First-Ever African Soil-Carbon Deal Signed at Hague Investment Fair

NOTE:   This article is a breaking story.   It will be expanded and re-posted as a top story within the next week.

3 November 2010 | THE HAGUE | Netherlands | Small-holder farmers in Kenya are changing their farming practices and earning carbon credits. This is a result of the first soil carbon project approved in Africa, which seeks to improve food security, help address climate change, and improve the lives and livelihoods of rural dwellers who today live in poverty. The agreement to purchase the carbon credits which the project generates, the Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement (ERPA), was signed today in a ceremony held at the Global Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change in The Hague.   Representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture in Kenya, Vi Agroforestry and the World Bank presented the project to the media and delegates at the Investment Fair of the conference.

The agreement adds the benefits of carbon finance to a sustainable agricultural land management project based on changes in the practices of farmers in Kenya which not only increase productivity but also sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The project, developed with the support of the Africa Region of the World Bank, generates carbon credits which are sold to the BioCarbon Fund. It allows small-holder farmers in Kenya to access the carbon market and receive carbon revenues through the adoption of productivity enhancing practices and technologies.

Not only is this the first project that sells soil carbon credits in Africa, but it is also paving the way for a new approach to carbon accounting methodologies, which do not yet exist for this nascent area. As Kenya ramps up its participation in carbon markets, this project illustrates concretely how carbon finance can support both the environment and generate revenues for local communities. Although the value of the ERPA exceeds this, the direct benefit to communities is over $350,000 with an initial payment of $80,000 to be made in the first year, 2011, based on project performance with payments for the sequestered carbon.

The Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project, implemented by the Swedish non-governmental organization Vi Agroforestry, is located on 45,000 hectares in the Nyanza Province and Western Province of Kenya. There, small-holder farmers and small-scale business entrepreneurs are trained in diverse cropland management techniques such as covering crops, crop rotation, compost management and agroforestry.   These practices increase the yield of the land and generate additional sources of income for the farmers through the payment for environmental services in the form of carbon credits.

“We are proud to be part of the development of this ground-breaking project. The development of a new methodology for carbon sequestration in agriculture has great direct benefits for the farmers in Kenya and tremendous potential for scaling up. Without the support of the World Bank and the Kenyan Government, this project would not have been possible”, says Henrik Brundin of Vi Agroforestry.

The project is an example of a triple win strategy: implementing policies and programs that will, first, increase farm productivity and incomes; second, make agriculture more resilient to variations in climate, and thus promote stability and security; and, third, help make the agriculture sector part of the solution to the climate change problem rather than part of the problem.

“The approval of this first soil carbon project in Africa is an important step in extending carbon finance to include agriculture. The potential for carbon sequestration in the soil is estimated at 5.5 gigatons annually with good land management practices, equivalent to 13% of current emissions from all sectors. So soil carbon has a huge contribution to make to addressing the climate change challenge”, says Dr. Andrew Steer, Special Envoy for Climate Change, World Bank.

The BioCarbon Fund is an initiative with public and private contributions, administered by the World Bank.   It purchases emission reductions from afforestation and reforestation projects under the CDM, as well as from land-use sector projects outside the CDM, such as projects that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and increase carbon sequestration in soils through improved agriculture practices. In addition, the BioCarbon Fund, which was created to help open the carbon market, develops methodologies and tools that are in the public domain.

Isabel Hagbrink of the World Bank can be reached in Washington at [email protected].   Robert Bisset of the World Bank can be reached in the Hague at [email protected]

EM Podcast: Planting Empowerment (and Spreading the Wealth)

14 April 2010 |   After their Peace Corps service in Panama, Chris Meyer and a few colleagues saw an opportunity to offer socially and environmentally minded investors growth opportunities in sustainably-managed timber projects and began to explore   how carbon revenue could play a part in their model.   The result is Planting Empowerment, one of a growing number of companies that earn money by sustainably managing trees and are dipping their toes in the carbon markets.  

Unlike many forestry businesses, however, PE doesn’t buy land outright from local inhabitants.   Instead, the group establishes reforestation/afforestation projects on deforested or degraded land that belongs to local Panamanians.   PE provides a lease payment to these partners that exceeds the opportunity cost from the land, along with profit sharing and educational opportunities.

*A correction was made to this introduction since it was first published on Ecosystem Marketplace to reflect the fact that Planting Empowerment currently does not have any projects “reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation” (REDD).*

The podcast will soon be available in Spanish for our Latin American and other Spanish speaking audience both here and at www.mercadosambientales.com.

Left-click below to listen in streaming content; right-click to download as mp3 podcast.

Or Click here for the mp3 url of the interview in English

Click here for the mp3 url of the interview in Spanish

Maria Bendana is a research fellow at the Pinchot Institute for Conservation.

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

The New FCP Helps Forge the Global Forest Carbon Community

Marketplaces have long provided a place where buyers and sellers can swap not only bids, offers, and products, but also ideas.   Now Ecosystem Marketplace’s Forest Carbon Portal does the same, with a user-generated community-oriented version upgrade that launched last week.   Here’s an overview of the new features.

22 February 2009 | In the year since Ecosystem Marketplace launched the Forest Carbon Portal, the Portal has become one of a handful of go-to sites for people looking to develop, invest in, or buy credits from forest carbon projects around the world.   It keeps track of nearly 100 forest carbon projects around the world, and aggregates news and information from Ecosystem Marketplace and scores of other sites.

As of last week, the Portal offers new functions designed to help weave the world’s disparate forest carbon projects into a cohesive global community.

Users can, for example, create profiles and join a community, a Facebook of sorts for forest carbon professionals where they can search for and privately message each other. In addition, members of the community can comment on articles and upload their own projects, resources, events and job opportunities in a Jobs Board.

Carbon Connections

While it has been a pleasure to answer your questions, now you can pose them to a greater audience or join and start discussions in ‘Carbon Connections’, a discussion forum for those interested in forest/terrestrial carbon issues.

Coming soon, Carbon Connections will also function as a news bulletin in which you can post announcements and subscribe to get daily emails of what topics and announcements have been posted (similar to the Climate L Forum, which is our own favorite source).

User Categories

Users are divided into three different categories according to their user permissions and rights. The hierarchy of permissions and rights according to users’ roles is the following:

  • Members: Authenticated users that have joined the community (or created an account) will have a profile in the member directory, can privately message other members, comment on articles, upload resources, events and job opportunities and participate in ‘Carbon Connections’.
  • Project Managers: In addition to the permissions and rights of other authenticated members, these users have indicated they have information about ‘operational or pipeline’ projects and would like to upload projects onto the Project Inventory. Operational projects are those that have sold credits and/or been validated to a third party standard. Pipeline projects are all other projects.
  • Writers: For trusted users who have shown leadership in this forest carbon ‘community’ we will expand their role to be able to create and edit their own articles. Please express your interest in becoming a writer for the Forest Carbon Portal community at [email protected].

You wouldn’t know it by looking at it now, but the Forest Carbon Portal wasn’t always this exciting.

Origins

The Forest Carbon Portal is a specialized satellite site of Ecosystem Marketplace, the leading source of markets and payments for ecosystem services (PES). EM in turn was spawned at a Katoomba Group meeting in Switzerland in 2003 when the PES professionals gathered there by Forest Trends realized the need to bring greater transparency and comprehensive information in the nascent field of environmental service markets with the goals of achieving meaningful conservation outcomes and benefits to local communities.

Five years later, in December 2008, Forest Trends released the Portal under the purview of EM to provide a central repository of information for forest carbon professionals (a truly dedicated group that even gathers after working hours in Washington, DC, to play Forest Carbon Trivia hosted by the Portal and yours truly).

Services

The Portal started with a “toolbox” of resources ranging from methodologies to policy briefs, market analysis, a calendar of events, and daily forest carbon news. By February, 2009, we had begun to categorize and summarize news and articles to provide a digestible format for our users to keep up to date with what was happening monthly in the forest carbon world. As methodologies started being developed, we experimented with a “Methodology Watch”.

Forest Carbon Project Inventory and Map

From the start, we maintained an inventory of about a dozen forest carbon projects around the world, and the Portal also featured a very cool interactive Google map pinpointing the location of these forest carbon projects. Users could search for projects by country, as well as by a variety of criteria such as project type, standard, registry and size. Projects were described in consistent ‘nutrition labels’.

By August 2009 the Forest Carbon Project inventory had grown to about 80 projects worldwide. This inventory provided the backbone for and culminated into the State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009 report.

Join the Community

In May, we initiated a “Request for Proposals” for a web development firm to develop a new, open source, user generated site. We picked Forum One, a local Washington, DC firm, and they helped us refine our goals with the site, our target audience and the functionality we needed to put in place to meet those objectives. It has been a nine-month long process to overhaul the site. We hope the new portal will facilitate greater discussion and connectivity among forest carbon practitioners worldwide.

Getting Started

If you are a first time user and you have a resource, an event, a project or a job opportunity you would like to post or if you want to participate in Carbon Connections, please click here for a 2-page detailed instructions guide located on the homepage and the ‘Library and Tools’ page. In order to be able to perform the aforementioned actions and to help seed the community, users need to join the community by creating profiles. It takes less than two minutes to do this. Users who do not join will still be able to view content but will not have the ability to manipulate it or interact with other members.

We hope you join the community and find it useful.  

And if you see anything that needs improvement, that’s what “Carbon Connections” is for.

Additional resources

Ecosystem Services in the New York City Watershed

10 February 2006 | A black Labrador puppy romps through a woodland clearing near the Croton Reservoir, her yelps masked by the roaring overflow of thousands of gallons of freshly melted snow pounding down the dam’s 18-story hand-hewn stone wall. The reservoir’s underground pipes, meanwhile, pull water along the first lap of its gravity-powered exodus from this postcard-pretty upstate town to distant spigots in New York City.

For nearly two hundred years, City residents depended on upstate communities to contribute to the largest unfiltered water system in the world. The City’s watershed spans nearly 2000-square-miles, an area roughly the size of the state of Delaware, with a labyrinth of 19 reservoirs and aqueducts cutting across nine counties to provide 1.2 billion gallons of drinking water daily to 9 million New Yorkers.

Having invested heavily in this delivery system, New Yorkers appreciated their water, once considered the purest in the nation. But when the federal government adopted the Safe Drinking Water Act mandating that all major surface-water systems filter their water or prove they could protect the watershed producing it, New Yorkers also began valuing the upstate watershed from where it came.

A filtration plant large enough to clean the City’s water supply would cost between $8-$10 billion in today’s dollars, approximately $6 billion to build and another $250 million annually to maintain.

Preserving the watershed, conversely, was estimated at $1.5 billion, just over a dime invested on ecological preservation for every dollar that would have been spent on a filtration plant.

So in 1997, New York City embarked on a monumental plan to buy thousands of upstate acres, shield its reservoirs from pollution, improve treatment plants and septic systems and subsidize environmentally-sound economic development. Its success depended on convincing historically disparate parties – beleaguered farmers and inner City taxpayers, federal regulators and City administrators, environmentalists and economists – that the plan would benefit them all.

Offering something for nearly everyone, the City’s watershed plan soon became the darling of environmentalists and economists alike. Now, with this novel scheme reaching its maturity, experts are examining whether the City’s ecosystem approach actually proved to be the more economic choice. And, with so many competing priorities, many wonder also whether the watershed program has a future others can emulate. From the perspective of William Harding, a biologist and executive director of the Watershed Protection and Partnership Council, a state agency offering a forum for the varied partners, the ecosystem solution could last indefinitely, “as long as the watershed doesn’t make the same mistakes as others have, believing they could adequately attenuate the affects of over-development.”

An Unhappy History

Already the City was too late to avoid having to build a half-billion dollar filtration plant to clean water from reservoirs east of the Hudson River where the puppy romped. Although the puppy’s playground appeared bucolic, the water nearby was tainted from the byproducts of suburban growth—failing septic systems, overwhelmed wastewater treatment plants and polluted runoff that slipped from streets to reservoirs. In this commuter’s haven, explains David Warne of New York City Department of Environmental Protection, the City could not plausibly argue that it could control water quality. But if it worked quickly, the City could preserve the newer portion of their watershed located west of the Hudson River in mostly farm land. Since this supplied 90-percent of City water, it could avoid building the larger budget-busting filtration plant. Striking a deal to protect this land mass, however, would not be easy. Some would say that the City had already overplayed its hand. During its century-long, reservoir-building spree, the City generated enormous antipathy using the bully power of eminent domain to evict entire villages. Laying claim to their water sources, the City took prime land from farmers, closed mills and moved schools and churches. From a distance, this could be viewed as an historical curiosity, a price to pay, perhaps, for a higher goal. But in upstate communities where New York City’s newer reservoirs displaced current residents’ parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, the anger remains raw. “Our shared history is not a happy one,” says Alan Rosa, who represented upstate watershed residents during negotiations leading to the 1997 watershed agreement. He now directs the Catskill Watershed Corporation, the agency that implements the agreement’s regional environmental protection and economic development programs. With eminent domain a continuing threat and industry sparse, Rosa grew up in a region whose main streets were dominated by boarded up buildings and aging for-sale signs. To keep the region from following the path of its neighbors across the river, the City would have to win over wary upstate residents, using diplomacy and cash instead of the single hammer of eminent domain. While clearly more land adjoining reservoirs had to be purchased, communities also had to be convinced to change their zoning to minimize population-growth and provide run-off protection measures. Farmers had to be cajoled into altering pastures so that animal dung did not flow straight into reservoirs. Waste water treatment plants had to be upgraded. And septic systems needed fixing. Finally, after seven years of tense negotiations documented in a file stretching a foot-wide, the City brokered a deal with the disparate stakeholders to preserve and enhance the upstate watershed.

Ecosystem Services: Parable or Reality?

Overcoming upstate objections was the City’s first hurdle. Next they had to convince naysayers that the City’s watershed plan, a groundbreaking effort in the new concept of ecosystem services, or letting the environment do the work, was based on concrete accounting. Some still argue that these services, particularly as they relate to the City watershed, have limited value. Mark Sagoff, acting director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy at the University of Maryland, disparagingly labeled the idea of a market for ecosystems services the “Catskills parable,” after the region housing the watershed. Reached by phone at his Maryland office, Sagoff expounded on his perspective, discussed in an article he wrote for Politics and Life Sciences Magazine and excerpted last June in PERC magazine. Sagoff argues, in essence, that the City’s watershed did not need protection because it was never actually threatened. The City preserved the ecosystem to obtain EPA approval to forego building a filtration plant, he says, not to obtain ecosystem services disinfecting water. “It is not clear that rainwater needs to be purified or filtered by the Catskills ecosystem,” he says. The City’s upstate reservoirs met Clean-Water standards before the watershed agreement was signed and may be compromised, he said, by the City’s push to preserve open-space. Rainwater, he says, “approximates distilled water…so impurities…are more likely to come from, rather than be removed by, the landscape onto which rain water falls.” Wildlife, specifically deer and beaver running rampant in undeveloped forests, drop fecal matter into soil that leaches into upstate reservoirs. None-the-less, he added, the City’s long-standing chlorination system destroys these and other impurities. Harding, the biologist directing the Watershed Partnership Council, strongly disagrees. “There are reams of good science showing the demonstrable effect of watersheds on good water quality.” First, rainwater is not distilled water. “It carries a lot of unpleasant things such as acid rain, mercury and pollution,” he says. Land, he added, as opposed to paved roads or concrete spillways “is the only stop gap between dirty water getting into receiving bodies.” City-funded pathogen-transport studies demonstrate that germs can travel no further than 150 feet through soil. “If dirt didn’t purify,” he adds, “then septic systems wouldn’t work.” Sagoff overlooks the preventative aspect of clean water legislation, Harding argues. Although chlorine destroys most impurities, studies show that water quality is heightened by keeping impurities out of the water in the first place. “Just because water is safe to drink today,” Harding adds, “doesn’t mean it will be safe five-to-ten years from now.” None-the-less, water flowing from reservoirs west of the Hudson River is safer today than when the watershed agreement was signed nine years ago. And nearly every stakeholder involved deems the agreement a success, although most stress that ongoing efforts are needed. Water is cleaner, with one fewer reservoir labeled as having excess amounts of nutrients. Farmers are pocketing profits. And environmentalists are pointing to the City’s watershed agreement as the prime example of how ecological solutions reap financial benefits.

Financial Report Card

The City’s daring promise to save taxpayer dollars by underwriting the environment proved accurate, according to a recent audit. The City spent or committed between $1.4 – $1.5 billion in watershed protection projects so far, says City EPA spokesperson Warne, averaging $167 million in expenditures per year. Had the City opted instead to build the filtration plant, taxpayers would have already dished out approximately $6 billion to build the plant plus another $250 million per year for maintenance. Since the City completed the bulk of its capital-intensive programs, Warne adds, savings on future watershed protection costs will be even greater. Specific future financial expenditures will be determined after the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming ten-year review. Meanwhile, the federal EPA gave the project high marks on interim report cards, noting that five new sewage treatment plants have been built and hundreds have been rebuilt. More than 2000 septic tanks have been replaced or repaired. Three million dollars have been spent and seven times that amount has been committed to stream water management to lessen the threat of flood damage, reduce erosion and improve stream ecology. The City purchased 70,000 acres of land, “one of most effective and crucial tools for permanently protecting water,” according to the Watershed Protection and Partnership Council. Money needs to be set aside for further purchases, Warne says, although specific acreage requirements have not been set. The effort to purchase land is chugging along, says Eric A. Goldstein, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But developers and bulldozers are also moving along. I view the next ten years as the last opportunity to acquire priority lands.” Meanwhile, rural New Yorkers found a market for the ecosystem service they house. “We’ve become a water-exporting region,” says Catskill Watershed Corporation director Rosa. The watershed agreement boosted the upstate economy, with money pouring in at a rate of $100 million a year. It provided employment, invested in local businesses and promoted ecotourism. The City pays local contractors to install septic systems, upgrade wastewater treatment plants and set up storm-water-protection measures. Locals land jobs with the City and state Department of Environmental Conservation. Farmers receive reimbursements for building fences and bridges that herd their livestock away from waterways. Landowners are paid to keep forests undeveloped.

Work in Progress

Although the benefits are clear, says Al Appleton, the former Director New York City’s Water and Sewer System who helped initiate parts of the watershed agreement, the cost/appreciation equation of this ecosystem investment is not as simple as it looks. “You can’t make a single investment and expect to be done. It remains a work in progress requiring nurturing, monitoring and money.” None-the-less, he continues, the program already established that “ecosystem services not only produce superior environmental and social results, it produces them far more cheaply that traditional environmental strategies.” The watershed agreement’s documented environmental and economic achievements sent ripples throughout the United States. More than 140 cities are now considering watershed conservation instead of building filtration plants. As for the program’s future, it could go on indefinitely, Harding says. More land is being acquired, better scientific advances have been made and increased funding is coming from the federal, state and local government. “We’re not running out of time, steam or money.”

Alice Kenny is a prize-winning science writer and a regular contributor to The Ecosystem Marketplace. She may be reached at [email protected].

Brazilian States Seek Direct Access To International Climate Finance

13 April 2009 | Mario Monzoni says the idea of drafting the Cuiabí¡ Declaration hit him while he was moderating a panel on public policies for avoiding deforestation on day two of the 14th Katoomba Meeting, in Mato Grosso, Brazil.

“I looked out and saw 1400 people – among them governors from Amazonian states, consumers, representatives of social movements and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), major producers – all reaching consensus agreement that we had to push forward with a Brazilian position in Copenhagen,” he says – referring to the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15), which is supposed to yield a new global climate-change regime to replace the Kyoto Protocol, and takes place this December in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“I realized that never before had we had such momentum,” he says. “I thought, ‘Let’s grab this.'”

Two days later, delegates from these disparate and often contentious groups were hammering out the fine points of the two-page document, which urges Brazil’s federal government to reverse its opposition to direct payments from abroad to people and entities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), and to involve more stakeholders in the process of forming climate-change policy.

The declaration will soon be circulated among the organizations that attended the Katoomba Meeting for official endorsement, and will then be presented to governors of Amazonian states, and finally delivered to President Luiz Iní¡cio Lula da Silva. It can also be endorsed online here

Who Has Jurisdiction?

The declaration states that “the elaboration of Brazil’s national position should be the result of an agile process, yet one that is open, participatory and transparent, through dialog with the interested stakeholders,” and later adds, “The targets for reduced deforestation should be shared between the federal government and each state in the Brazilian Amazon, in the context of the State Plans for Prevention and Control of Deforestation.”

It does not directly address which federal ministry should administer climate-change policy, but delegates to the Katoomba meeting clearly advocate a change from the current practice of leaving it up to the Ministry of External Relations (MRE, Ministério das Relaçíµes Exteriores) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT, Ministério da Ciíªncia e Tecnologia), which critics say are overly concerned with issues of sovereignty and energy.

“Right now, all of the decisions regarding climate-change policy are made by five people – in general, officials from the Ministry of External Relations and the Ministry of Science and Technology,” says Monzoni, who runs the Center for Sustainability Studies at Brazilian university Fundaçí£o Getulio Vargas. “That’s just not acceptable in a country of 200 million people.”

Building Consensus

Monzoni says it was necessary to keep the language broad, and stressed the need to move forward quickly.

“In Copenhagen, there will most likely be decisions that will cover how we’re going to deal with avoided deforestation, and these will likely be irreversible,” he says. “If we aren’t taking the lead right now and coming up with a position that conforms to the wishes of most of society, it’s going to be too late.”

The result is a lean document that focuses on broad principles – and is limited to REDD.

“We have to focus on REDD at this point,” says Mozoni. “The other biomasses are important, but if we lose focus, we might not reach our objectives.

Representatives from several state environmental agencies have already lent support to the Declaration, which is being administered by local NGO Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV).



Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

How Much for this Mountain Forest?

Second in a series leading up to and coinciding with the September Katoomba Meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

27 August 2008 | If anyone knows the value of the Eastern Arc Mountain ecosystem, it’s George Jambiya and Neil Burgess.

Together, they’ve spent more than three decades helping WWF and the Tanzanian government document thousands of rare plant and animal species that populate the Arc, not to mention the ecosystems they support and the animals and economies that depend on them.

Neither of them, however, can tell you with scientific certainty the value of the ecosystem services that flow from those plants and animals.

“On the one hand, you can say, ‘Look, we all depend on these services, so the value is inherent,'” says Burgess. “But we can’t go to Coca Cola and say, ‘This catchment delivers this amount of clean water, and has this value to you.'”

The ability to make that statement with confidence, however, would help save life-supporting ecosystem services that support – and, in our economic system, compete with – tangible hard commodities like timber and food.

“Right now, a lot of the values that are being applied to forestry management and water management are only taking into account things like timber prices and logging prices,” says Jambiya. “Things such as carbon sequestration and hydrological services don’t come into play, and the value of water is not determined by the market or even by supply and demand – but by an arbitrarily-set figure, which is probably very much on the low side. The values of biodiversity are even worse.”

The two are among a handful of experts spearheading a five-year research and policy project called
“Valuing the Arc”
, which began in January, 2007, and runs until December, 2011. Its mission is to quantify the economic value of specific ecosystem services in the Eastern Arc Mountains, and it harvests expertise from five UK-based universities (Cambridge, East Anglia, York, Leeds, and Cranfield), two Tanzanian universities (University of Dar es Salaam and Sokoine University of Agriculture), the WWF Tanzania Programme Office, and the Natural Capital Project.

Along the way, they’ve begun to identify and educate potential buyers and sellers of ecosystem services and provide fodder for a CARE-WWF partnership called “Equitable Payments for Watershed Services (EPWS)”, which is the subject of a later installment in this series).

 

Katoomba in Uganda

Burgess got the idea for Valuing the Arc after attending a 2005 Katoomba Meeting in Kampala, Uganda (Katoomba VIII) on behalf of Tanzania’s Department of Natural Resources, for whom he was working at the time.

“We knew the forest was storing a lot of carbon, and the whole payments for ecosystem services thing was beginning to emerge,” he says. “The Katoomba Meeting catalyzed a lot of things, and brought a lot of people together.”

Among those people were PES project developers from Mexico, South America, and South Africa.

“I saw what they were doing and thought, ‘Well, that all looks similar to the beginnings of what has happened in Tanzania,'” Burgess recalls. “I figured maybe we could start to go more in the ecosystem service direction here.”

 

First the Price, then the Payment

“Neil basically realized that he needed to get beyond general statements about the value of nature and show decision-makers where the value lies within their actual landscapes,” says Taylor Ricketts, co-founder of the Natural Capital Project, which is itself a joint project of Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, The Nature Conservancy, and WWF.

Over the years, Burgess and scores of other researchers had taken a shot at mapping the ecosystems of the Eastern Arc Mountains, and several facts were clear:

First, they knew that foliage in the fog-enshrouded, moss-laden “cloud forests” that capture and store moisture high in the mountains was declining. Second, they knew that farmers were both tapping the mountain streams for agriculture and letting their fertilizer run into the waters.

They also knew that downstream rivers were running faster in the wet season and slower in the dry season – and muddier all year long.

But they didn’t know the extent to which each problem could be attributed to specific practices, and they couldn’t determine how much maintaining the upper catchments was worth to end-users such as breweries and water filtration plants.

 

Building the Team

Once back home in the UK, Burgess mentioned his dilemma to Cambridge Professor Andrew Balmford, who told him about a grant available from the Leverhulme Trust. Balmford applied for and won that grant, while Burgess lined up the University of Dar es Salaam and the Sokoine University of Agriculture, each of which unleashed scores of staff and PhD students to ramp up the mapping process.

“That’s where we come in,” says Ricketts, whose Natural Capital Project (NatCap) supplied a tool called InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs) – a software package that that maps ecosystem services and their economic values.

As NatCap was joining the project, Ricketts applied for and won a grant from the Packard Foundation that complemented the Leverhulme grant – and set to work delivering their piece of the puzzle.

“We’ve basically built a program that plugs into the industry-standard GIS tool,” he explains. “You can map how much carbon is being stored in forests and woodlands, for example, or where people harvest products like medicinal plants directly from ecosystems.”

InVEST also offers modules that map important areas for water supply, flood control, timber harvest, crop pollination, and other ecosystem services.

“You can use only the modules you care about, and customize those to your situation,” he says.

 

Laying the Groundwork and Priming the Pump

The tedious task of lining up the partners and identifying their responsibilities consumed much of the first phase of Valuing the Arc. After that came identifying the gaps.

“We spent quite a lot of the end of the first year putting together all available data on water flows, timber, carbon etc,” says Burgess. “A lot of the data was from previous work, including the previous project that I’d worked on. We basically compiled all available data that we knew of from the past 20 years.”

 

Keeping It Real

The project has grabbed plenty of attention within the ecosystem payments community, but Burgess says it has a long way to go before it begins to yield tangible fruit.

“We’re still heavily collecting data and building models,” he says. “So, we can’t say these are really definitive results. We can only say, these are preliminary results, but they’re quite nice aren’t they?”

As the measurements become more concrete and targeted, however, he believes their numbers will persuade potential buyers of ecosystem services to lay down their money – and for economic reasons, and not just for philanthropy.

“We’ve got a lot of information coming together on habitat quality and on the amount of timber and non-timber resources coming out of the forest, as well as how much forest there is,” he says. “This will all be pretty fundamental stuff for the carbon baseline work in the near term, and should be valuable to the whole payments for ecosystem services arena that’s going to be there in five or 10 years time.”

Jambiya agrees, but says the near-term damage control can best be handled by government.

“The whole intention of Valuing the Arc is to try to establish the true values of these resources and the services that they offer, and through that make arguments for greater investment on the government side for conservation efforts,” he says, adding that private sector investors will still be needed to make the system viable over the long haul.


Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of the Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Special Report: Carbon Payments and Ghana

Cocoa is one of Ghana’s most important exports, but current farming techniques wreak havoc on both soil and surrounding forests.  This is not only unsustainable for cocoa, but also contributes to global warming and biodiversity loss. EM examines efforts to promote sustainable cocoa farming by tapping into the global carbon markets.
 
Third in the Series: The Road to Accra, leading up to the October Katoomba Meeting in Accra, Ghana.
About this Series

The Fifteenth Katoomba Meeting begins on October 6 in Accra Ghana, and runs through October 9 in two phases: phase one runs for two days and is open to anyone who registers and is designed to bring the debate over the role that payments for ecosystem services can play in promoting sustainable development to a larger audience.  Phase two also runs for two days (October 8 and 9), but is an intensive, invitation-only workshop for practitioners, policy-makers, and stakeholders.

 This series is designed to shed light on issues relevant to these meetings and that part of the world.

Part One, Soil Carbon in Africa, brings you up to date on ways that African farmers can earn income by adopting agricultural techniques that capture carbon in the soil.

Part Two, CDM in Africa, examines the role that local financial systems play in attracting CDM investment.

Part Three, Carbon and Cocoa, examines the interrelationship between cocoa farming, deforestation, and carbon sequestration.

Part Four, Gabon’s Mbé Watershed, examines a pioneering watershed protection scheme being implemented in Gabon.

Part Five, Ghana Readies for REDD, introduces you to the various players working to forge Ghana’s payments for ecosystem services regime.

Other stories will be added over the course of the month.

23 September 2009 | Can carbon save cocoa? That, some say, is the million-dollar question – or, more accurately, the $2.2 billion question, since industry insiders estimate that’s the value of carbon stored in Ghana’s cocoa landscapes.
 
That value could play an important role in ensuring the long-term survival of the nation’s cocoa industry, which faces existential threats in the wake of depleted soil fertility, reduced water supplies, and various diseases worldwide. Already Brazil, once the second-leading cocoa producer in the world, has seen its cash cow fall victim to a massive fungal disease. Now, instead of making money from cocoa, Brazil pays to import it.
 
Meanwhile Ghana – which is second only to Cí´te d’Ivoire in world cocoa production – has experienced a decades-long decline in cocoa yield per acre farmed, spurring farmers to abandon the livelihood that supported their families for generations.  That decline and the accompanying flight from farming have been in remission for three years – thanks largely to the current high price of cocoa – but current agricultural techniques are unsustainable over the long haul.
 
Two-thirds of Ghana’s stored carbon lies in its high-forest region – and the country has already lost most of this, seeing it shrink from 8.2 million hectares in 1900 to less than 1.2 million hectares today.
 

The Cocoa Conundrum and the Sun Curse

Cocoa has always been rough on land. Under the best of circumstances, the cacao trees from which cocoa is harvested suck nutrients out of the soil at rates that require massive infusions of chemical fertilizer – which only 3% of cocoa famers use – and also require heavy doses of insecticides – which are also not in wide use.
 
Traditional cocoa farming techniques recommend leaving much of the standing forest intact, because traditional strains of cacao tree grow best in filtered sunlight. Over time, hybrid varieties have improved yields – beginning with strains that can be harvested twice per year instead of once.  Newer plantations, however, are shifting to even newer hybrid trees that tolerate more direct sunlight. This makes it possible for farmers to chop down larger shade trees and plant more cacao trees – an apparent improvement over traditional farming because it, like earlier hybrids, offers higher yields.
 
Unfortunately, sun-free or low-shade systems suck even more nutrients out of the soil than do the already ravenous multi-harvest varieties; they also encourage some pests and – more importantly for the world at large – rob the planet of both carbon-sequestering trees and of valuable habitat for various species of rare animal and plant by encouraging the destruction of natural shade trees that store carbon and provide shelter.
 
As a result, these newer plantations are often abandoned within a few decades and replaced with newly-deforested land, says Michael Richards, a natural resources economist with Forest Trends (publisher of Ecosystem Marketplace). Cocoa farmers often then extend their farms or move into other forested areas, bringing deforestation with them and releasing more carbon into the atmosphere.
 
Most Ghanaian farmers still use the shaded variety of cacao tree, but the hybrids are taking hold – especially in the Western part of the country – and the global atmosphere is paying the price.
Long-term, farmers are paying a price as well.
 
Soil fertility has shrunk noticeably; the newer hybrid-cocoa trees’ lifespan is growing shorter; and farmers are struggling to survive. Climate change and unsustainable farming techniques have decreased the amount of land supporting cocoa crops by 40% in the past four decades alone, reports the Ghanaian Nature Conservation Research Center, the leading conservation NGO in West Africa – although that amount has been increasing in recent years as cocoa prices rise.
 
Some experts believe that if nothing is done, Ghana’s cocoa sector could go the way of Brazil’s.
 
“The world is focusing on whether Kraft is going to buy Cadbury and how much it’ll pay for it, but it may not be a great long-term investment if we run out of cocoa in 30 years,” says John Mason, executive director of the Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC).
 
Preliminary research by the University of Reading in the UK suggests that traditional, shaded-cocoa farms store over twice as much carbon as shade-free farms. Farmers could be persuaded to increase their tree canopy and decrease their cocoa yield if carbon trading makes it worth their while.
 

Re-Thinking the Process

Scores of environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have called for a moratorium on new sun cocoa plantations and a return to shade-cocoa. Many believe that carbon offsets for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) can make it worthwhile for farmers to return to shade-growing, but Michael Packer, managing director of ArborCarb Ltd, says simply reviving the shaded growth method will not be enough.
 
“Traditional cocoa is problematic, too, in the way it has been produced,” he says. “After all, that led to the deforestation that exhausted soil, which lead to the requirement for hybrids.”
 
The solution, he adds, is to manage cocoa plantations differently.
 
“We need to work with ecosystem to manage soil nutrient content, biodiversity and associated ecosystem services – including carbon sequestration and disease control,” he says.
 

Pioneering Cocoa Carbon

This sparked a push to create the world’s first-ever cocoa carbon initiative – and, not surprisingly, its Petri dish is Ghan.
 
Forest Trends, NCRC, and the Katoomba Group (an international network promoting ecosystem service markets and co-publisher of Ecosystem Marketplace) are spearheading a three-part carbon-offset pilot project under the Forest Trends Incubator program, which has already initiated community-based projects across Latin America.
 
If the program overcomes funding and logistical hurdles, it could start as early as mid-2010, insiders say.
 

Who Are the Farmers?

Most cocoa farmers are share croppers, but many also live on gifted land or land they have purchased.  Regardless of the ownership structure, the project plans to measure whether farm owners who preserve or enhance the carbon-storing forest canopy of their farms can compensate for their decreased cocoa production with the sale of carbon-offset credits – and how this compensation can be spread among land-owners who lease their land to share-croppers and land-owners who farm their own land.
 
This could answer the $2.2 billion question – if policymakers can navigate several complex hurdles. Chief among them is land tenure.
 

The Tenure Quandary

The Katoomba Group recently invited key participants from a range of stakeholder groups – including various government departments – to an REDD Opportunities Scoping Exercise that identified tree tenure as a major constraint for REDD.
 
Tree tenure laws in Ghana, for example, discourage farmers from keeping timber trees because the state owns all naturally-occurring trees, while planted trees belong to the person who plants them. Farmers, therefore, are only permitted to fell timber trees for household use, but not for income. Only timber groups with government concessions can fell naturally-occurring trees for money – leaving cocoa farmers no economic or financial interest in preserving trees growing on the land they either own or work.
 
Adding to the complexity: many cocoa farms are located within the ‘off-reserve’ areas of timber concession zones. This means that a logger with a concession can harvest the farm’s trees – although the logger does have to let the farmer know he’s harvesting them, and technically he has to compensate the farmer for the felled timber trees and any damage to cacao trees from machinery.  Unfortunately, there are no standards of compensation, and disputes are quite common.
 
To avoid the hassle – and the risk of damage – cocoa farmers often select smaller shade trees in preference to timber shade trees. They have also been known to destroy timber saplings and even ring-bark mature timber trees.  Those who keep the trees often sell them clandestinely to chainsaw operators who cause minimum damage to cocoa.
 
The Katoomba Scoping Exercise concluded that the best chance for sustainable shade-tree cocoa farming, as well as other tree-based systems, would be the extension of what are known as Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs), in which communities can hold greater rights to the natural resources on their land, including trees.
 
NCRC is working with a few pilot CREMAs, but there are currently only a handful in the country, and the government has not adopted a policy of promoting them.  Local NGOs argue this must change as part of a national REDD program.
 

The Importance of Education

A public-private partnership named the Sustainable Tree Crops Program (STCP) kicked off in 2000 to introduce sustainable innovations such as integrated pest management and reduced chemical use to enhance cocoa productivity.
 
Farmers graduating from the program’s “farmer field school” have seen their incomes improve by 15-50 percent, says Bill Guyton, president of the World Cocoa Foundation that supports the partnership and represents nearly 70 chocolate companies worldwide.
 
So far, however, only a small percentage of cocoa farmers participate in field school, and Guyton says he’s anxious to explore the use of carbon credits to augment farmer income and industry sustainability.
 
Credits could be generated through four types of transactions activities under the REDD banner or as afforestation/reforestation projects under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism – or in the voluntary carbon market.
 

Compensation for Limitation

REDD-wise, cocoa growers could be compensated for not encroaching on forest reserves or deforesting to extend their plantations. On farms, they could get credits for maintaining shade cover and not promoting full-sun exposure.
 
As for reforestation, farmers would be rewarded for reverting from a full-sun system to shaded cocoa to planting trees and encouraging regeneration.
 
They could also get credits for rehabilitating abandoned plantations and not letting them turn into low-productivity agricultural land or bush, which have low carbon-storage capacity.
 
“It is a potential win-win situation for everyone,” says Richards. “It promotes biodiversity and environmental sustainability, would ensure supply sustainability for the big cocoa buyers, and it could improve the livelihoods of thousands of small farmers.”
 

Potential vs. Practice

Potential is one thing. Practice is another.
 
“We’re all convinced that this area has real potential,” says Ken Norris, a researcher from the University of Reading and lead scientist for the pilot projects. “The problem is there are a whole lot of practical issues to overcome to make it work.”
 
For instance, because verification of carbon offsets is expensive, CO2 contracts typically apply to land sizes ranging from 3,000-5,000 hectares. But the average cocoa farm in Ghana is only 2-3 hectares. Each contract, then, would require approximately 2,000 farmers to federate.
 
And carbon rights are not established in law yet – although many are going on the assumption that they will follow the timber rights outlined above: namely, that standing trees will fall under the jurisdiction of the Forestry Commission, while planted trees – and their largesse – will be owned by whoever plants them.
 
“This is a major organizational democracy initiative about benefit sharing,” says Mason. “We’re trying to work out the best way of doing it, perhaps through existing community groups or organizations.”
 

Money

And, of course, there is the issue of funding. Norris estimated the project cost at US $5.5 million, and believes potential funding organizations will wait until after funding issues are resolved at the year-end Copenhagen Climate Conference before they decide how much they will contribute.
 
Cocoa carbon credits are not expected to flow for at least another two or three years – yet Mason says he is optimistic; he already has potential buyers.
 
“The cocoa industry is prepared to buy our credits as soon as we’re able to bring them to market,” he says, adding that he’s been working with the cocoa industry over the last three years – and his message is sinking in.
 
“It’s gone from ignorance and skepticism to the realization that a major shortage of cocoa beans is looming.”
 
But he says he is concerned about what’s been done to mitigate the crisis so far.
 
“All the big manufacturers are competing against each other when this is a time for a major concerted effort.”
 
The Ghana Cocoa-Carbon Initiative and pilot projects under the Forest Trends/NCRC/Katoomba Incubator could answer these concerns. The initiative already raised $1.5 million from international donors such as the Rockefeller Foundation and NGOs such as the Rainforest Alliance.
 

Winning Industry Support

Mason also asked the cocoa industry to chip in. He recently presented the initiative at the launch of a new not-for-profit organization called Source Trust. Set up by Armajaro, a leading cocoa supplier whose clients include Cadbury, Nestlé, and Kraft’s amongst others, Source Trust certifies and promotes sustainable cocoa farming practices in local communities.
 
It already raised $1 million to pay for education and water projects that promote sustainable farming, as well as bed nets that reduce malaria. Chocolate manufacturers pay Armajaro a premium of $30 per ton in exchange for a traceable and sustainable cocoa supply.
 
“As an industry, our interest is to ensure that farmers have good yields over the long-term, not just in the next couple of years,” says Nicko Debenham, head of traceability and sustainability at Armajaro and a spokesperson for Source Trust.
 
Encouraging farmers to leave 40% shade cover on their farm would serve that purpose. Debenham says Source Trust will assess its stakeholders’ interest in providing the $4 million Mason requested for the cocoa carbon initiative. The carbon pilot project could also piggyback on Source Trust’s certification program as the administrative platform for carbon payments.
 

Cocoa Carbon Projects

Once funded, the project plans to learn more about carbon sequestration in varied landscapes, Norris says. Three pilot sites will be chosen, one in western, one in central and one in eastern Ghana. Two of the incubator’s projects will be dedicated to carbon and cocoa.
 
Their objective is threefold. They will undertake detailed scientific work to build a robust case for future contracts between farmers and carbon credit buyers. They will establish methodologies and structures to take the credits to market. And they will federate farmers into groups or cooperatives that will work under a single contract to spread the impact of transaction costs.
 

Outside the Box

It will take years before cocoa-industry stakeholders can answer the $2.2 billion question. But the final answer could transform not only the cocoa industry and carbon trading but farming as we know it.
 
“Instead of thinking about producing food to the detriment of the environment,” Norris says, “we could produce food to preserve the environment.”
 
 
Emilie Filou is a free-lance writer specializing in African development issues and a regular contributor to Ecosystem Marketplace.  She is based in London, and can be reached at [email protected].
 
Alice Kenny is a prize-winning science writer and a regular contributor to Ecosystem Marketplace. She may be reached at [email protected]
 
Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at SZwick (at) ecosystemmarketplace.com.
 
Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.
 

 
Additional resources

Making Wildlife Pay in Northern Tanzania

Ecotourism and sustainable trophy hunting have delivered verifiable conservation benefits in parts of Africa, but scaling up has proven difficult. Now, an innovative pilot scheme in Tanzania is trying an alternative approach: paying communities directly to protect wildlife habitats. The Ecosystem Marketplace examines this promising new model for wildlife conservation.

First in an occasional series leading up to the September 16-18 Regional Katoomba Meeting in Dar-es-salaam, Tanzania

16 July 2008 | The stone patio at Tarangire Safari Lodge sits on a bluff overlooking the Tarangire River, where thousands of elephant, buffalo, zebra, and antelopes congregate during the long Tanzanian dry season.

During this time of year the lodge – easily the best vantage point for miles around – is packed with tourists from Europe and North America enjoying evening cocktails as they watch families of elephants drifting down to the river in the fading light. Such spectacles have made Tarangire National Park one of the jewels in northern Tanzania’s tourism circuit, and a key part of an industry which generates over $800 million in total annual revenues in one of the world’s poorest countries.

Cashing in

Such funds should, in theory, provide an incentive for the people of the plains to conserve wildlife, but there’s a catch: the money historically flows primarily to tourism companies and national park agencies, while the wildlife herds roam widely according to seasonal patterns of rainfall and forage availability, living for up to half of the year outside the park on community lands.

If the animals’ habitat is to be preserved, benefits will have to flow to people far away from park boundaries and tourism lodges – but how? Some other regional efforts to pay for habitat services have failed to provide a direct link between conservation and payment – and thus failed to make a difference.

Now the Tarangire Safari Lodge and a small group of other tourism companies which are invested in the park and surrounding area believe they’ve found an answer, and have entered into an agreement with Terrat village, which provides the community with annual payments for protecting important seasonal wildlife habitats.

Although Terrat lies about 40 kilometers from the park boundary, its lands contain critical breeding and calving grounds for thousands of wildebeest and zebra that spend the dry season along the Tarangire River.

“At the end of the day, our industry’s sustainability depends on these communities having a secure economic stake in the health of the wildlife populations that their lands help produce,” says David Peterson of Dorobo Tours, the company that took the lead in negotiating the deal with Terrat.

The Lay of the Land

East African savannahs are lands where change and variability are intrinsic ecological characteristics. In these semi-arid areas, rainfall largely determines annual plant growth, but rainfall is in turn rather unpredictable. For wildlife and human communities alike, these conditions place a premium on the ability to move across large areas to take advantage of the ephemeral presence of water and forage.

When the rains do fall across the Maasai Steppe, which usually occurs some time in October or November, the scene along the Tarangire River changes dramatically. Wild animals soon depart from the park’s confines, dispersing far and wide to areas which lack permanent water but which bloom with fresh new growth once the rains arrive.

“During the rainy season, the park has very few animals remaining within its boundaries,” notes Charles Foley, a zoologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society and researcher based in Tarangire since the early 1990’s.

Herds of zebra and wildebeest, the most abundant large mammals in Tarangire, travel to wet season habitats on open short-grass plains. These plains, formed by a hard underlying rocky substrate covered with a layer of volcanic soil, possess mineral-rich grasses which wildlife require during the calving season because of the value such nutrients provide to lactating female animals and their young.

The most important area for Tarangire’s herds is an expanse of open grasslands known as the Simanjiro plains, located between 25 and 40 kilometers to the east of Tarangire National Park. These plains hosted about 10,000 zebra and 6,000 wildebeest in the early 1980’s, in addition to smaller numbers of antelope such as eland, fringe-eared oryx, Grant’s gazelle, and hartebeest. Today, perhaps only 3,000 to 4,000 zebra and wildebeest in total are found on Simanjiro, and species such as oryx and hartebeest have become scarce. These declines are due to high levels of poaching for meat and zebra skins, combined with the loss of habitat to spreading agriculture.

The Maasai – People and Wildlife

The Simanjiro plains fall under the traditional authority of several Maasai communities, the pastoralist ethnic group that inhabits much of the Rift Valley from central Kenya to central Tanzania. The Maasai are renowned for living amidst some of the world’s greatest assemblages of wildlife, and their pastoralist management practices – burning and grazing rangelands and preventing cultivation across large areas – have shaped ecosystems such as the Serengeti over the course of the past two or three centuries.

Maasai pastoralist management systems mirror the basic ecology of wild herbivores in these savannahs in moving between dry season and wet season pastures. Maasai communities set side large areas of their land as customary grazing reserves, where livestock are only allowed to enter and graze during the later stages of the dry season. This ensures the availability of forage during this most difficult time of the year. It also effectively protects large stretches of land free from human use for much of the year, which helps conserve wildlife populations.

The Simanjiro plains fall within the boundaries of three villages: Emboreet, Terrat, and Sukuro. While these communities, like Maasai elsewhere in northern Tanzania, may co-exist reasonably well with most large mammals, save the occasional lion or hyena that attacks livestock, their relationship with conservationists has been far less amenable. In 1970, the creation of Tarangire National Park displaced local people and permanently closed off access to the important water sources – the Tarangire River and large swamps in the park’s southern portion – located in this new state protected area.

James Igoe, an anthropology professor at Dartmouth College who carried out his PhD research in Simanjiro, writes that local communities feel that the loss of pastures and water to the protected area “has significantly contributed to declining livestock health and reduced the reproductive capacity of their herds.”

Conservation vs. Agriculture

Twelve years after Tarangire National Park was gazetted, a proposal was put forth by a foreign conservationist to create a new ‘multiple-use’ conservation area on the Simanjiro plains in order to protect this key stretch of habitat. This proposal called for banning all agricultural cultivation and reducing livestock numbers in Simanjiro across a 6,000 square kilometer area. The reaction by local communities was, unsurprisingly, defensive and antagonistic.

Two decades later, the legacy of historic experiences, compounded by additional efforts to create new parks, reserves, and ‘buffer zones’ adjacent to Tarangire, has made local communities extremely suspicious of conservation interests. Recent research findings demonstrate how some Maasai communities are now promoting farming not only out of food security interests, but also because they feel that agriculture ‘brands’ the land and makes it harder to take away for conservation purposes.

“The fear of wildlife conservation interests plays a significant role in the spread of agriculture in Simanjiro’s pastoralist communities,” notes Hassan Sachedina, who recently completed a PhD dissertation at Oxford examining the interaction of livelihoods and conservation in Emboreet village.

This creates quite a challenge for landscape-scale conservation in the community lands outside Tarangire. Although wildlife populations depend on lands far outside national park boundaries which are managed by rural communities, those communities have generally grown hostile to formal conservation interests as a result of land and resource loss during the past thirty years. Furthermore, wildlife remains government property in Tanzania, generating large revenues from trophy hunting which is predominantly captured at the national or district level but rarely trickles down to villages. This lack of positive local incentives for conserving wildlife on community lands underlies the declining wildlife populations in Simanjiro, and, for that matter, across much of east Africa.

Making Conservation Pay

One promising model for generating such incentives emerged in the early 1990’s. Two relatively small-scale, high-end tour operators, Dorobo Tours and Oliver’s Camps, approached communities living adjacent to Tarangire National Park with the aim of exploring the possibility of establishing tourism concessions on community lands. The operators’ objective was explicitly geared towards linking conservation with tourism enterprises in order to provide local incentives to protect land for wildlife rather than allow it to be converted into farms.

“Our goal was to make wildlife and tourism a viable economic option for the communities and shift their incentives away from the growing threat of agricultural conversion,” recalls Peterson.

Communities and Ecotourism

These initial negotiations led to formal agreements between the operators and two villages, Emboreet and Loiborsoit, providing the communities with set annual concession payments augmented by daily fees paid for each client staying in the area. In exchange, the villages gave the operators exclusive tourism rights to the tourism concession areas and agreed to prohibit farming, permanent settlement, and tree-felling for charcoal production.

An important part of the agreement was that seasonal use of the concession areas for livestock grazing continued to be allowed according to customary practices. Since the early 1990’s, several other village-operator tourism concessions have emerged, and these areas now provide community protections of about 40,000 hectares of land along the eastern border of Tarangire National Park.

Indirect Values

Although these tourism ventures provided the incentive to for local communities to protect a large area of land adjacent to the park, the more important wildlife habitats on the Simanjiro plains, much farther away from the park, were not included in the concessions. In fact, the plains become difficult to access by vehicle during the wet season, when the large herds of wildlife are present, and are not as attractive for tourists during the dry season, when they are accessible.

The plains’ value to tourism is mostly indirect, by providing the wet season habitat for wildlife that congregates inside Tarangire National Park during the dry season, and which lend the park its high value for tourism during this time of year.

Market Failure

This situation represents a classic market failure: wildlife with an overall high economic value does not, through the existing operation of tourism markets, provide any remunerative value to the communities whose lands provide the habitat that these animals depend on. For example, Terrat and Sukuro villages’ lands contain about two-thirds of the Simanjiro plains, but they receive no income from wildlife tourism.

This market failure served to catalyze a new approach for rewarding local communities in Simanjiro for the ecological services they provide by maintaining critical wildlife habitat.

“After 25 years of watching wildlife populations decline and millions of dollars be spent on conservation projects that were, for the most part, ineffectual, it seemed like time to think and act outside the box,” says Peterson.

Beyond Ecotourism: Direct Payments

A consortium of five tourism companies, supported by conservation organizations including the Wildlife Conservation Society and Sand County Foundation and a local development organization called the Ujamaa-Community Resource Trust, experimentally decided to pay one of the Simanjiro villages, Terrat, to formally protect its portion of the short-grass plains.

Terrat receives a modest annual payment, the equivalent of about $4,500, in exchange for contractually agreeing to prevent farming or permanent settlement on about 9,300 hectares of land which encompasses its portion of the plains. The village is also contractually obliged to prevent activities such as charcoal burning, tree-felling, or illegal hunting of wildlife. Unlike nearby tourism concessions in other villages, in Terrat the tour operators do not carry out any tourism activities in this concession area; their payments are made solely out of conservation aims, and based on the reality that tourism businesses inside Tarangire National Park rely on the health of the wildlife populations using the Simanjiro plains.

Instead of buying access to community land for tourism, the operators are buying protection of the land and its value to wildlife directly.

This land easement or conservation concession is the first of its kind in Tanzania, with only one or two similar arrangements having been developed elsewhere in east and southern Africa’s wildlife-rich savannahs.

How the Deal Was Done

Both the operator consortium agreement and the easement contract with Terrat village were negotiated principally by Dorobo Tours. The company’s long-term experience with community tourism concessions provided critical background experience for the deal’s successful execution. A key challenge which needed to be overcome was the historic local suspicion of wildlife conservation interests.

“The key to making the easement acceptable was presenting the deal to the village as a business proposition linked to system-wide tourism interests, and not making the deal about ‘conservation’ per se,” notes Peterson.

The Results

This novel arrangement has only been in place for about three years, but it has given new hope for developing collaborative solutions to the long-term conservation challenges in the Simanjiro plains and broader ecosystem.

The most important impact has been providing a framework for creating local financial incentives for conserving wildlife that does not depend directly on the physical presence of tourism camps. This payments-for-conservation model could, for example, be more widely adopted by large conservation organizations and foreign donors, or by government park authorities.

Moreover, this model has been established in a locale that has long had a deserved reputation as a crucible of conflict between local communities and conservation interests. By making conservation a fair deal for communities and rewarding them for the value their lands provide, a step has been taken towards a more effective and equitable approach to wildlife conservation in northern Tanzania.



Fred Nelson has worked on community-based natural resource management in Tanzania since 1998 and is the director of Maliasili Initiatives, a consulting firm which promotes innovative conservation strategies based on local incentives and devolved resource tenure. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Bay Stakeholders Look to Offset Nutrient Footprints

Several market-based programs are in the works to promote actions designed to reduce the amount of nutrients entering the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay Journal recently took stock of various projects on the table, and their findings are reproduced in the Ecosystem Marketplace.

11 July 2008 | When some corporations fly executives to meetings across the nation, they calculate the amount of carbon expended for the trip and buy “offsets” to erase the impact.

The offsets could, for instance, pay for tree plantings that would absorb as much carbon as was emitted by fossil fuels burned for the trip. The goal is to make the trip “carbon neutral.”

Now, some are wondering whether such an initiative could happen with nutrients and the Bay. Could a mechanism be created allowing a company-or individual-to purchase offsets that erase the “nitrogen footprint” of operating their vehicles, heating their homes or fertilizing their lawns?

A business that wanted to offset the nitrogen emissions from its vehicle fleet could buy offsets from a fund that pays farmers to restore wetlands, plant streamside buffers or take other actions that control the nutrient.

Such a program could become a reality soon. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service recently awarded a $500,000 Conservation Innovation Grant to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and several partners to develop such a “nutrient neutral fund“, tentatively named the Chesapeake Clean Water Fund, patterned after existing voluntary carbon markets.

The hope is that citizens who want to improve their own stewardship, or businesses that want to enhance their green credentials, would buy offsets from the fund that would in turn support cleanup efforts.
“We can’t rely solely on public dollars to save the Bay,” said Beth McGee, CBF senior scientist. “We know we have a lot of knowledge, awareness and concern for the Bay in this region. Let’s tap into that and get some private money going toward things that are cost-effectively reducing pollution.”

That’s just one example of a market-based mechanism that might be used to leverage water quality improvements in the Bay.

At a two-day meeting in June, the Katoomba Group, an international organization that promotes market-based solutions to environmental problems, brought together roughly 60 nonprofit, government and business leaders from around the region, and the world, to discuss how to unleash market power to help clean up the nation’s largest estuary.

Each year, Katoomba meets somewhere in the world to find ways to break down barriers and jump-start market solutions. It selected the Bay for this year’s meeting because its leaders believe water quality and quantity issues could become the dominant global environmental issue in the future.

“The Chesapeake was about the perfect pilot for voluntary initiatives to move forward,” said Michael Jenkins, president of Forest Trends, a nonprofit group that helped to pioneer the development of voluntary carbon markets and created Katoomba.

Jenkins said the Bay is small enough to pull a critical mass of players together to develop market initiatives, but large enough to draw global attention for its efforts. Perhaps most importantly, there’s a need for a “new push” to show successful results from restoration efforts that can build support for new ideas, he said.

The goal of the workshop was to advance an array of market-type programs. Market solutions don’t always require an exchange such as a trade or offset; some work by creating value for environmental benefits.

For example, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program creates value by promoting green building that can save money over time, even if they cost more up front.

The certification program – carried out by independent evaluators trained by the U.S. Green Building Council, which developed LEED –initially drew interest primarily from nonprofit organizations and government agencies. But businesses are increasingly buying into the benefits in part because they provide value beyond cost savings. More than 12,000 buildings are currently seeking LEED certification.

Demand for green buildings in Portland, OR, is so high that it is difficult to rent a building if is not LEED-certified, said Bettina von Hagen, of EcoTrust, a nonprofit that promotes sustainable economies. In highly competitive fields, job recruits sometimes ask whether the office of an employer is green-so certification provides a competitive edge, she said.

“Green building is cool,” von Hagen said. “It is status. If you don’t have a green building in Portland, you’re toast.”

A certification strategy that may have significant Bay potential is being developed by a new nonprofit organization, Watershed Stewardship. It is working with corporate buyers of agricultural products to ensure that crops and other goods are produced in ways that reduce environmental impacts and protect water quality.

In that approach, the buyers set out performance expectations for producers, with farm performances verified by independent evaluators.
Such programs can give producers a marketing edge. “More and more we are seeing the consumer ask for some certification that their food or product was produced in an environmentally friendly way,” said Tom Simpson, a retired soil scientist from the University of Maryland who heads the new initiative.

The goal is to start with basic levels of performance that would gradually increase. “We want to integrate an expectation of water quality performance into the food system, but to do it in a way that minimizes the impact at the grower level,” Simpson said.

In 2005, Sysco Corp., a major food buyer for restaurants, established such a program in Western states to get farmers to incorporate integrated pest management techniques to curb pesticide use on produce. In the program’s first year, Simpson said the use of pesticide active ingredients dropped by 300,000 pounds. The program seeks “continuous improvement” so farmers make verifiable incremental improvements each year.

Similarly, in the timber industry, many large chains now only buy wood that is certified by independent evaluators as having been sustainably grown.

Other techniques, such as eco-labeling also hold promise. Consumers can voluntarily choose products that meet certain standards of production.
But the voluntary offset, or trading program, may offer some of the quickest benefits. “We think water-and water quality trading-may be the next big thing,” said Ricardo Bayon, of EKO Asset Management Partners, who has worked with carbon programs and is also helping to develop the new Bay nutrient offset initiative.

States in the region have already developed regulatory markets for nutrient trading. In those markets, a wastewater treatment plant that needs to reduce nutrients can meet its obligation by purchasing “credits” from other plants, or even farmers, who do more than required.

So far, few trades have taken place. One of the impediments is the significant technical and regulatory concerns about meeting discharge permit obligations through the purchase of credits from farmers or other runoff sources where nutrient reductions are often hard to quantify.

Participants at the workshop suggested that voluntary programs could help lead the way. In the regulated trades, a buyer or seller could face significant liabilities if they fail to meet their obligations.
Voluntary programs can offer insights about the best ways to accomplish offsets by refining the standards by which nutrient reduction “credits” are generated, reported and verified-important steps for building confidence in any trading program.

Bayon called voluntary markets “the thin edge of the wedge. They are what get things started.”

Beyond that, they can also attract money from unregulated private sources, such as businesses that want to spruce up their image by voluntarily offsetting their impacts.

“Voluntary markets have often been pooh-poohed,” Bayon said. “Nobody is arguing that voluntary programs on their own are going to solve the problem. They are not.”

Last year, the voluntary carbon market totaled $331 million. While small compared to the regulated cap-and-trade programs, which totaled $65 billion, the size of the voluntary market tripled from 2006, while the regulatory market doubled.

Voluntary programs also provide educational value. “Carbon calculators,” which help people and businesses determine how various activities contribute to their carbon “footprint” are now common. People use them to determine the number of offsets they would need to purchase to mitigate the effects of various activities to be “carbon neutral.”

McGee said CBF is working to develop a similar nitrogen calculator. “You have a nitrogen footprint whether you are an individual or whether you are a business,” she said. “It is creating an educational tool that engages the public and makes them more aware of their collective impacts.”

She said market programs alone won’t restore the Bay. But she said current publicly financed programs, such as incentive payments to farmers who install conservation practices, would likely never meet all of the Chesapeake cleanup goals by themselves.

“These are more tools that we are bringing to bear on Bay restoration,” McGee said. “I think it’s sort of an untapped market, if you will, that we are exploring. We need to think more creatively about ways that these market-based approaches may be used. There is not going to be any one silver bullet, but hopefully with these programs working in concert, we can get to where we need to be and maintain it.”

Marketing New Ideas

Here’s a sampling of different market-based programs that are in various stages of development – some conceptual – in the Bay region.

Chesapeake Clean Water Fund: Sometimes called the nutrient neutral fund, the program aims to provide a sustainable funding mechanism to address water quality concerns. Modeled after voluntary carbon funds, it is designed to use public awareness to encourage individuals and businesses to make voluntary purchases into a fund that invests in nutrient control programs that would offset their impacts.

Supplier Certification Programs: Corporate purchasers of agricultural products looking to promote stewardship can create certification programs that set specific performance expectations for farmers supplying their food. These expectations could include the installation of practices that reduce water pollution and the use of herbicides and pesticides. Verification is assessed by third party evaluators. The result is better environmental accountability, improved confidence in the food system, and an enhanced public image for the companies. A pilot project in the Bay region is being developed by a new organization, Watershed Stewardship.

Eco-Branding: An eco-brand is a communication device to indicate a product or product line has a some environmental attribute. For example, milk that is produced by dairies following a specific set of sustainability and ecological practices could receive an eco-brand, which could allow it to get a premium price in the marketplace. Because they are following a prescribed set of quantifiable practices, farmers could get financial rewards from the product. Other benefits might include a head start on other programs, such as certified nutrient credits for trading, facilitated permitting, producing carbon credits or reduced insurance. Environmental Defense, a national nonprofit, is developing a pilot program in the watershed.

The Bay Bank Initiative: This initiative aims to provide a marketplace where forest owners can sell ecosystem service credits to interested buyers. The goal of the bank is to improve the health of the Bay by giving landowners an incentive to protect valuable open space and to adopt stewardship practices that protect water quality and streams. The program would evaluate the ecosystem services-habitat restoration, water quality improvements, carbon reductions, and so on-and create an online marketplace where credits from those services may be purchased. It could be used voluntarily by individuals or companies wanting to offset their impacts, or may be used to help meet regulatory obligations for wetland mitigation, habitat improvement, and carbon or nutrient reductions. A pilot project is being led by the Pinchot Institute.

Credit Insurance Programs: While the EPA and states increasingly embrace nutrient trading programs, one concern about such programs is liability incurred when a permit holder purchases credits from another source which, for a host of reasons, may fail to meet its obligations. Creating a marketable insurance fund or programs to back those credits, perhaps through the establishment of programs that support back-up nutrient reduction initiatives, could provide a greater level of comfort to trading programs.

Mandatory vs. Voluntary

Mandatory carbon markets are driven largely by nations that have committed to specific carbon reductions to meet the Kyoto Protocol. Voluntary markets sell offsets to companies or individuals who do not have to meet regulatory obligations but want to offset their carbon impacts. Some of the reasons companies cite for participating in voluntary carbon funds include:

Differentiating themselves from competitors

Part of a corporate responsibility strategy

Helps to recruit employees

Fear of regulation

A chance to influence policy or regulations

Advocates believe a similar fund could help leverage voluntary nutrient reductions.



Karl Blankenship is editor of the Bay Journal, which is published weekly by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.

This story originally appeared in the Bay Journal, and can be accessed in its original form here.

Guaraqueaba: Where the Buffalo Roamed

Fifth in a series leading up to the 14th Katoomba Meeting in Mato Grasso, Brazil.

18 March 2009 | The first Asian Water Buffalo to cross the Pacific staggered onto dry land in Brazil more than a century ago.

Quickly adapting to the nation’s verdant prairie grasslands, these robust animals catalyzed a booming industry, enriching cattlemen and transforming the landscape. By the 1970s, their numbers had swelled, pushing their territories from the plains into the depths of the rainforests. Government-backed deforestation efforts often facilitated this expansion, sparking a contentious battle with environmentalists who vehemently opposed sacrificing ecological integrity for agricultural gain.

The tide began to turn in the 1980s, when environmental economists argued that intact rainforests could offer greater long-term economic benefits through their environmental services than the immediate gains from buffalo farming. This perspective marked a pivotal shift, as it began to sway regulatory approaches and gradually aligned economic interests with ecological preservation.

The Economics of Nature

Key among these services is regulation of the atmosphere and the earth’s temperature, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimating that rainforest destruction contributes roughly 20% of all greenhouse gasses.

The result is a growing body of progressive environmental protection mechanisms, and an increasing number of industrial emitters who believe they can offset their industrial emissions by saving rainforests – a process called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD).

At least two non-governmental organizations (NGOs) saw the potential early on: the US-based Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Brazil-based Sociedade de Pesquisa em Vida Selvagem e Educao Ambiental (Society for Wildlife Research and Environmental Education, SPVS).

Together, with funding from American Electric Power (AEP), General Motors, and Chevron, they began the process of purchasing 19,000 hectares of degraded land in eastern Brazil’s newly-designated Guaraqueaba Environmental Protection Area, which lies in an ecosystem that has been recognized as a World Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations Economic and Social Organization (UNESCO), making it one of the planet’s highest priorities for conservation.

The quality of the land ranged from standing forest to degraded pasture, and the companies hoped to offset their greenhouse gas emissions by saving the existing forests from destruction and restoring the degraded lands.

A Forty-Year Experiment

The 40-year project aims not only to reduce emissions by avoiding deforestation in the Atlantic Rainforest, but also to test and expand the limits of REDD financing to restore degraded lands across the region and to create jobs for local inhabitants. On top of all this, project developers also aimed to develop procedures that can be replicated across the surrounding 314,000 hectares of protected land.

Bill Stanley, who runs TNC’s global climate-change initiative, says the technological phase is already proving fruitful. “These projects and others have basically settled the debate over whether we can measure carbon in trees,” he says. “SPVS has been especially good at measuring species diversity and promoting its development, and the tools they helped develop are being applied in other places as well.”

Now, he says, the challenge is more social than scientific.

“The technical issues that a lot of people thought were the major obstacles to these types of projects are not the major obstacles at all,” he says. “The most difficult thing is coming up with strategies for protected forests that will work for local people and for the governments involved and that will be sustainable.”

Creating the Public Infrastructure

In 1985, the state of Paran¡ reversed its policy of promoting agriculture in the Atlantic Rainforest and instead created the Guaraqueaba Environmental Protection Area (EPA), mandating a phased shift to “sustainable use” of lands as determined by the EPA committee. Then, in 1992, the state initiated the ICMS Ecologico, a sales tax designed to raise funds for conservation.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Bolivia, TNC and Bolivian NGO Fundaci³n Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) were putting together the first forest emissions reduction project based on Kyoto Protocol standards to be verified by a third party. That project, the Noel Kempff Mercado National Park, caught the eye of environmental NGOs across Latin America.

Realizing that income from ICMS Ecologico is a drop in the bucket compared to both income from agriculture and the cost of restoring degraded land, SPVS devised a plan to harvest funding from carbon offsets to purchase three private properties in the Guaraqueaba EPA which they wanted to convert to private nature reserves (Reserva Particular do Patrim´nio Natural, RPPN).

The Post-Kyoto Forestry Challenge

On the technology front alone, SPVS’s plans for Guaraquaba were nothing if not ambitious. They wanted to save endangered forests from the chain saw, re-plant old forests, and nurture degraded forests back to health with as little intervention as possible. All of this meant making sure than any reforestation came as close as possible to reviving the exact same blend of trees that had been chopped down for grazing.

But they faced a serious challenge: the 1997 Kyoto Protocol had come into effect without a provision for generating offsets by saving endangered forests, leaving many NGOs in the lurch.

“We expected a lot of big companies to come in and put a lot of money into these forests,” says Miguel Calmon, who at the time was a consultant with the environmental services arm of Winrock International, a global NGO that, among other things, develops methodologies for measuring the amount of carbon captured in trees. “We had trained almost 40 other NGOs in how to conduct feasibility studies, how to structure products, how to monitor carbon sequestration, etc. so that they wouldn’t risk being unprepared when the money came,” he says. “But that never happened.”

In 2000, Calmon joined TNC, and is currently director of the group’s Atlantic Forest Conservation Program.

Tapping the Voluntary Market

With compliance offsets off the table, SPVS decided to look for corporate investors interested in “gourmet” offset – those offering benefits beyond mere carbon sequestration. Having worked with TNC since the early 1990s, SPVS turned to them for help on the financing.

The timing couldn’t have been better. AEP had just contacted TNC to find out how it could offset its emissions by saving a piece of the rainforest, and the energy concern was willing to spend $5.4 million to do so. General Motors and Chevron soon joined the discussions as well, and SPVS began approaching local landowners with offers.

By 2000, the NGO began purchasing what eventually became 19,000 hectares of private land spread over three private reserves: the Serra do Itaqui Natural Reserve, the Cachoeira Natural Reserve and the Morro da Mina Natural Reserve.

They dubbed the three properties the Guaraqueaba Climate Action Project, and then began putting their theories to the test.

“Assisted Natural” Regeneration

Roughly 30% of the funds went to land acquisition, with the remainder being placed in an endowment fund that is intended to provide funding well beyond the project’s 40-year life. In the near term, the endowment will cover the cost of carbon monitoring and other expenses related to the upgrade of the reserve. Long-term, the fund is designed to cover the cost of management of the reserve and working with local communities.

On degraded lands, SPVS chose to let as much forest return on its own as possible rather than to actively re-plant. Where re-planting was necessary, they hired locals to dig through the land in search of native seeds that had lay dormant under the grazing fields.

“That was a real production,” says Stanley. “They brought the seeds to a nursery and did everything they could to get them to germinate – submerging them, cutting them – anything to get seedlings they could plant.”

To make sure the extra effort pays off in all ways possible, TNC brought in Calmon’s former employer, Winrock International.

“We basically took their methodologies and moved them forward,” says Gilberto Tiepolo, TNC’s Forest Coordinator. “For example, we quantified the differences in the amount of carbon that different species of tree capture, which makes measurement more accurate.”

That work will pay off for other groups as well – helping to provide more certainty for both buyers and sellers around the world.

Giving Back to the Community

All of these labor-intensive activities had the advantage of bringing undocumented locals into the employment system for the first time, and the project still has roughly 50 people from the region working for it full-time, ranging from forest rangers to reforestation technicians.

SPVS also conducts ongoing training workshops in skills such as ecology, first aid, and search and rescue, and has also been working to promote sustainable business in and around the reserve. The group recently helped set up a beekeeping enterprise for the production of honey, and is in talks with more than 100 farmers interested in the production of organic bananas.

“SPVS is looking at lots of different ways of generating income not only in the reserve, but in the surrounding communities,” says Calmon. “Only then will you really do something about the economic drivers of deforestation.”

Keeping It Real

After purchasing the land, SPVS sent all of the buffalo off to slaughter and also conducted interviews with farmers to make sure they weren’t simply taking the money and clearing land someplace else.

“There’s a lot of debate as to how far we should go with that,” says Calmon. “We do what we can, and the C³digo Florestal does place limits on the amount of forest that a farmer can chop down – but we all know there is a lot of illegal logging, and ultimately the only way to really eliminate leakage is to create incentives for not doing it.”

He says that local farmers are beginning to take heed, and that SPVS and other NGOs meet regularly to discuss ways of expanding the model across the entire Guaraqueaba.

“We used to have agriculture cooperatives, and now we have to think about forestry cooperatives,” he says. “In the future the model should not focus on land acquisition per se, but work with land-owners to help them profit by keeping their forests alive.”

Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Chesapeake Bay Water Scheme Gains Traction

25 June 2008 | Will Baker was all smiles at the June 10th Global Katoomba Meeting in Washington, DC.

“I would like to thank my new best friend, Dick Coombe,” he laughed, referring to the Regional Assistant Chief for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

Coombe had just announced a $500,000 Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) for a project initiated two years ago by Katoomba Group and Forest Trends (publisher of the Ecosystem Marketplace) and since joined by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), of which Baker is president, as well as the World Resources Institute (WRI) and others.

“We take the responsibility of what you’ve bestowed upon us very, very seriously,” added Baker.

That responsibility is the creation of a cluster of voluntary Water Quality Trading (WQT) pilot projects in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which spreads over 64,000 square miles and encompasses the District of Columbia and parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

 

Fragmentation and the Law

WQT schemes have been piloted across the watershed, but with little success – often because the discharge limits that should drive demand have been slow to materialize.

What’s more, each individual state is currently responsible for setting its own discharge limits and laying down the ground-rules for offsets in its part of the watershed, regardless of what the other states are doing. Such a fragmented approach simply doesn’t work in a shared body of water.

“The goal of this initiative is to develop instruments that can move across state borders,” says Forest Trends President Michael Jenkins, adding that voluntary reductions alone will not solve the Bay’s problems. “We’re hoping to illuminate the way, so that a future regulated market can think about a regional approach to these issues – sort of like an RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) for water.”

 

The Market Mandate

Coombe, who was also instrumental in developing New York City’s innovative payment for watershed services deal, cited several reasons for awarding the grant.

In the short term, he says, the existence of a well-structured market mechanism can entice polluters to reduce their discharges even before rules and regulations exist. In the long term, he believes the project can help promote the development of uniform standards across the Bay, and that these standards will also promote the development of more and better mechanisms down the road.

“This fund can help develop water credit trading here in the Chesapeake Bay,” he says. “That’s crucial, because it could leverage additional dollars by bringing a market-based approach to a situation where you have a clear and present danger to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, and there’s a high risk of not moving quickly.”

Coombe envisions an evolving scheme that learns from its mistakes, and says the diverse array of partners involved in the project made the decision to award the grant that much easier.

“It’s really just an idea at this point,” he says, “but it’s an idea that’s fleshed out with an interesting group of partners like the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Katoomba Group, Forest Trends, and WRI, who bring a lot of international expertise to the table.”

Dan Nees is an associate at one of those partners, the WRI, and he believes a well-structure market mechanism is the sine qua non of reviving the Bay.

“The entire Chesapeake Bay restoration effort will happen within markets,” he says. “Markets are the framework for everything that we do in our society – so we’ll do it with markets, or we won’t do it at all.”

 

Making the Market

The project, initially dubbed the “Nutrient Neutral” Fund, was conceived two years ago by Ricardo Bayon, then Director of the Ecosystem Marketplace and currently a Partner and Co-Founder of EKO Asset Management Partners.

He presented the idea to Jenkins, and together they began shopping it to potential partners and supporters, like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Agriculture (of which the NRCS is a part), and various state environmental agencies. One of the groups they approached, the Blue Moon Fund, responded with a start-up grant of $25,000 and $25,000 more in matching funds that became available with the announcement of the CIG.

“The next step is to hire someone who can go out and pound the pavement and talk to the companies,” says Bayon.

 

The Carbon Precedent

Bayon says the still-unnamed project is patterned after efforts launched by early carbon innovators like the Carbon Neutral Company.

“We realized that the next big market is likely to be water,” he says, “And we started thinking of what happened in the carbon markets, and the fact that those markets grew in part because people like Future Forests (now the Carbon Neutral Company) and others were out there before the market developed trying to get people to buy carbon neutrality.”

 

The Pitch to Companies

Once the fund (Bayon prefers the term “nitrogen management company”) has an administrative team is in place, it will begin trying to persuade both “point-source” emitters like wastewater treatment plants and “nonpoint-source” emitters like farms to join the scheme – possibly by holding out the promise of a “Bay Friendly” or similar stamp of approval as a lure.

“I would love to get the Tysons and Purdues of the world involved in this,” says Jenkins. “Those are companies that understand the value of a good reputation – and they certainly have room to reduce their discharges.”

Bayon believes that if such groups join the scheme, they will be motivated to reduce their discharges even before the offset phase becomes active.

“The first thing that will happen is that they will have to determine how much they’re emitting,” he says. “This is a huge step, because once they see it, they’ll say, ‘I can reduce that,’ so we will probably see reductions on-site before they have to buy offsets.”

 

The Learning Curve

Then comes the hard part. After all, the scheme isn’t just selling offsets: it’s selling the more nebulous idea of participating in a program designed to see if offsets work.

“We want to have a bay-wide system that people will buy into,” says Jenkins. “It will be a mix of things – maybe a portfolio of 16 different, experimental projects – which is exactly what this type of program should be.”

In addition to point-source and nonpoint-source dischargers, Jenkins expects financial institutions to participate.

“For them, it’s about getting knowledge,” he says. “They’ll just come in, hopefully make an investment, suck all our knowledge up, and then be the ones to run with this going forward – and that’s fine. That’s a fair trade.”

 

Getting It Right

Experiment or not, the scheme is ultimately about results, says Tom Simpson, who heads the University of Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Agricultural Programs and is acting as an adviser to the project.

“Any company that buys offsets will want to make sure that it’s investing in practices that result in real impacts,” he says. “For that reason, we need good, defensible estimates of the impact of the practices that we fund, as well as certainty that they are done right and maintained and operated, and probably some kind of verification system to ensure they are there over the long term.”

That will require plenty of tedious groundwork – such as the establishment of baselines, the development of ways of measuring runoff, and the modeling of various practices. Bayon says that will all pay off in the long term.

“The carbon markets got attacked when they were starting out – and are still getting attacked,” he says, adding that participating companies should be prepared to accept that they’ll end up reducing more than they get credit for.

“We have to be able to prove the additionality measurement, and be very conservative,” he says. “So, if you think you can generate five offsets, sell only three.”

Jenkins concedes it will be a fine line to walk.

“We have to keep things flexible, because we’ll be learning as we go,” he says. “But we also have to make sure that it’s above reproach.”

Image “Chesapeake Bay 2005” courtesy of Liam Gumley, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of the Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Payments for Ecosystem Services: Download the Primer

Payments for Ecosystem Services encourage entities that benefit from ecosystem services to pay for maintaining those ecosystems – but how? At the Biodiversity Conference (COP 9) in Bonn, Germany, Forest Trends, the Katoomba Group and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) have jointly unveiled a nuts-and-bolts primer designed to answer that question.

21 May 2008 | Francis Ogwal has spent years trying to balance the opposing forces of economic development and environmental protection.   Now, as focal point for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) within Uganda’s National Environment Management Authority, he believes he’s found a tool that help him do just that.

“Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are still relatively new in Uganda, but there is growing interest in that approach, because we have been relying mainly on the old method of provision of money for conservation from government and donors,” he said at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 9) to the CBD. “But there is a lot of competition for these resources, especially in developing countries – where you want to put money into education, health, and agriculture – and conservation always ends up way down on the list.”

New Resource for Rural Poor

He was speaking at a side event introducing Payments for Ecosystem Services Getting Started: a Primer, which is now available for download.

The 70-page document was compiled by theKatoomba Group (parent of the Ecosystem Marketplace), Forest Trends, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), with contributions from the Division of Environmental Law and Conventions (DELC), and funded through UNEP by the Norwegian Government.

It is designed as a resource for people in developing countries looking to implement such schemes in a way that not only preserves and promotes ecosystem services, but does so in a way that empowers the rural poor of the developing world as stewards of an ecosystem service, for which they can be justly compensated.

Four-Step Process

The document covers the challenges of structuring programs that both deliver environmental benefits and benefit the rural poor, and its core is a four-step process for establishing PES projects. The steps include:

• Identifying Ecosystem Service Prospects and Potential Buyers
• Assessing Institutional and Technical Capacity as well as Access
• Structuring Agreements
• Implementing PES Agreements

Each of these steps is broken down into smaller steps in an effort to introduce potential sellers of ecosystem services to the details of PES deals. Throughout the document, there are numerous case studies to illustrate components of the process.

Not a Panacea

The document makes it clear that PES is not a panacea. Among the obstacles highlighted: high transaction costs, a lack of regulatory drivers, and lack of understanding among those who can benefit the most from such schemes.

“People have to understand that PES schemes won’t lead to a windfall of money, and that you can’t just go out, plant trees, and hope to get rewarded,” said Rahweza. “This is a learning process, and we are simply trying to provide a resource that will help people along that process.”

Eva Haden agrees. Water and Ecosystems Program Officer for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, she said that industry has a long to go before funding of PES schemes takes place on a level anywhere near that of the booming carbon markets.

“At this point, there is just too much uncertainty – even about basic definitions of what constitutes payment for an ecosystem service, or what constitutes an ecosystem service,” she said. “Documents like this go a long way towards moving beyond abstract theory and providing some sort of common definition, but we have a long way to go.”

Steve Zwick is managing editor of the Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Dorjee Sun: Rockin’ for REDD!

When not raiding illegal Indonesian logging operations with the Governor of Aceh or hanging ten off the Australian coast, Dorjee Sun is cutting carbon offset deals – among them the world’s largest avoided deforestation project to date. The Ecosystem Marketplace talks to one of the environmental movement’s true mavericks.

20 June 2008 | It was March, 2007, and Dorjee Sun was trying to crash a party. The CEO of carbon offset project developer Carbon Conservation, Sun had applied to get into a workshop on reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) in Cairns, Australia, only to be turned down five times.

So he bought a plane ticket and checked himself into the Cairns Hilton. “I sat in the lobby at the coffee store, grabbing delegates as they went to the toilet,” he says. He nabbed delegates from Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea before a security guard latched onto him.

Not to be deterred, he showed up to schmooze over canapés and drinks at a conference reception.   Again, the security guards… along with the Australian delegate to the conference.

Getting Results

But this time they told the protesting Sun that he could attend the conference – if he could have a fax sent from the Australian environment minister by eight the next morning.

“7:45 AM, baby,” Sun says, laughing — that’s when the fax machine started whirring.

Sun’s persistence — and enthusiasm — has fueled an unprecedented agreement with the Indonesian province of Aceh to protect 1.9 million-acre Ulu Masen forest, avoiding 100 million tons of CO2 emissions over 30 years.

In February, the project was validated under the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) standards; and in April, Merrill Lynch signed a $9 million deal with Carbon Conservation to finance it.

“As far as we know,” says John-O Niles, Carbon Conservation’s chief scientific officer, “this is the largest single climate mitigation project in the history of the world that’s actually going to market.”

Niles was an advisor to the Coalition of Rainforest Nations when he met Sun as he tried to sneak into the March, 2007, meeting.

“He said, ‘I’ve been studying this, and I want to stop deforestation this year, and I’m kind of sick of everyone just talking about it so I came to do something,'” Niles recalls.

The next day, Sun took him snorkeling, and then to dinner — a dinner at which Sun handed over his Blackberry and told Niles to contact anyone he wanted, so that he’d know how serious this party-crasher was.

Starting out in Sydney

Sun has always charged into what interests him.

After studying law and finance at the University of New South Wales, and studying Chinese and law on scholarship at Beijing University for a diploma of Asian Studies, he jumped into the dot-com boom: starting a recruitment software company, an education company, and a creative agency that focused on animation and viral marketing, among others.

Sun’s parents immigrated to Australia from near Darjeeling, India, but are of Chinese Tibetan origin and, once they’d gotten citizenship, started a small business.

“As a good migrant child, I was a student in tennis, and swimming, and all of the stuff that you do to try to be the overachieving eldest son,” he says.

Along with being the “typical” eldest son, he was infected by typical Australian outdoors obsessions — whether setting out into the bush for a day or surfing the northern beaches of Sydney.

Man on a Mission

Sun, 31, says he wanted to pair his entrepreneurial urges with something that he cared about. Each time he started up a new venture, he says, “I never felt fulfilled, and I felt that just being in front of a computer didn’t really satisfy the urges that I had. I couldn’t explain what they were. All I knew was that I wanted adventure and I wanted passion and I wanted to go out and change the world.”

By 2006, Sun had started learning more about Kyoto and what he calls the “rabbit hole” of avoided deforestation that emerged during the 2001 Marrakesh Accord.

“Once you get into avoided deforestation and you see the insanity of the multilateral negotiations and the total obliviousness to the science; and the deeper you dig past carbon, you get to all the amazing roles from pollination through to biodiversity the forests provide,” he says.

Surfing for Solutions

Sun kept surfing — this time on the web — to find out who was taking the lead in avoided deforestation. He tracked down a company in Lismore, Australia, and did what he always seems to do when he wants to get involved in something: he just showed up.

“I went knocking and I found this office, and there were a bunch of these ‘hippie-greenies’ that were trying to do this, and I was there in my suit,” Sun says. “And I kind of sat there until they let me buy the company.”

The Carbon Pool had been known for its Minding the Carbon Store project, which protects 12,000 acres of native Australian vegetation. Part of this project included Australia’s largest sale of verified emissions — one million tons – to mining company Rio Tinto.

While Sun calls the Rio Tinto deal “fantastic,” he wanted to up the stakes.

“Every day we lose 71,000 football fields of pristine rainforest by rapacious forestry companies which are unsustainably destroying the world,” he says. “Do you want to continue to kick around on the fringe of irrelevancy, or do you want to actually step up to the plate and make a real difference?”

With the blessing of the Carbon Pool (now under the umbrella of Carbon Conservation), he hopped on another plane—this time to Aceh, Indonesia.

Indonesia’s Forests

LeRoy Hollenbeck, an advisor to the governor of Aceh, recounts that Governor Irwandi Yusuf likes saying that only about 35 percent of the forest cover in the whole island of Sumatra is intact — and 65 percent of that is in Aceh, a province on the northern tip of Sumatra.

“That’s why we’re really keen on Aceh,” Hollenbeck says. “It has probably the largest tract of natural forest in all of Sumatra, and Irwandi is a green governor. He wants to do what can be done so that the forest doesn’t disappear. And if he can get paid for it, even better.”

In late 2006, Hollenbeck proposed the idea of linking Aceh and the province of Papua in a REDD program to the World Bank, but got nowhere. A few months later, Hollenbeck hopped a plane back to Aceh and talked with Scott Stanley of conservation organization Fauna & Flora International; Stanley told him there was a guy named Dorjee Sun in Aceh that he should meet.

In late January, 2007, the two men had dinner with Sun, and, Hollenbeck says, “The rest is history.”

For the Thirteenth Conference to the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-13) held in December in Bali, Indonesia, Carbon Conservation organized a Green Governors’ Gala; here, the Indonesian governors of Aceh, Papua, Papua Barat, and Amazonas, in Brazil agreed to protect their forests and work toward developing carbon credits for voluntary markets.

Sun, whose company is working on the nuts and bolts of bringing the governors’ carbon to market, says his main work is as the cheerleader of the deal.

The Ultimate Rah-Rah

“That’s all I really do: I just keep rah-rah-ing,” he says, although the plan did take some negotiation on his part. “I actually said to the governors, I said look, if I actually tried to get away with the behaviors [that traditional resource extraction companies have participated in], I invite you to put a spear in my chest, or in my eye, or my leg.”

As of yet, he’s had no close encounters with the business end of a spear. (“Despite my wide girth, I’m amazingly dexterous,” the less-than-portly Sun says).

Riding Shotgun

And he seems to have found a place to use that dexterity in Aceh: riding shotgun with the governor as he performs raids on small illegal logging operations, with heavy metal band Deep Purple playing in the background.

Sun compares those chopping down forests to the Dark Side in the Star Wars series: Darth Vader, the Emperor, and their minions.

“If you imagine the economy is a runaway train, and the rules of finance and investment are just off the chain, basically, that’s the evil empire,” he says. “Without any type of change to fundamental infrastructure or market constructs, you don’t really get the runaway train being redirected, and we’ll eat our way all the way through the Earth.”

On the other side are Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and the protectors of the world’s forests: “The people who choose to stand up on the [forest moon] of Endor are essentially fighting the good fight,” he says. “We’re far outnumbered, and far outgunned.”

But while Sun talks about his work with a mixture of humor and zaniness, he’s serious when it comes to protecting Indonesia’s forests.

The Financial Incentive

Sun considers himself a “pragmatic conservationist,” and would like to make money on the project, but if he really wanted a windfall, “holy s**t, there’s a lot of other better ways to do that,” he says.

“At the end of the day, we’re trying to protect the rainforests forever, we’re trying to alleviate [Aceh’s] poverty, and provide alternative non-timber livelihoods which will result in a viable protection scheme,” he says.

In Aceh, the work is going at high-speed — and perhaps a pace that isn’t always comfortable.

“If you look at the old phonograph records, Dorjee’s probably moving at 78 speed and we’re probably moving at 45 or 33 1/3,” says Hollenbeck. “And there’s nothing wrong with that.”

Even at warp speed, Sun’s enthusiasm seems contagious. “No matter who he meets, it’s the same thing,” Niles says. “He’s usually got his rainforest ranger shirt on – a khaki short-sleeve shirt – and he goes into every meeting the same. It doesn’t matter if it’s the president of Starbucks or former president of the World Bank. He’s like, ‘High five! How you doing! Alright, here we go! Are you with me?'”

The Merrill Lynch Deal

One of Sun’s full-speed-ahead efforts has been finding investors for the project.

He began pursuing Merrill Lynch last year, and the company’s managing director and global head of carbon emissions, Abyd Karmali, started working with Sun once they focused in on the Aceh project in October 2007.

“I’ve never chased a girl as hard and as fast as I have Abyd Karmali,” Sun says.

Interest in the Aceh project was mutual, Karmali says. Merrill Lynch then did its own assessment of the proposed program, meeting with the governor, local NGOs and others involved.

“Merrill Lynch wanted to be an early mover in the forestry carbon area.” The deal was an excellent fit with Merrill Lynch’s new Environmental Sustainability Framework and a company green initiative, Karmali says, and along with the commercial potential, the project could help shape REDD policy. “And then of course, Dorjee himself is someone who was able to represent his project very eloquently, and was able to transmit the broader vision that the governor of Aceh had for his region.”

Karmali says the deal is structured in such a way that the project itself will benefit, along with its investors. And while, as a first-of-its kind project that carries risks, he says, “the potential for this project is very significant, because if we can achieve greater sales, then that’s obviously going to deliver far more than $9 million in terms of value to the actual project.”

Merrill Lynch’s participation is groundbreaking, Sun says, because instead of investing philanthropic or conservation money in the deal, they’re pulling money from their commodities trading fund.

“When Merrill Lynch stepped forward and put their name to this, it wasn’t just the money; it was the fact that an investment bank, for the first time was deploying its money, thinking they’re going to make more money by helping us save (the forest) than they are by helping us tearing it down,'” Niles says.

Sharing the Risk

Sun has taken on much of the uncertainty himself.

While there are many who talk about doing projects like this, Sun has actually poured his own money into his work, a step many haven’t taken, says Martijn Wilder, a partner at the Sydney office of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm that advises Carbon Conservation.

“He’s put everything he has at risk,” Wilder says. “You’ve got to credit him with that.”

Next Steps

One of Sun’s goals is to turn Aceh into an exemplary project to show off at the COP 15 conference to be held in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. Early reports indicate that Aceh’s forests are already improving: Niles says trails that were logging roads a year and a half ago are overgrown, and this summer they’ll conduct remote sensing surveys and calculate the actual emissions reductions accomplished.

Meanwhile, Sun’s company is lobbying for emerging carbon markets to include the project’s carbon credits, and working on convincing other financial institutions that this project is only the beginning in terms of where carbon markets — and projects — could go.

“We’re easing people into what could eventually turn out to be a significant market,” he says. “They just have to change their valuations from short term finance to long-term total economic value.”

And Sun has a lot more he wants to bring to the table. Having worked in the fashion industry, he compares labels like Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger – which he says promote an image without meaning – to the plans he has for creating a global “brand” based on protecting forests.

“I haven’t started really using my marketing,” he says. “I haven’t started really using my viral stuff, but I will absolutely tie it together for one campaign, and it’s the campaign that I think is going to pretty much cover the rest of my life, and that’s going to be the appropriate valuation and protection of the most important resource in the world, which is our only home.”

Cameron Walker is a regular contributor to the Ecosystem Marketplace. She may be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Zapalinam: Connecting Cities and Watersheds in Mexico

The people of Saltillo, Mexico, voluntarily pay to support the watershed of the surrounding mountains – and with it, their own drinking water. Ecoystem Marketplace examines this innovative Payments for Watershed Services (PWS) scheme.

Third in a series leading up to the 14th Katoomba Meeting in Mato Grasso, Brazil.

5 February 2009 | Mexico’s Sierra de Zapalinam has been good to the people of Saltillo, capital of the Mexican state of Coahuila.

The Sierra’s mountain streams, for example, provide clean water for more than 70% of the nearly 700,000 saltillenses – as well as for residents of neighboring Arteaga and Ramos Arizpe; and the entire Sierra supports habitat for endangered species like the puma (Felis concolor), the American black bear (Ursus americanus) and the maroon fronted parrot (Rhynchopsitta terrisi).

In 1997, it was declared a nature reserve, but as more and more people move into the mountains – and farmers work the land more aggressively – the natural catchments that regulate and filter the water are less and less able to do so.

“Five or six years ago, the city of Saltillo suffered a serious drought,” says Leticia Rufino Jimnez of local non-governmental organization (NGO) Profauna (Protection of the Mexican Fauna). “Nowadays, that problem isn’t as drastic, due to the actions that were implemented to protect the watersheds”.

Those actions include Cities and Watersheds II, a Payments for Watershed Services (PWS) scheme launched in 2003 by a consortium of NGOs including Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacin de la Naturaleza, (Mexican Fund for Nature Conservation, FMCN) and Fundaci³n Gonzalo R­o Arronte (Gonzalo R­o Arronte Foundation).

The scheme lets the people of Saltillo pay landowners in the Reserve for acting as guardians of the watershed.

 

Spreading the Word

The project faced its first challenge when promoters realized that few saltillenses knew that their water came from the surrounding mountains – and thus had no incentive (other than philanthropy) to pay for supporting the natural bounty on which they depend.

Profauna responded with an awareness campaign dubbed Por una raz³n de peso (a reason of one peso), which aimed to help the city dwellers recognize the vital importance of the Sierra as the catchment area for the water consumed by the city – as well as the recreational and educational services the Sierra provides.

 

The Payment Mechanism

The payment mechanism was established in 2003 under a collaborative framework between Profauna, the city of Saltillo, and the local water utility, Aguas de Saltillo (AgSal).

AgSal customers see the term “social contribution” on their water bill and can choose to participate in amounts ranging from one to 1,000 pesos (US$0.06 to$67.00).

To prevent “buyers’ remorse”, they are asked to fill out a written form authorizing AgSal to deduct the selected amount each month, while Profauna is in charge of collecting the forms and subsequently sending them to AgSal.

“It is complicated to join the program, because a lot of information needs to be collected,” says Marines. “But you only need to make one single call to AgSal to unsubscribe, and this generates confidence among users.”

So far, he adds, few have left the program.

 

Keeping It Honest

Once AgSal collects the contributions, the money is channeled to an account managed by the Grupo Ciudadano de Apoyo (Citizen Support Group), which is comprised of representatives from institutions such as WWF and FMCN, as well as respected local citizens who guarantee transparency.

“Involving distinguished citizens in the resource-allocation process has been an achievement that has promoted transparency and security to the stakeholders,” says Marines.

 

The Vetting Process

The projects themselves are submitted by landowners in the watershed and vetted by a group of experts called Grupo Tecnico de Apoyo (Technical Support Group), which is comprised of representatives from SEMARNAT (Natural Resources Secretariat), INIFIAP (National Institute for forestry, agricultural and livestock research), CONAFOR (Mexican Forestry Commission), CONAGUA (National Water Commission), and FMCN, among others.

Grupo Tecnico de Apoyo filters projects based on technical feasibility, and the Grupo Ciudadano de Apoyo decides which will be funded.

 

Getting People on Board

To date, only 14% of water users (28,000 from a total of 200,000 users connected to the utility supply system) contribute to the scheme, and at small levels, but Sergio Marines, Coordinator of Profauna’s office in Saltillo, points out that the 2003 round drew only 4,000 donors.

“Most of them paid one, two or five pesos – with one-peso donations providing the lion’s share of contributions then,” he says, adding that the first year brought in just MEX 38,249 pesos (US$2,550), while 2008’s 28,000 donors paid in MEX95,000 (US$6,185).

 

Public Sector Support

In 2006, the state of Coahuila upped its support of the program with a peso por peso (peso by peso) matching arrangement. In addition to his personal contribution, the Coahuila Governor Humberto Moreira committed to double the resources for the project, channeling a monthly sum equivalent to the amount raised in July 2006, adjusting the amount each year.

“If Saltillo is full of life, if there’s water in every house, if we are able to live in this place – it is because of the Sierra de Zapalinam,” said Moreira when the peso por peso was launched. “If it doesn’t capture water, the Sierra dies, and as a consequence, there will be no water in Saltillo.”

 

Promoting Active Conservation

The projects involve local communities and small land-holders who present proposals in line with the Reserve’s Management Plan. Marines points out that funds aren’t paid out just for keeping hands off of the forests, but for actively developing conservation and restoration projects in the Sierra.

These projects include water and soil conservation, fire management programs, reforestation, cattle protection fences, backyard orchards, solid waste management, and species monitoring within the Reserve, among other activities whose environmental benefits extend well beyond clean water.

“The most visible environmental benefit is the increase in vegetation cover in the Sierra,” he says. “Communities are working to convert agricultural to forest land, and changes can be observed both in the forest structure and dimension. Areas that used to be crop fields are now covered by forest as a direct result of the program.”

 

Impact on Communities

Long-term, the program’s success will be defined by its impact on both the environment and the communities of the watershed.

“Perception and attitude is changing within local communities – especially in winning support for the Natural Protected Area (NPA) decree to working in conjunction with NPA authorities in conservation activities,” says Marines. “This was possible thanks to the Cities and Watersheds project”.

Currently, a project for monitoring the springs in the upper basin of Zapalinm is being implemented and carried out every two months in collaboration with NPA personnel to evaluate water quality and quantity flows.

 

Mandatory vs. Voluntary

Marines says that a voluntary scheme has many virtues over a compliance scheme – largely because it encourages active participation by people both in the city and in the Reserve. Indeed, more than 15,000 families of the watershed are already involved in projects related to the scheme.

“In the first place, it is a way to gauge the level of the project’s acceptance,” he says. “Having the voluntary support of 15,000 families in a community is quite interesting from a political perspective as well, but if done under a compulsory scheme, these virtues would be gone.”

Rufino, who is now Profauna’s project manager for Watershed and Cities II, agrees.

“The fact that the scheme was not imposed helped increase people’s support for the cause and their environmental awareness,” she says. “In the end, it’s not only money that matters.”

 

Replicating Success

“I’ve witnessed some experiences in Veracruz and Jalisco, and the secret is to adapt to local ideology,” says Marines. “The experience we’ve had in Zapalinam, might be replicable, but with proper adaptation”

In a national context in which PWS experience in Mexico is mainly within the federal PWS program, the results and experiences drawn in Saltillo constitute an undeniable reference for building the road ahead.



Claudia Lechuga is editor of Mercados Ambientales.com (Spanish website of Ecosystem Marketplace that was re-launched as Valorando Naturaleza in 2013.) and Climate Change Coordinator in Reforestamos Mexico. You can reach her at [email protected] or [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Wanted: Forest Carbon Projects for ForestCarbonPortal.com

Forestry advocates believe that halting the destruction of tropical rainforests is one of the easiest and most effective ways to slow global warming, and that’s led to a surge in development of projects designed to capture carbon in leaves, stalks, and bogs, but no centralized information hub for keeping track of all the activity – until now. Introducing: ForestCarbonPortal.com.

23 January 2009 | When Eveline Trines founded Treeness Consult in 2002, she was able to keep a running inventory in her head of all of the projects in the world that were offsetting industrial greenhouse gas emissions by capturing carbon in trees.

“Today, there’s no way,” she says. “You’ve got one initiative tumbling over the other, and the information stream is quite intimidating.”

And it’s bound to get more so as forest carbon projects evolve from ugly duckling to golden goose in the eyes of many project developers. The result is a torrent of information relevant to forest carbon, but no way to access the right resources.

To help meet the challenge, Ecosystem Marketplace recently launched the first phase of ForestCarbonPortal.com, an online information clearinghouse for the terrestrial carbon markets. Although still under construction, the site is active and can be viewed here.

SpeciesBanking.com for Trees

Like SpeciesBanking.com, ForestCarbonPortal.com is a satellite website to EcosystemMarkeplace.com and includes daily news posts, Ecosystem Marketplace articles, a calendar of events, and a “tool box” of the latest intro guides, curriculums, methodologies, software measurement tools and more.

In addition to news updates and a library of resources, the Portal also includes a first-of-its-kind Forest Carbon Inventory, which tracks terrestrial carbon markets. The Inventory also maps projects selling land-based carbon credits across the globe, and makes it possible for users to search for project sites by region, as well as by a variety of criteria such as project type, standard, registry, and credit prices.

Calling All Project Developers

The site only lists projects that have sold credits or have a publicly-available project design document (PDD), and all are described in consistent ‘nutrition labels‘ listing a range of criteria (click here for an example).

Forest Carbon Associate Maria Bendana has researched 250 projects so far, but only 30 have been posted – largely because verifying the information is a tedious process that begins with simple web searches and cold-calling, but ultimately involves analyzing project documentation. That tedium, she says, represents the true value to end users: because they won’t have to go through it themselves.

Potential Users See Promise, Challenges

Potential end users generally agree.

“I haven’t seen anything as complete and sophisticated as this,” says Trenes. “The need is definitely there – because the whole REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) issue is so big at the moment, and it’s very difficult to cross oceans every time you think there might be an interesting project out there.”

One thing the Inventory does not include is projects that have not yet been developed. Katherine Hamilton, Managing Director at Ecosystem Marketplace explains that “the goal is currently to ensure information provided is accurate and to establish a dynamic list of active projects… so the site does not currently include pipeline projects. Instead we’re encouraging project developers to let us know if their project is not listed and to keep information updated.”

Joachim Sell, Head of Forestry and Biofuels for First Climate Group, is one voice asking for more. He says he’d like to see a sub-portal with more early-stage projects, even if they don’t have the degree of transparency necessary.

Room for Early-Stage Projects?

Sell says that his company looks for both issued credits and early-stage projects that want to sell carbon credits on a forward basis and then use the forward contract to attract further investments or as collateral to borrow money for further development.

“A main issue for the development of carbon forestry projects will be the availability of advance payments at risk, i.e. before the project is registered,” he says. “A platform with early stage projects could help to bring players together able to commit advanced payments that help to kick-start projects.”

Bendana, meanwhile, is asking project developers interested in getting their projects on the site to contact her – and trying to figure out how she’ll keep up with the paperwork if she gets what she’s asking for.

“I hope they will face that problem,” says Trenes. “It would mean a lot of projects are coming their way.”



If you would like to see your project showcased on the Forest Carbon Inventory map, or if your project is already on display and you have any corrections or additions, please contact Maria Bendana: [email protected].

Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of the Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Ugandan Water Markets: What Businesses Know (and Don’t)

Water markets can help provide a solution to Uganda’s looming water crisis – but only if buyers understand the stakes and the dynamics. Alice Ruhweza, East and Southern Africa Katoomba Group Coordinator, says Ugandan water users understand the crisis but haven’t yet explored market-based solutions. The Ecosystem Marketplace summarizes her findings.

18 April 2008 | Massive Lake Victoria spreads thinly over nearly 70,000 square kilometers in Africa’s Rift Valley, covering more surface area than any other tropical lake in the world. Millions of people and thousands of businesses in three nations depend on this vast but shallow body of water for survival – but huge parts of the lake are themselves “dead zones”, devoid of oxygen and barely capable of supporting what little life remains below the waves, let alone supporting humans on the shore.

Key among these humans on the shore are Ugandan brewers, bottlers, flower exporters, electric companies, and of course municipal water plants – all of which are not only dependent on clean water, but also have the economic and political clout to promote change.

But do they understand the importance of ecosystem services to their business, and are they willing to put their money where their menace is and support efforts to clean up the water? These were the key questions the East and Southern Africa Katoomba Group put to more than fifteen leaders of Ugandan industry in a survey conducted last year, the results of which have been published in Assessing the Market: Conversations with Private Sector Businesses About Payments for Ecosystem Services – A Letter from Uganda.

The answers are, in a nutshell: yes, they are aware of their dependence on this fragile resource, but no, they do not have concrete plans to invest in the lake’s future.

These findings were echoed in a survey of Fortune 1000 executives carried out by the Marsh Center for Risk Insights. Forty percent of the companies surveyed said the impact of a water shortage would be severe or even catastrophic, but less than one-in-five (17%) say they have prepared for such a crisis.

Identifying Key Ecosystem Services

All companies surveyed named water as the resource most critical to their business, and most of them draw their water from Lake Victoria. Those that aren’t directly dependent on the lake, such as some district or municipal water companies and flower exporters, draw their water from aquifers through the use of boreholes. Some companies also mentioned shallow wells and rainwater collection.

Energy or electricity came second on the list, but it is also directly tied to water and hydro-power.

Lake Victoria: an Overview

Despite its massive surface area, Lake Victoria has a mean depth of just 40 meters (131 feet), leaving it susceptible to both climate change and conventional pollution. Indeed, inflows of farm run-off and untreated effluent have led to fish die-offs, algal blooms and the spread of water hyacinth (a waterweed), which in turn depletes dissolved oxygen, blocks sunlight, and impedes water transport.

A recent survey by environmental engineering group Air Water Earth (AWE) concluded that Murchison Bay, where the Ugandan capital Kampala is located, has only about half the dissolved oxygen needed to support most species of fish; while all along the Lake Victoria shoreline, hyacinth provides habitat for malaria mosquitoes and snails which harbor bilharzia parasites.

The key drivers are easy to identify, but that doesn’t mean they will be easy to reverse. Kampala’s sewer system, for example, captures just ten percent of the city’s waste, and most of Lake Victoria’s pollution flows in from nonpoint sources that are almost completely unregulated – such as small-scale workshops, parking lots, and car repair garages. Furthermore, guesthouses, slum dwellings and industries discharge untreated wastewater directly into the Nakivubo Channel, an artificial stream that drains Kampala and its suburbs.

The channel flows directly into Murchison Bay, and is responsible for roughly 75% of the nitrogen and 85% of the phosphorus discharged daily into the bay daily, and these nutrients are largely responsible for the eutrophication and algal blooms that clog water treatment plants and extract oxygen from water.

The Consequences

Uganda’s National Water & Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) says that the worse the water gets, the more expensive it becomes to make it drinkable. Ironically, NWSC’s own sewage treatment plant at Bugolobi discharges 15,000 cubic meters of inadequately treated sewage per day into Murchison Bay, and has been named the lake’s single largest polluter.

The Nakivubo Wetland and other major catchment wetlands, which once played the vital role of filtering effluent and storm water discharging into the lake, have long ago been encroached and degraded by settlement and cultivation. Widespread lakeshore cultivation and soil erosion also contribute excessive sediment and nutrients into the lake. Storm water flowing through Nakivubo Channel now carries tons of soil and waste straight into the lake.

Climate Change and Low Levels of Water

All companies surveyed cited climate change as a serious threat, as lower levels of water not only leave more concentrated pollution, but also leave a loss of other services that water bodies provide. The flower exporters and the district water supplier, for example, said they fear canals drying up during ever more-frequent periods of prolonged drought.

The lake also acts as a reservoir for hydropower, and falling water levels have reduced water available for generation. This situation is becoming an issue for businesses, because diesel-generated power is expensive and electricity tariffs have increased recently. Already, some companies require water use permits from the Directorate of Water Development which now have even more strict approval conditions to use water.

Further compounding expenses, severe power outages in 2005 resulted in business disruptions. For example, exporters of cut flowers exporters failed to meet their customer orders, and Uganda’s overall revenue from flower exports dropped from US$ 24 million in 2005 to US$ 20 million in 2006.

Other Ecosystem Services

Good electricity poles are also in short supply in Uganda, due to deforestation. Therefore, at present, most poles are imported from South Africa at a cost of roughly 1,200,000 Ugandan shillings (approximately US$ 750) each. Recently, the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources raised concerns about these costs and asked Uganda Electricity Distribution Company (UEDCL) to find a solution.

Furthermore, due to land shortage from high population growth, no land will be allocated for growth of wood for poles and the shortage will continue. Eucalyptus poles have high nutrient and water demand, and are not a sustainable option. PES approaches that could rectify this situation need to be explored. For example, a group of land owners could be given an incentive to plant fast-growing native trees.

The Corporate Response

Most of the companies surveyed have made investments to respond to ecosystem changes, but these are focused on meeting their own, individual, needs – and do not address macroenvironmental issues.

Beverage manufacturers, for example, have built water reservoirs on their plants which store water for up to two days. They also recycle 80% of the water that they use, and maintain water treatment plants and waste treatment plants. In the future, many plan to minimize water usage by modifying technology.

Flower companies have supplemented the water shortages by drilling bore holes, constructing water collection reservoirs for rain water harvesting, and planting trees.

The district water system is advising communities to form water user committees to be proactive in address soil erosion threats by planting grass, and digging terraces in gardens.

Some of the companies also have a policy of training employees in safety and environmental management, but implementation is costly and policies are often not implemented.

Surprisingly, the electricity sector has not yet articulated a strategy to deal with various environmental service shortages, especially related to water, although the Ministry of Energy is promoting other sustainable alternative sources of energy such as mini-hydropower generation on small rivers, solar power, wind power, biomass energy, and biogas.

In addition, most companies are engaged in some form of public outreach, detailed in the full report.

Payments for Watershed Services

All companies said it was critical for natural resources management to be integrated into the company strategies. This would enable market-based mechanisms to be part of the company programs.

The easiest way to incentivize this is to begin charging for water, the delivery of which is currently supported through very low tariffs. This approach, however, would likely face stiff resistance from water users, many of whom assert that natural resources are free and should not be paid for.

The Payment for Watershed services (PWS) concept exists in Uganda, but has not been incorporated into the present models of water management. Based on the survey and roundtable discussions, payments for water to also cover the cost of maintaining and restoring watershed services would constitute a general shift in company policy.

Until now, the companies have emphasized on-site investments to cater for future water shortages and to ensure water quality. PWS would shift them towards the protection and maintenance of ecosystems that provide the water that they use and ideally an eventual recovery of costs.

For a payment scheme to succeed and endure, the actions and change brought about by upstream land and water managers should result in identifiable benefits for downstream water users. Therefore, clear cause-and-effect relationships between upstream land and water use practices and the provision of watershed services for downstream users needs to be identified. The degree to which this is possible varies considerably from case to case.

A key policy question of how competing users should pay for the services of one watershed may arise. A decision based only on willingness-to-pay may lead to the exclusion of those who have less ability to pay, or to free-loaders who enjoy the benefits of the watershed without paying for them

There is, therefore, a need for more site specific analysis in order to determine whether a particular site is feasible for PWS.

Why Take a Market-Based Approach?

Those who own or manage upper watershed land often have little incentive to provide watershed services because the benefits occur downstream, so upper watershed actors don’t receive compensation for providing them. Development of incentives for appropriate land use practices therefore require finding ways for upstream landholders to be compensated for their costs.

This is where a more broad-based Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme could help alleviate the problem. Paying land owners in the upper water catchment to maintain existing forest cover or vegetation, for example, could maintain stable stream flows and reduce sedimentation. Likewise, a small fee could be added to the monthly water bill, with the funds being set aside for conservation and watershed protection projects.

What Should Companies do Next?

Based on our conversations, we have mapped out a three-phase approach that would have to be carried out with the cooperation of private, public, and community stakeholders.

Phase 1: Exploring the potential for—and returns on investment related to—payments for watershed services in key areas of Uganda relevant to business, which would include identifying and locating specific areas within targeted watersheds that contribute the most to the water problem (such as water shortages or poor water quality). These studies would also indicate where and how land-use changes must be introduced in order to reduce and eventually eradicate the sources of such problem.

Phase 2: Designing a pilot PES project for private-sector investment. Based on Phase I findings, a pilot test of changed watershed management practices can be designed for private sector investment and collaborative implementation and study. Such a pilot would include a cooperation agreement (or memorandum of understanding) between upland watershed service providers and downstream service users (the companies/businesses), whereby the upland providers would agree to carry out certain activities to ensure water quantity and quality in return for an agreed amount of money or form of compensation. Monitoring and verification can be undertaken by a third party.

Phase 3: Implementing a pilot PWS project (or portfolio of projects) and assessing results, including return on investment (ROI). The last stage would be implementation of the agreement for an agreed period of time (with continuous monitoring) that would enable private sector partners to assess if payments for watershed services offers improved reliability of water quantity, quality and/or cost savings.



Alice Ruhweza is Coordinator of the East & Southern Africa Katoomba Group. She can be reached at [email protected].

Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Mbaracay: Lessons in Avoiding Deforestation

Nearly two decades ago, a small Paraguayan NGO teamed up with a global environmental NGO and a mid-sized American energy provider to save a chunk of rainforest from the sawmills by offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. The Ecosystem Marketplace revisits one of the world’s first carbon offset projects: the Mbaracayº Forest Nature Reserve. Second in a three-part series.

8 January 2008 | Six years before the Kyoto Protocol was drawn up, North American energy provider Applied Energy Services (AES) paid $2 million to offset roughly 47 million tons of CO2 by helping to fund the Mbaracay Forest Nature Reserve (MFNS) in Paraguay. It was 1991, and the debate over forestry credits was foggy to say the least.

Indeed, few outside of a tiny circle of forward-thinking academics and activists had truly pondered how to quantify the amount of carbon captured in trees, let alone how to measure the impact of sustainable forestry on indigenous people. MFNS organizers, however, managed to create a 64,000 hectare private reserve, the benefits of which flow out to a 300,000-hectare buffer zone of sustainable agriculture. The indigenous Ach people have taken an active role in managing the reserve, and smaller private reserves are sprouting like mushrooms in the buffer zone to create migration corridors in support of a UNESCO-recognized biosphere reserve.

 

Getting Started

The Mbaracay region is one of last remnants of the traditional Ach hunting ground, over which they’d been losing control for decades before finally being dispatched to reservations in the 1970s. Mbaracay then passed to an Argentinean logging group called FINAP, and finally ended up in the hands of the World Bank after FINAP defaulted on a loan.

North American anthropologist Kim Hill then began lobbying the World Bank to give the land to the Ach, but it remained in limbo for years, and by 1987 seemed destined to be divided up and auctioned off to soybean farmers for $7 million.

That’s when Hill teamed up with Raul Gauto, who was heading the Paraguayan Ministry of Agriculture’s Conservation Data Center and working with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to build a biodiversity data base. Gauto and Hill asked TNC for advice on turning the area into a forest reserve with special use rights for the, and Gauto quickly carried out a comprehensive biodiversity survey of the property to help them make their case.

“With the help of a multidisciplinary team made up of 13 professionals, and over a two-week period, we tried to collect all the biological and physical data to support our next move,” says Gauto. “This was to try to persuade the World Bank to donate the land to us.”

But they continued to pursue other routes. Gauto had heard about AES after the company funded a pioneering forestry project in Guatemala. Through TNC, he was able to get word of the situation in Mbaracayº to AES owner Roger Sant. At the same time, he persuaded twelve Paraguayan businessmen to create a non-profit organization called Fundacion Moises Bertoni (FMB) to lobby the government on behalf of the Ach.

These efforts yielded fruit after the fall of notorious Paraguayan strongman Alfredo Strssner in 1989, and the Paraguayan government passed a law making the reserve possible and promising land near the reserve would be transferred to the Ach, in accordance with a 1989 United Nations convention on the rights of indigenous people. The World Bank, however, continued to balk at donating the land.

But they did lower their price to $5 million, at which point FMB offered $2 million and was given the property – on the condition that it would not be grabbed by the government and that indigenous people would play an active role in managing it.

 

Structuring the Deal

The two NGOs quickly secured donations to cover the purchase price, with a smattering of miscellaneous small donors (including members of the rock band REM) chipping in a total of $250,000. AES and USAID contributed $500,000 each, and one very generous anonymous nature lover from Ohio came up with $750,000.

But that was just the beginning, recalls Yan Speranza, who took over from Guato as head of FMB in 2001. “The only reason this program is so successful is because we can think in the long term,” he says. “And we can think long-term because we have a trust fund.”
That trust fund is where the bulk of the carbon offsets come in.

As the deal was coming together, AES was looking to offset 35 years of emissions from a new power plant it was building in Hawaii. The company calculated that the plant would emit 13.1 million metric tons of carbon over the ensuing 35 years—or about 47 million tons of CO2 using the generally accepted conversion factor of 3.6:1. They offered to pay just over 15 cents for each ton of carbon sequestered—or about 4 cents per ton of CO2, roughly $2 million in total, with $500,000 going to the purchase of the land, and $1.5 million establishing the trust fund used to maintain the property.

The reserve is managed from the proceeds of the trust fund, and the principle is off-limits. “We basically reinvest everything we can,” says Speranza. “It’s now grown to $6 million.”

Getting the money, however, required not only measuring the amount of carbon in the trees, but proving to AES that the forest would not survive without the funding—what today we call the “additionality” requirement.

“That was easy in this case—because the forest was earmarked for destruction,” says Speranza. “These days, the difficulty would be in quantifying the non-carbon benefits—biodiversity, culture, and so on. Back then, the biggest challenge was measuring the carbon.”

Gauto tapped the forestry faculty of the National University and the staff of the National Forest Service to measure the amount of carbon sequestered in the trees. The study involved first identifying three different types of forest using satellite imagery, and then measuring the diameter of all trees thicker than ten centimeters at chest height in fifteen plots within these three forest types, and then extrapolating the total carbon in each tree based on that data. Then they assigned a biomass per hectare amount for each forest type, and used the satellite images to come up with a total number.

“We came up with 27 million metric tons—about twice what we needed,” says Speranza. “We then sent our study to people at other universities, like Sandra Brown from the University of Illinois (now at Winrock International), who said the methodology was legitimate. Ultimately, AES agreed the numbers were good.”

Although the reserve is obligated to send yearly reports to AES, FMB has not commissioned another carbon inventory since the project launched. “The 64,000 hectares are intact, so we know the amount has not gone down,” says Speranza – adding that another inventory is in the works.

 

How to Spend It

“At first, we only had 57,700 hectares,” says Speranza. “The other 6,000 hectares came over the next few years – but 57,700 is still a lot of territory to protect from danger.” FMB found that illegal logging had been taking place around the edges of the reserve, and went about recruiting and training forest rangers.

“There are 17 public reserves in Paraguay, covering about five million hectares,” he says. “The biggest one is about 700,000 hectares, and only has two park rangers. We, in contrast, have 64,000 hectares and 18 park rangers – as well as modern communication systems, on-going training, and so on—all because of the trust fund.”

He also rattles off a litany of social benefits generated by the reserve. “We never thought only about conservation, but also about how to promote sustainable development for the whole region,” he says. “We’re really proud of this, because up until the mid-90s, conservation projects usually focused only on protection of nature, and not on the surrounding areas or communities.” See a (detailed examination of the project’s social benefits through the year 2000 — PDF)

FMB has been working with private land owners in the surrounding 300 hectare buffer zone since the reserve’s inception. “The problem in Paraguay isn’t just deforestation, but fragmentation,” he says. “We helped draft the legislation that offers tax incentives for private reserves, and now we’re working with private land-owners to get them to create private reserves so that we can have migration corridors.”
Four private reserves have already been created, and FMB hopes to see between 80,000 and 100,000 hectares of the buffer zone eventually covered in reserves. In 2001, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized the surrounding area as the Bosque Mbaracay Biosphere Reserve, which has made it possible for FMB to secure more funding from grants.

The group has also promoted sustainable agriculture within the buffer zone, and introduced crops such as sesame into the area. Speranza says he can document a quadrupling of income over the past five years, and believes much of this flows from FMB’s social efforts—which include the funding of schools and a health center, as well as communications infrastructure.

 

Green Businesss

Speranza says that the trust fund has given FMB a chance to prove its financial competence, and three years ago became the first NGO in Paraguay to receive a grant directly from the World Bank’s Global Environmental Facility. They’ve since leveraged their good reputation to secure loans and grants to get into for-profit green businesses.

Seven years ago, for example, FMB purchased LICAN, a meat processing plant that had been dumping blood from slaughtered animals into a local river. “We discovered that you can use the blood to make plasma and hemoglobin, which is a raw material for animal feed,” he says. “By using the blood this way instead of dumping it to the river, and running this company with a triple bottom line, we are generating environmental, social and economic value: the blood does not go the river anymore, people who were suffering along river no longer are, and the company is profitable, helping us to finance—through dividends received—all our other activities. Truly a virtuous circle.”

They recently identified a similar meat packing plant in Chile, and together with a Chilean partner formed a joint venture to purchase and manage the property in a sustainable way. As shareholders, FMB receives dividends from the partnership.

“About 22% of our income comes from the for-profit companies, and 45% from the trust fund,” he says. “The rest comes from service fees and grants – but we are getting less and less from grants, and that is our goal.”

Controversially, FMB recently agreed to a ten-year strategic alliance with soybean growers interested in developing a management model also based in a triple bottom line. Speranza says the project creates both social and environmental value because FMB is helping neighboring communities create private reserves inside their properties, but he fears some will accuse him of making a pact with the devil.

“Soybean growers are blamed for deforestation, so this is bound to give us some problems,” he says. “Our feeling, however, is that you have to work with the private sector to develop agriculture in a good and sustainable way. We know how to work with local communities, and we know how to create reserves and deal with environmental issues, so it is part of our mission to share this know-how.”

 

Ach: Unfinished Business

The law establishing the reserve gave the Ach exclusive rights to hunt on the reserve, and they also have seats on the reserve’s advisory board, but Hill says they’re still being short-changed.

“While the Ach were given use rights by the 1991 law creating the reserve, they have not been titled any additional land surrounding the reserve, the area that encompasses their traditional homeland,” he says. “The Ach gave up the Mbaracayº Reserve area because they were promised another piece of land, but so far, after 16 years, they still have no land title.”

And that’s hardly a minor issue. One of the key selling points of avoided deforestation projects is that they will help indigenous people and small landowners—in part by forcing more clarity on land tenure. Critics say that clarity may come at the expense of the indigenous people such projects purport to help.

These issues are sure to gain prominence in the year ahead as we explore the efficacy of the new Climate, Culture, and Biodiversity (CCB) standards—the success of which will largely hinge on their resolution.

Next in this series: we revisit a late 1990s project in Brazil, the Guaraqueaba Climate Action Project, and examine the impact of standardized methodologies on projects in the works today.

Steve Zwick is a regular contributor to the Ecosystem Marketplace. He may be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Social Carbon Joins the Party

31 October 2008 | Rice grows in boat-shaped husks that taste nutty-soft when steamed to perfection – a treat most of us never get to enjoy (and those of us who do aren’t, as a rule, impressed). That’s good news for Ceramicas Reunidas, a family-owned Brazilian brick production company that recently earned carbon credits for switching its fuel from rainforest trees to discarded rice husks.

It’s a small project, designed to reduce emissions by just 16,000 tons of CO2 per year by switching from non-renewable biomass or fossil fuel to renewable biomass, but the focus of the project expands beyond sequestration to the human dimension. The fuel switch and technology upgrade was carried out in accordance with Social Carbon Methodology (SCM), a set of procedures designed over the past decade to promote carbon offset projects that contribute to sustainable development in local communities.

Like the better-known Climate, Community, and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards, SCM is not a stand-alone tool that defines agreed-upon methods for measuring carbon capture itself. That’s left to entities like the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS). Instead, SCM is a sustainability screen: it helps identify and promote “non-carbon” benefits flowing from projects that already meet the requirements of basic carbon standards.

“There will not be a separate certificate issued for Social Carbon credits and VCS credits,” says Stefano Merlin, the Italy-born economist who helped spearhead the development of SCM. “Instead, the Social Carbon designation will be embedded in a tag on the VCS certificate, so it may say ‘VCS/Social Carbon/001’ or something like that.”

“Social Carbon breaks sustainability into six ‘resources’ (see below), which is pretty comprehensive in terms of coverage of aspects of sustainability,” says Jochen Gassner, Director of Climate Neutral for German carbon broker First Climate. “They’ve got their indicators for all of these aspects, which is a good complementary assessment to what the normal standards such as VCS and VER+ do.”

 

Long-Time Coming

Although new on the global radar, the SCM has been in the works for roughly a decade.

“It evolved as a methodology before you had the concept of a formal standard like the VCS,” says Merlin, who in 2000 co-founded the Ecolí³gica Institute together with Brazilian agronomist Divaldo Rezende.

Ecolí³gica is a Brazilian non-governmental organization (NGO) that promotes sustainable solutions to environmental problems, and the methodology was created to monitor the Institute’s own projects.

“We started working on it in 1998, and it evolved over time,” says Merlin. “Only recently did we start calling it a standard, but it’s really a methodology.”

Today, Ecolí³gica administers the methodology, with projects being verified by third-party entities such as the Brazilian division of Germany’s TÃœV Nord.

 

CantorCO2e and TZ1: Taking it Global

More than 80 Latin American projects have so far become SCM-certified, but the methodology remained one of Brazil’s best-kept secrets until earlier this year, when Ecolí³gica and London-based project developer CantorCO2e launched the Social Carbon Company to develop projects around the world in accordance with SCM.

“The mission now is to expand beyond the boundaries of Brazil, and spread to as many organizations as possible,” says Merlin, adding that it’s easier to grow internationally with a global partner like Cantor, and that some of the profits from the company will be funneled back into Ecolí³gica. “The company licenses the Social Carbon Methodology to implement projects, and the Social Carbon Company is also a project developer utilizing the methodology.”

This week, Social Carbon and New Zealand-based environmental markets infrastructure provider TZ1 announced that TZ1 would act as the global registry for Social Carbon Credits – which are defined as carbon credits that have been validated under both SCM and a more basic standard, such as the VCS or even the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

TZ1 is one of four registries selected to support VCS credits under a system that is still being put into place. It’s also the only registry that can initiate Social Carbon credits, but these credits can then be transferred to other registries acting in support of VCS once the four-registry system gets off the ground.

 

CCB and SCM

The challenge now is for Social Carbon is to differentiate itself from existing “co-benefit” standards like the CCB Standards and carve out its own niche in the market.

“Some areas of differentiation are obvious,” says Merlin. “For example, CCB is forestry-focused, while Social Carbon covers more technologies, like energy efficiency, fuel-switching, and small-scale hydro.”

But, while SCM has broader coverage than CCB in terms of carbon-reduction technologies, it has a narrower focus in terms of non-carbon benefits.

“You could argue that CCB focuses more on biodiversity than we do, while we focus more on sustainability,” says Merlin, adding that SCM does measure biodiversity, but sees it more as a resource that contributes to sustainable development than as an end in itself.

“Both methods are very comprehensive,” says Gassner. “We use both Social Carbon and CCB, depending on what type of project it is.”

Joanna Durbin, head of the CCB Alliance, agrees on the distinction – to a point.

“We come from a broad group of environmental NGOs, many of them concentrated on biodiversity,” she says. “Also, because we’re focused on land-based projects, biodiversity is a bigger issue, which it isn’t for energy projects.”

She emphasizes, however, that the CCB Standards do require proof of positive impact on communities, even if they don’t go into as much detail on how to foster sustainable livelihoods. She says the two initiatives don’t so much compete as they “fit together” – partly because of the slightly different focus, but also because one is a standard that focuses on results, while the other is a methodology that focuses on procedures.

“We’re not prescriptive about the methodology that a project uses,” she explains. “Rather, we say that a project has to demonstrate that it has identified the local stakeholders and gotten them involved, and that it has a net positive impact on local communities and has mitigated potential off-site negative impacts.”

The two are not mutually exclusive, and she believes we will one day see projects developed using Social Carbon Methodology that then get verified according to the CCB standard.

 

Stand-Alone or Alliance?

SCM also differs from CCB in its structure. While CCB is administered by a broad-based group of NGOs (the CCB Alliance), SCM is administered only by Ecolí³gica.

“That could make it difficult for SCM,” says Gassner. “There is some discussion of criteria for eligibility of standards that will be recognized by the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (ICROA), and the way the conversation is going, they will say that any approved standards should be governed either by an alliance or by a company that doesn’t have business interests other than the standard.”

 

Six Resources

SCM is built on the work of researchers Robert Chambers, Gordon Conway, and Ian Scoones, who defined what constitutes a sustainable livelihood. Scoones then came up with five different “resources” that contribute to sustainability (natural capital, economic or financial capital, human capital, social capital, and physical capital).

Merlin and his team adopted four of the resources for their methodology and then added two of their own: biodiversity (or technology, depending on the type of project) and carbon. They also decided to rate the availability of each resource in a particular region, and support projects that promote that availability (see “Social Carbon Guidelines”, right).

They define the resources as follows:

Biodiversity Resource The combination of species, ecosystems and genes that form the biological diversity present in any region. Relevant aspects of this component are the integrity of natural communities, the way people use and interact with biodiversity, the state of conservation, pressures and threats imposed on native species, and the existence of priority areas for conservation.

Natural Resource The stock of natural resources (eg soil, water, air, genetic resources) and environmental services (soil protection, maintenance of hydrological cycles, absorption of pollution, pest control, etc.) from which those resources derive.

Financial Resource The basic capital (money, credit/debt and other economic goods) available to people and organizations.

Human Resource The skill, knowledge and capacity for work that people possess, as well as good health.

Social Resources Work networks, social demands, social relations, relationships of trust, and association in social groups.

Carbon Resource The type of carbon project being developed.

Steve Zwick is Managing Editor of the Ecosystem Marketplace. He can be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Stakeholders Flock to PES Conference in Brazil

The Ecosystem Marketplace plays the fly on the wall at last week’s Katoomba meeting in S Paulo, Brazil.S Paulo, Brazil Over 500 individuals representing a broad range of stakeholder groups gathered in South America’s largest city for a two-day conference to discuss ways to develop and improve payments for ecosystems services (PES). The meeting marked the 10th annual international meeting of the Katoomba Group, a global network designed to facilitate and promote PES initiatives. The meeting was co-sponsored by Forest Trends, a US-based non-profit, and the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV) Center for Sustainable Studies, a department of Brazil’s leading business school. The size and the diversity of the gathering surprised organizers and impressed many participants. The original attendance projections didn’t go beyond 150, said Carina Bracer, manager of the Tropical America Katoomba Group. Noted Steve Schwartzman, co-director of the International Program of Environmental Defense, a US-based environmental group: “Somebody said that if this meeting had been held 10 years ago, hardly anyone would be here—and the handful of people who had shown up would have just criticized the principle. This meeting reflects a big change.” “I’ve been going to various events about climate change and the carbon market over the last five years, ” said Paulo Moutinho, research director of the Amazon Institute of Environmental Research (IPAM), “and this is the first time I’ve seen so many people of different backgrounds. The discussion is not just about carbon credits but a whole series of proposals and ideas. I think that offers a lot of hope.” Schwartzman and others called attention to the role of FGV in attracting participation, albeit modest, from mainstream businesses. Among the companies sending representatives were: the Brazilian state-owned oil giant Petrobr¡s; the country’s largest private bank, Bradesco; and the US multinational aluminum producer Alcoa. “The FGV adds value because it can call some of the still unconverted to the table,” said Mario Monzoni, director of the FGV Center for Sustainability Studies. “Maybe those companies wouldn’t have responded to an invitation from an NGO.” “We need to bring together the economists and the forestry engineers to develop something that will be viable in economic terms,” he added. Monzoni’s idea was reflected in the program. For instance, Costa Rican economist Franz Tattenbach, executive director of the environmental group FUNDECOR, gave a numbers-crunching econometrics presentation about sustainable development in his country – even though many of the equations probably flew over the heads of sundry members of the audience. It makes sense for hardnosed business executives to take a good look at the PES, said Monzoni. “There is an absurd amount of assets not being exploited,” he noted. The IPAM’s Moutinho believes that progress is being made on this front. “I get the sense that we’re going to be able to create a mechanism that will make investments in nature competitive with those in traditional commodities,” he said. Carlos Manuel Rodr­guez, vice president of the global environmental group Conservation International and former minister of the environment and energy of Costa Rica, seemed to agree, though cautiously. “The most important thing about this meeting is mainstreaming and upstreaming,” he said. “That along with the mix of people who have concepts, ideas and theories with those doing hands-on project work. The expectations are high, but if you don’t create the conditions for implementation, you will not be successful.” Based on his experience in government, Rodr­guez stressed the need to attract public officials along with the business community. “No market mechanism will be successful if we don’t understand the way politicians think and talk [and use that information to make the case to them],” he said. In his closing remarks to the plenary, the FGV’s Monzoni seemed to agree: “At future meetings we need to get the minister of finance and the minister of agriculture to come.” For now, however, efforts will be focused on the follow up to this meeting, noted Monzoni: “I see the event as a means, not an end.” A former correspondent in Brazil for The Financial Times and Business Week, S Paulo-based Bill Hinchberger is the founding editor of BrazilMax, a website about Brazilian culture, society and travel, and of the BrazilMax News and Features Agency. First published: October 9, 2006 Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Gore, Maathai Address Forestry Offsets

Former US Vice President Al Gore and fellow Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai offered their views on avoided deforestation earlier this week. Gore said the time was right for avoided deforestation credits in cap-and-trade schemes, and Maathai supported the use of market-based solutions in principle – but stressed the need to link them with poverty reduction.

Fourth in the Series REDD in the USA

24 September 2008 | Former US Vice President Al Gore, Republic of Guyana President Bharrat Jagdeo, and Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai joined on Monday with presidents from the world’s largest environmental and antipoverty organizations, executives from the private sector, and public sector regulators to encourage the US to take a global leadership role in combating the deforestation that contributes to global warming.

“December 2009,” the date scheduled for the upcoming international global warming treaty conference in Copenhagen, served as a rallying cry for the assembled group of 200 guests as they pushed to forge consensus on achieving their goal.

During a luncheon held at the Yale Club in New York City and later during a roundtable discussion, both sponsored by Avoided Deforestation Partners, participants expressed cordial, if at times discordant rationales for preserving rainforests. A draft “call to action” was circulated in an effort to get all NGOs on the same page and provide a focal point for future debate.

Keeping It Simple

Gore, who won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for making climate change a front-page issue through his lectures and film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” used the luncheon to cut the discussion down to its fundamentals. Over the clinking of silver against white Rosenthal china, he noted that deforestation contributes 20 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions, more than all the world’s cars, trucks, planes and ships combined. Scientists warn that if global warming is not reduced within the next two decades, it could prove disastrous to the environment and economy.

Using his hands for emphasis, Gore said that “similar to the…subprime mortgage crises, the assumption that we can continue putting carbon into the air will also crash.”

Making It Real

As Gore and environmental leaders pushed for tropical forest protection to combat climate change, Maathai, the luncheon’s other featured speaker who won the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize for founding the Green Belt Movement that plants trees for income in Kenya, emphasized her and her fellow anti-poverty leaders’ agenda. Their main concerns, she said, are famine and the fury hunger can spur. Clad in a traditional African smock dyed sun yellow and blue, Maathai described the vast destruction of indigenous people’s rainforest homes. Disappearing at a rate of an acre a second, rainforests could be obliterated entirely within the next few decades.

“Where will they move,” she asked, “when all of this becomes a desert?”

President Jagdeo, whose nation’s protected rainforests equal the size of England, provided personal examples to back Maathai’s concerns.

“Poor people don’t want to be forever poor; they want to eat,” he said. “The last thing on their minds is to save the world from climate change.”

The upcoming United Nations-backed Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, he said, must include funding to preserve the forests his regime has until now protected.

From Then to Now

Gore played a major role negotiating the Kyoto Climate Agreement that was ratified by 37 industrialized countries in 1997 but never signed by the United States. That agreement spurred carbon trading between industry emitters and established the carbon trading businesses of many of the luncheons’ participants. Through regulations requiring emission reductions, the agreement prompted carbon-emitting industries such as power plants to purchase carbon offsets from businesses that could more economically reduce their emissions.

The 1997 agreement, however, did not allow industries the option of preserving or restoring rainforests as a way to offset their emissions. Gore said at the luncheon that the time is ripe to include rainforest preservation as another option within the cap and trade program for reducing overall carbon emissions.

Kyoto protocol signatory nations have been waiting to see whether the United States will assume a share of responsibility and a leadership role before banging out the upcoming treaty. But with less than six weeks left before the US presidential elections, time to influence party platforms is running short.

Former US Ambassador and conference participant Stu Eizenstat said that “we have to bring the same sense of urgency to this issue as we’re bringing to the financial crises.”

Common Ground

Taking the floor, Eizenstat ticked off common ground between the disparate assembly of environmentalists, investors and anti-poverty organizers. Scientifically, he said, it will be impossible to stabilize the composition of the atmosphere if the upcoming treaty again leaves out 20 percent of global emissions. Politically and economically, he continued, preserving tropical forests offers a low-cost way to reach emission-reduction goals. And developmentally, income must be channeled to the poor residing in rain forests to provide an incentive to not destroy them.

The Devil’s in the Details

Consensus and good will appeared to dominate the day’s discussions as participants nodded their heads in agreement. But getting major international players with distinctive end games to trust one another and work together places a high hurdle. The tricky subjects of leakage, permanence and additionality that form the fundamentals for ensuring that carbon trading actually reduces emissions were glossed over almost entirely during the meetings.

None-the-less, the group’s organizers urged that they work towards finding quick consensus. If successful, the conference’s unprecedented amalgamation of diverse leaders could broker the way for billions of dollars to be spent to protect rainforests, fight poverty and combat climate change.

“We have a real but fleeting opportunity,” Eizenstat said, “to fill the gap we left in Kyoto by putting forestry (in forefront.)”

Alice Kenny is a prize-winning science writer and a regular contributor to the Ecosystem Marketplace. She may be reached at [email protected].

Please see our Reprint Guidelines for details on republishing our articles.

Additional resources

Ecosystem Farming

Following its success with an innovative "Working for Water" program, South Africa has begun experimenting with a whole new approach to conservation and restoration; an approach that has scientists "mapping" ecosystem services and land-users "farming" them. The Ecosystem Marketplace takes a closer look at these recent developments and considers whether or not "trading" will be the next new verb for ecosystem services in the RSA. The photo looked like it came from Mars: a reddish, dry riverbed running beneath yellowed marshlands and brown hills. Even the sky, where white streaks striated a pale blue horizon, looked parched. The printer had run out of blue ink. The result was a photograph version of South Africa's Gariep River that looked decidedly thirsty. And yet, embedded as it was in a document entitled, "Working for Wetlands, South Africa," the unintended photograph seemed strikingly appropriate, even prescient. It read like a warning: take care of South Africa's wetlands or the Gariep Basin may, itself, run out of blue in the decades ahead. South Africa is a dry country and recent climate projections suggest that much of the nation will grow drier in the years to come. By 2025, according to a recent WWF document, "the country's water requirements will outstrip supply unless urgent steps are taken to manage the resource more sustainably." Fortunately, South Africans are taking steps to conserve their water resources and, notably, they are using an ecosystem service-based approach to fuel their progress. Protecting watershed services in South Africa has, in fact, become the catalyst for a whole new approach to conservation and restoration in the country, an approach that some in the business are calling 'ecosystem farming.' Ecosystem farming is interesting because it implies a very different approach to a long recognized environmental conundrum: biodiversity conservation and people's need to earn a living from their land don't always coincide. In the United States, the government generally has resolved this conflict by paying farmers to take their land out of production. In South Africa, both public and private interests are currently testing the feasibility of paying landowners and laborers to do the opposite, i.e. to put land into a new form of production – one geared towards ecosystem services. Against this backdrop, the recently published 'ecosystem services map' of the country's Gariep Basin is especially intriguing. Could the project – a product of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a four-year international effort to assess the state of Earth's ecosystems – represent a road-map, not just for the development of the Gariep Basin, but also for the whole of South Africa and, by extension, for the rest of the world?

A New Kind of Map

The Gariep is not only the longest river in South Africa, it is also among the most important and most heavily regulated. Large dams and complicated transfer schemes knit together over 665,000 square kilometers of catchment, as the river flows from the mountain nation of Lesotho through Gauteng Province and on into the arid western reaches of South Africa and Namibia. On its way, the Gariep system supplies water to Johannesburg, the economic hub of Southern Africa, fuels South Africa's "grain basket" (where food for approximately 70% of the nation is produced), and supports two international biodiversity hotspots. Given its ecological and economic importance, the Gariep Basin is, in many ways, just the sort of place in need of an ecosystem services map. And so it was that, in 2000, The Gariep Basin Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was born. Broadly speaking, the aim of the project was to provide a map that would be useful to policy-makers balancing the trade-offs associated with the protection and use of ecosystem services at the local, national and regional scales. Toward this end, the scientists used models and participatory methods to assess the location and "irreplaceability" of three types of ecosystem service in the basin: water services; food and fuel production; and services linked to biodiversity. Water reaches were assigned classifications ranging from A to F, according to their level of ecological integrity and industrial/agricultural function. 'A' regions of the river carried proposals for strict management practices that would support biodiversity in a near natural state. In descending order, Bs, Cs and Ds allowed for successively greater alterations of natural flow, water quality and temperature. Finally, recommendations were made that Es and Fs – stretches of the river so modified by human activity that their function potentially was impaired irreversibly – should be restored to D level when and where possible, but that some reaches of the river should be treated as sacrificial "workhorses" for industrial, agricultural and municipal water needs. Once the basin's present water resources had been mapped, the researchers next used models to forecast attainable classifications for each area in the future. This second map thus described the 'restoration capacity' of the catchment over the course of five years, charting a path toward an increased net flow of watershed services to a variety of sectors. A similar approach was taken in the mapping of biodiversity and food production services. The basin was gridded and each cell, representing a piece of land, was ranked according to the level of service it provided in three areas – the production of protein, cereal and biodiversity. "We used the notion of irreplaceability to assign comparable values to areas of land," explains the report. "Irreplaceability is a measure of how important the features that an area contains are to the achievement of a stated goal." In the case of the Basin, the scientists defined their goals as the provision of the nutritional needs (in terms of protein and calories) of 70% of South Africa's population and the preservation of a baseline measure of biodiversity. The resulting map, in which areas with high irreplaceability values look like bright spots on an electricity grid, indicates those regions that should be managed most carefully for each of the respective services. Importantly, the map also reveals regions of overlap, where the same geographic area provides irreplaceable services in terms of both biodiversity and food production. It is in these "ecosystem service hotspots," stress the scientists, that different management practices should be considered most carefully, with decision processes that weigh trade-offs explicitly and pricing policies that reflect the full cost of the land being used. While the project's managers are quick to point out that, "framing a question of ecosystem services only as an economic issue has several shortcomings," they also acknowledge that market forces can play an especially important role in assigning values to services in areas where the trade-offs between two or more management regimes must be considered. The basic notion of economics, of course, is that economic forces give price signals that, because they are continually revised, are an especially useful means of assigning and tracking value in dynamic systems. Thus, it is in the basin's most irreplaceable 'ecosystem service hotspots' that market-based conservation mechanisms may have a role to play: "We are currently exploring markets for ecosystem services," says Christo Fabricius, one of the lead investigators on the project, "but there are no examples in South Africa, that I know of, where this has been successfully implemented…yet."

Brick by Brick, Tree by Tree

While true market-based conservation programs per se aren't up and running in South Africa, a suite of public works programs is laying the foundations upon which they might soon be built. Throughout the 20th century, public works projects generally focused on regulating rivers – through dams, dikes or irrigation schemes – in ways that made them less natural. In the first decade of the 21st century, South Africa has been widely recognized for turning this paradigm on its ear through a program called 'Working for Water'. By restoring watersheds to their 'natural' state, South Africans are harvesting the benefits of ecosystem services while simultaneously providing jobs to their nation's poor. Invasive species suck up a great deal of water in South Africa – a single eucalyptus can use up to 400 liters of water in a day. Consequently, their removal immediately increases the amount of water available to recharge water tables. Recognizing that two of the country's wrongs – unemployment and water-scarcity – might make a right, the South African government began paying people to clear invasive species out of river catchments in 1996. They called the program Working for Water and, in the decade since its inception, they have watched it grow from strength to strength. Click here for more on WfW. Now, Working for Water's impact is rippling ever wider through a series of spin-off programs: Working for Wetlands opened up shop in 2000 to restore the water filtration services of native marsh habitat; likewise, Working on Fire began dispatching crews to sustain healthy forests/veld and prevent wildfires last year; and a new program near Port Elizabeth, called Working for Woodlands, is beginning to restore pastoral lands to sustain biodiversity and sequester carbon. Taken as a whole, the projects constitute not only the largest conservation program on the African continent, but also a sea-change in terms of the recognition of the value of the services provided by healthy ecosystems. "Programmes like Working for Wetlands, Working on Fire, and Working for Woodlands, not only provide 'value' and employment because of their pro-poor policies, but also engender a conservation ethic amongst their workforce," says Val Charlton, Advocacy Coordinator of the Working on Fire Programme. "We could use more programmes like this – with lots of synergy and potential income generation possibilities based on land-users acting responsibly, looking after their land." The idea that land-users might not only act as stewards of the ecosystem services flowing from their land but also benefit financially from doing so is the win-win goal of modern conservation – the environmentalist's version, so to speak, of having one's cake and eating it too. In the case of South Africa, however, the idea is that land-users are, at the same time, baking more cakes. This, in a nutshell, is the basic notion behind ecosystem farming. And so, importantly, the new programs in South Africa are not only mapping and harvesting ecosystem services like soil protection, water delivery and carbon sequestration, they are also investigating the long-term economic returns that might convince private stake-holders to invest in increasing them. Those at Working on Fire, for instance, are stating their case to private agricultural and silvicultural enterprises. "The commercial sectors of Forestry and Agriculture suffer extensive financial loss as uncontrolled fires destroy crops, plantations, buildings and equipment," reads the program's website. "As this project aims to provide direct benefits to private sector bodies, it is expected that this sector will in return, support the venture." Working for Woodlands, meanwhile, is investigating potential income streams to entice private and communal land-users to undertake restoration work on their land. "Ultimately the aim is to remunerate the land-user for delivering services such as biodiversity conservation and the protection and maintenance of ecosystem functions – i.e. erosion/soil regimes, water delivery and quality and –the most talked about one at the moment—carbon sequestration," says Christo Marais, the Executive Manager of Strategic Partnerships at South Africa's Working for Water Programme. Working for Water and its sister programs – because they are seeded and sustained by government money rather than by direct payments from the users of their services – are not true market-based mechanisms, but rather an excellent example of how innovative public programs can create positive synergies between poverty alleviation and ecosystem restoration. Nonetheless, as the programs explore new funding streams in the private sector and begin to cultivate the notion of ecosystem farming among landowners, they are inching South Africa ever closer to the widespread deployment of market-based conservation. Experts in the field, however, warn that, before the 'mapping' and 'farming' of ecosystem services can actually generate 'trading' in South Africa, uncharted and tricky waters have yet to be navigated.

Here be sea-monsters?

"South Africa is a mix of both first and third world economies, with all the challenges associated with such," says Charlton of Working on Fire. "At the third world level, poverty is dire, and it is extraordinarily difficult to preach ecosystem services approaches to an audience that is starving – they are not thinking about tomorrow, only the meal that needs to be put on the table today. Thus the first challenge is to make conservation meaningful to the poor." Charlton's point is an important one. In a country where 8 million people still lack access to safe drinking water, the notion of farming the resource for others is a foreign, even absurd, idea. "Although Payments for Environmental Services (PES) are understood as a market based mechanism, in most instances in this country and region poor communities are providing environmental services without compensation and these are typical cases of market failure and a lack of bargaining power in the transaction of services," says Paula Nimpuno of the Ford Foundation. "[Our] current work with Resource Africa has the intention of mapping but also of improving our understanding of how to make the ecosystem market approach benefit the poor." Bread and butter politics reign supreme among the poorest of the poor in South Africa. If they are to succeed, market-based conservation mechanisms like the users-pay approach to ecosystem farming described above (also known as a PES or ESP model) must justify their relevance in these starkest of terms. Equally important, they must make sure the poor can access buyers for the services they render and that they can negotiate with them on equitable grounds. Click here for more on PES programs and the rural poor.

It is not all Poverty

Although poverty is perhaps the most pressing issue relating to ecosystem services in South Africa, it is worth noting that 83% of the country is privately owned, much of it by white landholders who are not impoverished. What of market mechanisms in these areas? Mark Botha, of the Conservation Unit at the Botanical Society of SA, cautions that important conservation opportunities are likely to be missed if these parties are not welcomed to the table. "Tenure and ownership are well defined in the private areas, and there are opportunities to link specific payments to well defined management actions (biodiversity friendly land use, increased run-off, increased carbon storage). However, international NGOs and donors are not prepared to test PES with this politically marginal and not-poverty stricken group," says Botha, who has looked carefully at the PES approach in South Africa. "The focus on poverty and communities has taken us away from some more direct PES opportunities." Evidence exists to suggest that Botha is right in looking closely at private, as well as communal, land-users. Private landholders in the country have had the right to use and manage the wildlife on their land for the last several decades, and the result, according to the Millennium Assessment "has been a doubling of protected land as well as increased economic benefits." Clearly, private property owners are well positioned, and perhaps ready, to take up the challenge of ecosystem farming on a much wider scale than anyone else.

The Voyage Ahead

Finding the synergies between poverty alleviation and ecosystem service conservation, while at the same time ensuring market-access to both economically and politically marginalized populations, is the next challenge for South Africa as it moves from mapping and farming its ecosystem services, through to trading them. Tied up as this challenge is in the past as well as the future, striking the right balance will be neither simple nor easy. History has shown, however, that it would be a mistake to count out this particular nation's possibility of success simply because of political, social and economic complexities. When it comes to the successful navigation of troubled waters, there may be no better boat to follow than that flying the green, black and yellow flag of the New South Africa. Amanda Hawn is the Assistant Editor of The Ecosystem Marketplace, she may be reached at [email protected].