary avenues … Improving income generating activities Communities will welcome support to improve their EXISTING practices so that they can gain better entry into markets thus increasing their income:Communities will welcome support to improve their EXISTING practices so that they can gain better entry into markets thus increasing their income: Technical assistance, Marketing support, Infrastructure, Certification. Etc. 1. Practices for Self-Provisioning (food, water, fuel, spiritual well-being) 2. Practices for Income Generations (agriculture, agro-forestry, forestry, non-timber products, rural tourism, handicrafts)

Pro-Poor PES-CES Obtaining compensations for ecosystem services of regional and global interest Build on improved practices for self-provisioning and income generation, to explore territorial management schemes, practices and compensations for ecosystem services of regional/global interest 3. Practices to Guarantee Ecosystem Services of Regional / Global Interest (water quality and water regulation, biodiversity, carbon sequestration) 1. Practices for Self-Provisioning (food, water, fuel, spiritual well-being) 2. Practices for Income Generation (agriculture, agro-forestry, forestry, non-timber products, rural tourism, handicrafts)

Pro-Poor PES-CES 1. Practices for Self-Provisioning (food, water, fuel, spiritual well-being) 2. Practices for Income Generations (agriculture, agro-forestry, forestry, non-timber products, rural tourism, handicrafts) 3. Practices to Guarantee Ecosystem Services of Regional / Global Interest (water quality and water regulation, biodiversity, carbon sequestion) Institutional Arrangements (community, local, micro-regional, regional, national, global) Critical Issues for Equitable and Efficient Schemes ____________________ Defend, Expand and Innovate Rights (access, extraction, management, tenure, transfer) Landscape Perspective that Values Human Action (anthropogenic components within landscape mosaics) Strengthen Organizational Capacity (for collective action, conflict resolution, inclusion of women and the poorest, development of external linkages) Compensation Supporting Improvements in the three-levels ____________________ Technical Assistance Infrastructure / Investment Support Marketing Support Financial Compensation Tenure Security Management Rights Supporting Negotiating Platforms Embedding CES: Putting it all together

Pro-Poor PES-CES Supporting PES/CES Schemes: 5 Lessons to Remember 1.PES/CES definitions, frameworks and rules are not politically neutral: They reflect the interests, relative power and learning of actors involved. 2.Without an expansion of the rights of the poor to the resource base, they will not benefit from PES/CES initiatives. 3.Pre-defined compensations and PES/CES schemes may be inadequate, or harmful. Negotiating platforms can better define schemes and compensation packages that are more appropriate to the local context. 4.CES schemes that focus on the rural poor should consider their two priorities: improving self-provisioning, as well as income generation in existing and well-known markets. 5.A broad CES perspective provides an important opportunity to empower rural communities and to promote changes in public policies recognizing the positive role of poor smallholders in managing the resource base.

Pro-Poor PES-CES Implications for Donor Assistance 1.Means are not outcomes: Make sure your grantees do not confuse the means (setting up a PES/CES schemes) with the outcome (a process leading to poverty reduction and sustainable ecosystem management). 2.Context is critical: Make sure your grantees do not predetermine schemes, defer strategic decision-making to the communities and allow in their planning for no PES/CES scheme at all. 3.Demand critical thinking and learning from the processes you support: Make sure your grantees budget enough resources to critically reflect on the process so that they can change course in time 4.Support alternative and unorthodox approaches: Multilaterals and BINGOs already support traditional conservation and market driven approaches. Do not lock-in this path-dependence that crowd out alternative perspectives. 5.Support serious dialogue and mutual learning amongst competing perspectives: Closed knowledge and practice communities are always in danger of becoming sterile.

Pro-Poor PES-CES