1. LESSONS FROM THE PROJECT INTEGRATED SILVOPASTORAL APPROACHES TO ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
José A. Gobbi
Grupo GAMMA, CATIE
Turrialba, Costa Rica

2. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION1.
BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3. 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)

4. 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

5. Bul-Bul & Paiwas
Quindio
Esparza

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. COMMENTS AND GUIDELINES2.
COMMENTS AND GUIDELINES

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Thank you

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

25. Photo-map of the Farm

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

27. 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

28. 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)