1. Making Environmental Service Payments Work for the Poor Maryanne Grieg-Gran Environmental Service Payments for the Poor- Contributing to the Milennium Development Goals IFAD Governing Council Side Event 20 February 2004 Some experiences from Latin America

2. Outline How payments for environmental services might reduce poverty The constraints Some positive examples from Latin America –Watershed services Pimampiro, Ecuador –Carbon sequestration Northern region, Costa Rica –Biodiversity conservation ICMS ecologico, Brazil

3. How PES might reduce poverty Direct –Payments increase household income Other more indirect channels –Generation of new productive activities and employment –Reducing the cost for the poor of meeting basic needs –Increasing the asset base of the poor – natural, social, human, physical capital –Reducing vulnerability –Increasing government revenue for expenditure on the poor

4. The Constraints Insecure land and resource tenure –May affect eligibility –Pressures for expropriation Small and dispersed producers –High transaction costs –Little bargaining power Market access –Lack of skills, education, finance, information Little voice in the formulation of rules

5. Whether environmental service payments reduce poverty depends on: The context in which they are introduced The driving motivation behind them How they are designed The package of accompanying measures

6. Ecuador: Pimampiro

7. Pimampiro

9. Pimampiro Municipality Population of 17,000 - 6,000 live in town Motivations for the Payment Scheme: –Problems of water shortages for town supply –Estimated 13,000ha of forests lost since 1985 –Decentralisation of environmental management Pilot scheme: Nueva America Association –27 families with an average of 2-3 ha of agricultural land and 20 ha of forest or paramo Aim: protect forest in the headwaters of the municipality´s water system

10. Payment Mechanism PES FUND 20% increase in water price Seed capital US $15,000 USD UMAT CEDERENA Payment to Nueva America Association

11. Payment Categories 0 Degraded Land 0 Agriculture and Livestock 0.50 New Secondary Forest 0.75 Old Secondary Forest 0.50 Intervened Primary Forest 1.00 Primary Forest 0.50 Intervened Paramo 1.00 Primary Paramo and Forest Payment ($/month/ha) Payment Categories

12. PES and poverty reduction in Pimampiro Mainly through raising income –Mean payment of US$21 per family per month Equivalent to 30% of monthly household expenditure Benefits from projects accompanying PES –Formalisation of land tenure –Technical assistance and training Agricultural productivity –Improved access to NTFP markets eg:medicinal plants

13. Some key issues Early to judge success –Payments started in 2001 Institutional sustainability –Supporting project will finish soon Improvements to water supply infrastructure helped acceptability

14. Northern Region Costa Rica Pre-1980 deforestation to create large farms 1980s: Land invasions and land reform 1990s: promotion of forestry and PES

16. FONAFIFO/ Ministry of Environment Pooled DEMAND SUPPLY Carbon Sales Hydrological services BiodiversityLandscape beauty Forest owners: public and private (payments per ha for 5 years contract) $200 conservation $500 reforestation $300 forest management Transfer Payments: FONAFIFO Independent Monitoring

17. PES and Poverty Reduction in Northern Region Mainly through making a new activity viable: –Main benefit is from sale of thinnings and timber Other benefits –Employment creation in wood processing –Human capital forestry skills, intermediary skills (monitoring, training, support, etc) –Social capital encouraged the creation and strengthening of community associations

18. Room for improvement Inadequate returns for some farmers –Lack of information about costs involved Considerable “learning-by-doing” –Losses for early participants discredited the system. Restriction of access to other public funds –PES participants not eligible for housing bonus or bank credit until recently Lack of government coordination –Land reform beneficiaries ineligible for PES Physical capital adversely affected –roads are deteriorating through increased use

19. ICMS Ecologico Brazil Sharing of state sales tax revenue Criteria for distribution between local governments typically: –Favours LGs with high economic production –Discriminates against LGs with protected areas Paraná introduced an ecological criterion – area, status and quality of management of conservation units 10 other states in Brazil have followed.

20. ICMS and Poverty Reduction Increased revenue for some poor municipalities –Marlieria (Minas Gerais) had 2000% increase in share of ICMS revenues 1995-1998 Enables increased expenditure on basic services –eg: Alto Caparão (MG)- electrification Enables support to communities living in and around conservation units –Eg: NW Paraná –well-drilling, tractors

21. Room for improvement Effect on distribution depends on which other criteria are reduced –40% of counties with conservation units in Rondonia were worse off with the ICMS Revenue may not benefit those most affected by land use restrictions

22. Conclusions PES can benefit the poor if: –They are designed for this purpose –The context is favourable or effort is made to overcome constraints Many PES schemes are being introduced in Latin America eg: Mexico It is important to ensure that these emerging schemes do not exacerbate poverty

23. For more information on IIED’s case studies on environmental services see www.iied.org/eepwww.iied.org/eep or write to maryanne@iied.org