Innovations for equity in smallholder PES: bridging research and practice
Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh conference 21st March 2014
THE CHIMPANZEE CONSERVATION CORRIDOR PILOT PES SCHEME IN
UGANDA
Paul Hatanga M, Project ManagerChimpanzee Sanctuary & Wildlife Conservation Trust (Chimpanzee Trust )
Email: [email protected]
Presentation OutlineProject context
BackgroundProblemOpportunities
Project DesignPES Scheme design & implementation Strategies for inclusion of small holders
Lessons learned Personal reflectionsConclusion
Project contextChimpanzees require suitable forest habitats to survive.The Albertine rift forest system in Uganda is important for chimpanzee corridorsUganda has about 5000 wild chimpanzees . 10% are found outside protected forests in western Uganda (Uganda Chimpanzee Population Census, 2002) Uganda’s deforestation rate is currently 92,000ha (approx. 2.6%). It is more than twice(5.1%) outside protected areas.Without innovative conservation approaches, it is estimated that there will be no more forest ecosystems left in the next 15 years.PES offers a great opportunity to address the problem but there is limited evidence of its effectivenessMap
Context continued……..Chimpanzee Trust Uganda
Mission-To promote chimpanzee conservation & environmental management for sustainable development
ProgramsNgamba Island Chimpanzee SanctuaryConservation of Wild chimpanzees and their habitatsEnvironmental education and partnerships
PES Scheme context in Chimpanzee Trust Uganda
Achieve sustainable management of chimpanzee habitats outside protected areas in AR
PROJECT DESIGN
PES Scheme
Evaluation
Forest&
Forest Owner
How we are doing it?Divide target recipients into two groups before the intervention
Target population 140 Villages
Random assignment
Treatment-70 villages Control-70 villages
Don’t give PES
Give Program
Participant characteristicsAverage household size: 793% of household heads are maleHalf of household heads completed primary schoolAverage per capita weekly income: 4 USDForest land sizes
Median forest size 0.80 ha Average forest size 1.54 ha75% of participants had less than average land size
Land ownershipOnly 2.8% of the forest owners have registered land titles52% own 1 piece of land 36% own 2 pieces of land
Land disputes:32% of PFOs had a dispute on their landUsually relating to land boundaries
PES SCHEME DESIGN-Project developers levelLessons from drawn from else where-IIED i.e. Costa Rica, Bolsa Floresta scheme, ECOTRUST etcRound table discussions by partners
Forest interventions and measurementsPackage for paymentsScheme and research design
National level consultation workshopLegal advice from NEMA & Chimpanzee Trust LawyerBuyer side-Hydro power company, oil company, water companyPre- design consultations with target beneficiaries and potential buyers of ES.
PES SCHEME DESIGN-Farmer level
Community consultation
Voluntary application by participants
Verification of
participants
Forest assessment
baselineContract negotiation and signing
Sign up payment
Monitoring- Community
based
Annual payment
Scheme Design-The deal!Incentive cash payment Approx. $35/ha/yearSensitize, create awareness, trainMonitor and advise PFOsSeedlings for reforestation/enrichment planting
Forest management based on agreed interventions e.g.,
Regulated harvestingEnrichment plantingRe-forestationNo opening new land for agriculture
Strategies for small-holder involvementConsultation meeting
Subcounty levelVillage level-involving village leadersPrivate forest owner level consultation meeting
Application and contract processEnsured consent at household levelVerified land-ownership with local leaders to minimize land related conflictsAssessed presence and status of applying forest
Community monitoringIdentified from communityInterviewed jointly with local leadersTrained in project and its structures
Accessible payment modality. Minimize bank charges and walking distances
PFO identity cardCopies of all documentation
The frequently asked questions With monitors and local leaders
Contract signing results
18%
82%
Proportion of applicants (413) signing contracts
Not signed Signed contracts
42%
51%
7%
Compliance Monitoring -Year 1
Complied Partly Complied Didn’t comply
54%38%
9%
Compliance Performance-Year 2
Complied Partly Complied Didn’t Comply
Performance Results
Explanations for performance
Compliance performance;Improved trust and confidence in projectCommunity monitoring and extension supportHigh motivation to get withheld payment amount (25%)
Non compliance; Low survival of planted seedlings in year 1Family and community land use management disagreements with contracted PFOs. Most non complying PFOs have small forest area & would rather convert to agriculture
(In Year 1, median was 1.2ha & In year 2, median was 0.9ha)
Challenges of involving small holdersDealing with unclear land tenure required more time in assessment and verificationProtracted family negotiations to obtain consentSeasonal priorities vary and delay engagementShort term benefits versus long-term benefitsProblem animalsPressures for hire-purchase agreements
Lesson’s learntLand Ownership: In areas where land documentation is not in place, land-based conflicts may affect level of participation. Working with local leaders to verify landownership increased confidence
Community Monitoring: Working with community based monitors improves trust and provides effective feedback to participants
Conservation Cost: The project interventions have cost to participants and non participants. Not integrated in calculation
Partnerships: Identification of proper capacity needs for scheme implementers e.g. Post Bank executing payments, NEMA/CSWCT
Design of Randomized Experiments: Randomized controlled experiments require very close collaboration between implementers and evaluators to minimize contamination and ensure consensus e.g. mode of payment was feared to affect the study
Leveraging funding: Collaboration with IIED and impact evaluation specialists helped leverage funding for the research projects
Private Sector Investment: Private sector would like to commit funding but is carefully waiting for evidence
CSO, Gov’t, Donor & Research Partnership: Promotes win-win collaboration
Personal reflectionsParticipation across gender. Who drives the agenda?Culture and tradition. What is the place of communally accepted cultural and traditional norms? How do we consciously influence themWhat stake do the non-forest owners have? How do we spread benefits beyond direct beneficiariesTiming of negotiations. Who sets the time “enough” & what are the pertinent issues across the boardDocumentation of social impacts. What system is in place to have these documented.? How about social learning. What system is in place to cultivate social learning amongst the peersThe buyers, the sellers, the proponents….where do they meet to share concerns. Government commitment & enabling policy. Is it there? Is it enabling, facilitating or just directional without ability to proactively influence.PES schemes in areas with poor land tenure/documentation systems have potential of enhancing management rights
Next StepsFinalize analysis of research findingsPresentation of project results in national and international foraGenerating policy documents/briefsPublication of research findingsLobbying government commitment for PES policy and allocation of fundingMarketing the PES scheme based on evidence generatedScaling up
Conclusion Small holder farmers have potential to respond with consistent engagement within acceptable communal normsGovernment-Civil society partnership Research and implementation projects are rigorousWe are looking forward to analysis and publication of results on PES effectiveness in mid 2014.Short narration
Thank you