Payments for Ecosystem Services: Getting Started. A Primer - UNEP

Payments for Ecosystem Services: Getting Started
A Primer
Core areas of monitoring that should be considered during the planning phase include:
• Determination of who selects indicators and who is reporting to whom
• Selection of Indicators, all of which should be:
– relevant to the PES project
– measurable
– respond to changes in the environment
– fi t into the rest of the M&E scheme
– reliable
• Creation of a “Local Ecosystem Conceptual Process Model” that:
– outlines the cause-and-effect relationships that occur within the ecosystem
– identifi es which specifi c characteristics of the ecosystem to monitor
• Selection of Monitoring Sites, the most commonly-used practice being a
“stratifi ed random sampling” technique which can:
– refl ect the overall distribution within the project area
– ensure that the monitoring sites are suffi ciently spread out
BOX 30
Monitor and Evaluate the Project:
Resource Articles on Indicators and
Processes / Protocols
• Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN).
“Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation of BCN-
Funded Projects). (http://www.worldwildlife.org/
bsp/bcn/learning/BCN/bcn.htm/)
• Brown, S. 1999. Guidelines for Inventorying
and Monitoring Carbon Offsets in Forest-Based
Projects. Arlington, Virginia: Winrock International
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA’s
Offi ce of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds.
• MacDicken, K.G. 1997. Guide to Monitoring
Carbon Storage in Forestry & Agroforestry Projects.
Arlington, Virginia: Winrock International (http://
v1.winrock.org/reep/pdf_pubs/carbon.pdf)
Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky.
• Measures of
Success: Designing, Managing, and Monitoring
Conservation and Development Projects.
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Monitoring sites should be permanent throughout the
duration of the PES project so that reliable information
on trends can be collected. A permanent-site approach
also makes it is easier for independent verifi ers to locate
the appropriate sites.
If possible, a control site should also be selected for
monitoring to help gauge the impact of the PES project,
often to demonstrate that the project is providing new
/ “additional” benefi ts to the current state of affairs.
Although few implementing organizations will be
willing to fi nance the monitoring of a control group,
research organizations or public agencies with oversight
mandates may be good partners for this activity.
Apart from these core elements of a PES monitoring
scheme, M&E parameters might include not just the
type of ecosystem services — such as sequestering
carbon, increasing biodiversity, etc. — but also other
stakeholder concerns, such as:
• total project costs
• timeliness of fi nancial disbursements
• performance of various support services or fi nancial
intermediaries
• protection of local ecosystem values
• equity in local distribution of PES project benefi ts
• specifi c household and community-level benefi ts
Finally, the M&E plan made at the outset of the project should also specify who will
conduct the monitoring, how frequently and at which times, and using which methods,
as well as who will pay for monitoring.
Overall, M&E activities will identify what is being accomplished and how project
management can be improved. The M&E results should be made available to buyers,
intermediary institutions and the public to increase transparency and legitimacy.
54