Are PES-like Iniatives Realistic, Voluntary,

Conditional and Pro-poor? Case of Nyando & Yala

River BasinThomas Yatich, B. Swallow, J. Sang, M. Nyabenge,

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya

Daniel Bundotich, Kenya Ministry of Agriculture,

Anantha Duraiappah, and Makiko Yashiro,

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya

2ND World Congress in Agroforestry, United Nations Office, Nairobi

Outline• Why the concern on Nyando Yala

River Basins? Why PES and PES-like?

• What ICRAF and partners have done to address the challenges?

• What are the community and partners iniatives

• Evaluation of PES-like iniatives• Implications of the study• Invitation

Why the concern in Nyando and Yala? Why PES-like?

Why Nyando and Yala? • Land Use changes with implications on the state of Lake Victoria and its environmental services;•Land degradation & soil erosion(e.g. 1/3 of Nyando basin is heavily degraded) ;•Variation in the value of agricultural production•Potential impacts of climatic change and Variability

Why PES-like? •PES mechanisms are still incipient in Africa and in the sites that we are working in across East and West African Highlands•Learn lessons and experiences to inform design of prototype mechanisms

The Nyando and Yala basins of Kenya

Both about 3500 km2

High poverty rates Dense populations Flooding in lower areas Deforestation in upper areas High rates of HIV / AIDS Declining agriculture through 1990s Both contrasting land tenure / settlement types

• Undertaken Tradeoffs analysis among ecosystem services

• Undertake a quick appraisal of PES and PES-like iniatives in the two basins

• Facilitated policy dialogues• Boundary work analysis • Building a coalition to make the case for use

of publicly funded PES for ecosystem restoration.

What is being done by ICRAF and Partners to address these challenges?

RUPES / PRESA time line1998 2002 2009 20112007 20082006 2010

First discussionswith IFAD

RUPES 1began

RUPES 1implemented

RUPES 1Reporting;Development ofRUPES II

RUPES II implemented

PRESAdeveloped

PRESA implemented

Pan-tropical Scopingstudy

ScopingStudy paperspublished

1994

Transvic ProjectSVEM

Propoor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa

Goal: smallholder farmers and residents living in the highlands of East and West Africa benefit from fair and effective agreements between stewards and beneficiaries of ecosystem services.

Objectives: 1. Foster workable environmental

service agreements. 2. Catalyze policy support and private-

sector participation in environmental service agreements

3. Community of Practice: Provide support to researchers, NGOs and government agencies interested in pro-poor rewards for environmental services in Africa

Sites

What have communities and partners undertaken?

• Ecosystem-based livelihood systems aimed at meeting welfare goals (e.g. food-for-work, flood control, spring protection, de-silting dams,

• Iniatives aimed at compliance with the requirements of the National Environment Management Authority;

• Ecosystem restoration initiatives e.g. soil erosion control measures spearheaded by LVEMP;

•Fair Trade Initiatives e.g. the case of Eastern Produce Company Limited

•Biodiversity protection iniatives by communities;

• Community empowerment and exchange programs

•Design and implementation of voucher systems

{Are these iniatives PES or PES-like? Are they conditional, voluntary, realistic, and pro-poor? }

PES-Like Initiatives

Njaa Marafuku Kenya

-Help in meeting the UNCCD objectives at the local level

-Is pro-poor

-Is a Ministry of Agriculture initiative

Muhoroni East Sub-location Widows and Orphans Group

PES-Like Initiatives

Compliance with envtal Management

-Developed because of initial conflicts with adjacent community

-Seen as meeting good citizen requirements

-Could provide opportunities for eco-labelling

Chemomi Factory wetland

PES-Like Initiatives

Public programs for ecosystem restoration

-Other programs: De-silting dykes, clearing irrigation drains

Food-for-work program

PES-Like Initiatives

On-farm improvements and potential to provide Ecosystem services

Mr. Ruguts Farm

Case studies/criteria and Indicators

Realistic Mechanism

ConditionalMechanism

Voluntary Mechanism

Pro-poor

School linked conservation, health & Nutrition initiatives

Initiatives addresses threats to forests, catchments & effects of degradation through re-afforestation

Membership and payment (both in kind & financially ) to benefit from the school feeding programme

Yes. But membership or participation in the school feeding program is due to lack of alternatives

The core of these initiative is meeting welfare and poverty reduction goals. It strongly meets this criterion.

Sunset Birders

Addresses degradation of wetlands and protection of CITES protected species

Harvesters of papyrus get rewarded through increased earnings by adopting good harvesting practices

Harvesters who not adhere to the bylaws are sanctioned. It is voluntary but with regulations

Yes. Apart from sustaining materials, LVSB try to provide alternatives for the local communities

Irrigation linked conservation & rehabilitation programs

Addresses sedimentation of canals, dykes & roads

Conditional upon provision of service-participate in food-for-work

Participation is motivated by household food needs.

Designed to benefit the poor and those with food/nutritional needs.

Criteria-indicator based Evaluation of PES-Like Initiatives

Njaa Marufuku

Tries to address impacts of desertification and nutritional needs

Conditional upon membership and participation group activities

Yes, but driven mostly by membership benefits like income & reduced stigma

Yes. Targeted at meeting the needs of the poor and the HIV/AIDS infected & affected people

Private & publicly funded rehabilitation programs

Addresses sedimentation of canals, dykes & roads

Conditional upon provision of a service-participate in food-for-work

Participation is motivated by household food needs

Designed to benefit the poor and those with food/nutritional needs.

Fair Trade Initiatives

Eco-labelling and premiums address market and corruption related issues

Conditional upon membership with perceived benefits motivating participation

Yes. Members get registered based on the extent they think their interests would be met

There is no guarantee that the participants are the poor, but outgrowers are poor relative to Estate owners

Realistic Conditional Voluntary Pro-poor

Artificially constructed Treatment systems

Compliant- based but try to address pollution of wetlands

Conditional upon NEMA EIA requirements

Some companies voluntarily do this because of pressure from communities & NEMA-not voluntary

Aimed at not harming the poor by not discharging effluents to natural wetlands

LVEMP linked spring protection

Associated projects like agroforestry enhance land cover thereby reducing sediments and regulatory services including disease regulation

Farmers pay a fee for maintenance and participate in spring protection activities but water use is not limited by their participation

Yes. Smallholders participating do not have rights over water but most community members can access and use the water.

Not necessarily. Obtaining water from a nearby source enables farmers to devote saved time on more productive economic activities like agriculture.

Kakamega Sweet potatoes and Tissue Culture project

Addresses nutritional related issues which have resulted from decline in soil fertility due to degradation

Conditional upon membership and participation

Yes to some degree. No one is forced to become a member but this is motivated by the perceived social and health benefits

Yes. Contributes to the nutritional and food needs of the poor mainly women

Realistic Conditional Voluntary Pro-poor

Implications of study 1. The four-point criteria and indicators are

not satisfied by the iniatives, but there are opportunities to ‘tip the balance’

2. Focus on welfare goals and can only be sustained if their welfare goals are realized;

3. There are opportunities provided for by the existing policy and legislative frameworks (MEAs and national-level policies and legislation

Opportunities for students and faculty to help us implement, assess and design our activities

Fields: • Geography and land use systems• Links between land use and ecosystem services• valuation of ecosystem services• economics of alternative land uses and interventions• governance of natural resources and property rights• analysis of policy options and constraints• ex ante and ex post impact assessments• social, gender and equity effects of rewards for environmental services• business case for investment in environmental services

Follow-up

Other ICRAF work on Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Serviceswww.worldagroforestry.org/cres Rewarding Upland Poor for Environmental Services www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/networks/rupes

Please contact us to receive further information• Peter Minang-GRP 6 Leader: a.minang@cgiar.org •Thomas Yatich T.B. – Project Ag. Coordinator: t.yatich@cgiar.org•Vanessa Meadu – Communications Officer: v.meadu@cgiar.org•Miika Makela-Spatial Analyst: m.makela@cgiar.org •Joyce Kasyoki-Administrative Officer: j.kasyoki@cgiar.org•Catherine Kimengu: c.kimengu@cgiar.org

PRESA project: http://www. presa.worldagroforestry.org