1 / 39

Marcela Quintero

CIAT’s Ecosystem Services Strategic Initiative. August 3 , 2015 Hanoi, Vietnam. Marcela Quintero. E-mail m.Quintero@cigar.org. Introduction.

georgeferguson
Télécharger la présentation

Marcela Quintero

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CIAT’s Ecosystem Services Strategic Initiative August 3, 2015 Hanoi, Vietnam Marcela Quintero E-mail m.Quintero@cigar.org

  2. Introduction • Growing interest of research and political sectors globally on understanding the socioeconomic and environmental implications of the increasing loss of ecosystem services in degrading/degraded landscapes (Nkonya et al.,2011). • The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) • The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity initiative (TEEB, 2014) • Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

  3. The Importance ofEcosystem Services in Agriculture • Crop yields rely on the provision of ecosystem services, which can be negatively or positively affected by agriculture, depending on the practices applied for managing crop systems and agricultural landscapes. • Farmers can be beneficiaries of ecosystem services or coadjutants in their provision. • Proper management practices at the crop field and landscape level may turn these disservices into ES, with agriculture becoming an ES provider benefiting other actors or sectors. • Bommarco et al. (2013) presented the important relation between supporting and regulating ES and yield gaps

  4. Selected ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (ED) from and to agriculture (adapted from Stallman, 2011)

  5. What ecosystem services is CIATlooking at, where, and for whom? Ecosystem Services in the CIAT research agenda

  6. Ecosystem Services in the CIAT research agenda

  7. Ecosystem Services Research Agenda To maintain: • Development of tools and methodologies to quantify and map ES associated with different land-uses in agricultural landscapes. • Economic valuation of ES that benefit agriculture and ES impacted by agriculture to determine the level of investment and incentives required for protecting ecosystem services provided in agricultural landscapes. • Identification and assessment of alternative land-use and management practices based on their impacts on ES. A special contribution of CIAT on providing scientific evidence on the role of agriculture in both providing and using ES efficiently. Demonstrate delivery Put it on the map Value the benefits, measure the threats Assess alternative land-use practices Support institutional innovations

  8. Ecosystem Services Research Agenda To strength: Demonstrate delivery Put it on the map Value the benefits, measure the threats Assess alternative land-use practices Support institutional innovations • Direct and indirect contributions of ES to food security, nutrition, and well-being in impoverished rural areas. • The impact of plausible socioeconomic and climate change scenarios on ES provision. • Regional and global analyses on the state of knowledge, policy, and action to improve the provision of ES in agricultural landscapes.

  9. What ES should be targeted?

  10. Some examples • Assessment of Conservation Agriculture in the Colombian Andes • Payment for Ecosystem Services in Peru • Sustainable Amazonian Landscapes • Environmental fooprinting • ASSETS: Linkages between Food Security, Human well-being and Ecosystem Services

  11. Conservationagriculture Assessment of Conservation Agriculture in the Colombian Andes Permanentlandcover Minimunsoildisturbance Rotationwithcovercrop

  12. Understanding on-site impacts of conservation tillage Resilientsystem Conservation agriculture More water stored, restoring the buffer role of paramo Traditional agriculture % Volumetric Water Better soil porosity, filtration, increased carbon storage Conservation agriculture Quintero et al. 2010 AccumulatedOrganicMatter (g/g) Traditional agriculture Impact of conservation tillage on soil and water conservation

  13. “Reduced tillage and cover crops in potato-based systems improved in a 7-year period the soil organic matter and carbon content in disturbed soils of the páramos of Colombia. The soil carbon concentration in the whole pro-file was 29% higher under conservation tillage than un-der conventional tillage sites and the carbon content was higher by 33%.” (Quintero and Comerford, 2013)

  14. Impact of conservation tillage (CT) on nutrient and soil loss in Colombia • Effects of CT can not be generalized • The results showed statistical differences across crops in some, but not all, crop cycles • Longer-term observations are required to evaluate the impact of the whole rotation • Depend upon the type of soil and precipitation conditions as well as the fertilizer application timing

  15. Nutrient and sediment losses are generally lower in Inceptisols than in Andosols

  16. CT seems to have a positive effect on reducing nutrient losses in Inceptisols Due mainly to significant higher nutrient concentrations in runoff water and sediments from potato-IT than potato-CT

  17. Nutrient losses vs. permissible levels

  18. How to achieve reductions in nutrient losses? b • Efforts to reduce soil losses had to be combined with adjustment of nutrient application rates • The reduction of nutrient loss is not achieved via reducing soil loss ab ab a ab a a

  19. Residues from precedent cover crop in potato-CT does not limit soil loss relative to potato-IT, especially during those specific events when highest loss typically occurs

  20. Impactos en la cuenca

  21. Institutions for Rewards for Ecosystem Services mechanisms in Peru

  22. Peruvian case study, Canete River watershed – Current situation

  23. Desired situation: REWARDING for ES Investment in conservation alternatives Watershed’s socioeconomic asymmetries might be balanced by this benefit-sharing mechanism Transfer part of their benefits

  24. Research Highlights: Putting the pieces together for designing a PES Where payments should be targeted to? Identification of service providing areas using hydrological modeling How payments should be used? Ecosystem conservation measures and social development projects. What should be the payments amount to be made by ES beneficiaries? Estimation of economic value of watershed services for different ES users: These values are reference values to be used for anticipated negotiation processes.

  25. Creation of a trust fund to provide rewards and incentives for conserving upper watershed ecosystems Who should contribute to the trust fund?

  26. Requirements for the RES schemesdesign and implementation • Targeting actions: What and where? • Economic values of ES for the demand as a reference value to negotiate contributions to a ES Fund • Willingness to pay • Enabling the legal environment • Enabling institutional environment

  27. Progress towards implementation Quintero, M., Pareja, P., Rivera, G. (Forthcoming).

  28. What is impeding the implementation of RES schemes in watersheds of Peru?

  29. DESIGN DIAGNOSTIC Facultad de recaudación a través de tributos Facultad de invertir los recursos a través de SNIP Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo Municipal Municipalidad Facultad de disposición de recursos determinados (FONCOMUN, CANON, etc.) Facultad para celebrar contratos y/o acuerdos en tierras con y sin título. Facultad de hacer retribuciones directas a los caodyuvantes o por subvenciones Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo privado o mixto Alta morosidad en el pago de tributos Falta de claridad sobre cuál es la estructura institucional viable y efectiva que administrará la retribución Falta de recursos para la realización de estudios de diagnóstico Facultad de recaudación a través de la tarifa de agua Falta de lineamientos para el diseño de mecanismos de RSEH Facultad de crear una cuenta independiente. Facultad de invertir los recursos a través de SNIP Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo Municipal EPS Facultad para celebrar contratos y/o acuerdos en tierras con y sin título. Facultad de recaudación a través de un cobro voluntario anexado al recibo de agua Facultad de hacer retribuciones directas a los caodyuvantes o por subvenciones Capacidad operativa débil e insolvencia económica Escasa disponibilidad de información técnico-científica Facultad de transferir los recursos a un Fondo privado o mixto Empresa de Luz: Facultad para recuadrar a través de la tarifa de luz o cobro voluntario anexo Institución Independiente (Empresa privada/ONG/Juntas de Riego) Facultad de recaudar recursos públicos Falta claridad sobre el rol y/o las facultades que podrían tener en los mecanismos de RSEH Se requiere reconocimiento como cuenca prioritaria por el ANA Consejos o Comités de Recursos Hídricos (ANA) Aun débil capacidad de gestión y gobernanza Gobernabilidad Grupo impulsor /Comité gestor /Grupo técnico de gestión Nivel de articulación con la institucionalidad creada por el ANA Necesidad o no de personería jurídica

  30. IMPLEMENTATION NEGOTIATION OF BENEFIT-SHARING AGREEMENTS Falta de planes financieros Inapropiado conocimiento sobre la relación ecosistema - agua Recursos recaudados insuficientes Aportación de beneficiarios no recurrentes y con expectativas de cambio a corto plazo Falta de propuestas técnicas efectivas para la conservación y/o recuperación de SEH Potencial de recaudación no explotado (1 beneficiario) Voluntariedad de la retribución Falta de organizaciones a quien se les delegue la implementación técnica de las alternativas para proveer SEH Escasos incentivos para estimular involucramiento de la empresa privada Falta de recursos para fortalecer las estrategias de comunicación

  31. Legal bottlenecks • Inability to transfer voluntary contribution from urban water users to an indenpendent Fund for PES • How to channel public resources of local governments into PES funds? • How to ensure sustainability of the fund –voluntary vs mandatory?

  32. Legal and institutional bottlenecks • Financial independence • Lack of trust on current organizations • Lack of guidelines on how to establish new institutions for operating RES (rules and organizations) Who should manage the ES trust fund?

  33. RES implementation requires multisectoral coordination for operating SERNANP: National Service of Protected Areas • There is a lack of an institutional structure for an integrated watershed management • National policy on water resources proposed the creation of watershed councils, however the process of creation is incipient and lack a specific funding for its funtioning • How to articulate RES into future wateshed councils?  intersectorial coordination and need for official guidelines Local water authority / National water authority

  34. Analysis of bottlenecks in the implementation of Rewards for Ecosystem Services schemes in watersheds of Peru

  35. Overcoming bottlenecks for RES implementation New Lawon RES Remaining gaps How to become voluntary contributions in a legally binding to ensure continuity Management design that guarantees independency and transparency • Offical recognition of RES, eventhough are voluntary • Definition of RES: Rewards and incentives • Avoid perverse incentives • Enable transfer of urban water users contributions into RES funds • Highlights the importance of articulating PES with existing land and water use/management plans Caneteinstitutionalarrangement for implementation • Creation of ad-hod watershed committee for PES governance  transition towards watershed councils • National organization that currently manages conservation project will manage the PES Fund • High replicability potential

  36. Project components Multi-scale approach

  37. Marcela Quintero m.Quintero@cigar.org Thanks for your attention

More Related