agriculture and ecosystem services - Serena

Recommendations

Info

Payments forecosystem services andfood security❉❉Selection of monitoring indicators is required, particularly where specific land-use systemsare believed to contribute single or bundled ecosystem services. The direct linkage betweenspecific land-use practices and specific ecosystem services need to be well identified andunderstood in different agro-ecological conditions.❉❉Specific land-use systems in pursuit of multiple objectives may be considered economicallyinefficient due to the potential for over-delivery of some outputs; the combination ofsystems-based approaches with more targeted measures can be more cost-effective.❉❉Payments need to be made upon conditionality of the delivery of specific ecosystem servicesand delivery needs to be ensured prior to payment, but other mechanisms are needed toensure delivery if a specific land-use system is being supported.❉❉Alternative mechanisms, such as auctions and other participatory mechanisms, forestablishing payment rates may need to be explored to avoid over- or under-compensation inorder to achieve specific targets, although account also needs to be taken of the weaknessesof these approaches.❉❉Schemes need to be supported by appropriate training, advice and other extension activities.Improving producer skills, understanding and engagement is a key mechanism to ensuringeffective use of resources and potentially to increase the quantity of public goods that canbe purchased for a fixed amount. While OECD schemes typically provide for such activities,the level of resources allocated is generally low and consideration should be given tosignificantly increasing the share of resources allocated to extension work.❉❉The success of Landcare schemes in Australia and some catchment schemes in Europe alsoindicates that group approaches, involving peer-group pressure and mutual learning, maybe worth considering and highly relevant in circumstances where the legal/administrativerelationship between individual producers and the relevant agencies is less formal.❉❉Transaction costs, both for the implementing agency and the producer, can be very high inschemes that are highly customised to the individual holding — a compromise between theprinciple of payments for public goods, the accuracy of specifying and monitoring servicedelivery and the transaction cost may be necessary.❉❉Certification schemes for land-use systems that are considered to deliver ecosystem services(e.g. organic, Rainforest Alliance) may be used to verify compliance with a PES scheme,reducing transaction costs if linked to appropriate marketing opportunities. In order to reducetransaction costs and burdens on producers, multiple visits that duplicate control functionsshould be avoided (see also Chapter 5 “Social and cultural drivers behind the success of PES”).66
Relevance of OECDagri‐environmentalmeasures for PESReferencesCooper, T., Hart, K. & Baldock, D. 2009. The provision of public goods through agriculture in the EuropeanUnion. Report Prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No. 30-CE-0233091/00-28. London, Institute for European Environmental Policy.EC. 2009. Why do we need a Common Agricultural Policy? Discussion paper. Brussels, DG Agriculture andRural Development, European Commission.EC. 2010a. Europe 2020 – A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM (2010)2020. Brussels, European Commission.EC. 2010b. The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of thefuture. COM (2010) 672 final. Brussels, European Commission.OECD. 2009. Agricultural policies in OECD countries – Monitoring and evaluation 2009. Paris, Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development.Schader, C. 2010. Cost-effectiveness of organic farming for achieving environmental policy targets inSwitzerland. Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (FIBL), Frick, Switzerland. (Ph.D. thesis)USDA. 2009. Conservation policy briefing room: Background. Washington, D.C., Economic Research Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture (available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ConservationPolicy/background.htm).Wunder, S. 2005. Payment for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. Jakarta, Centre forInternational Forestry Research (CIFOR).67
Page 1:
payments PAYNINTS forecosystem ICO$
Page 4 and 5:
The designations employed and the p
Page 6 and 7:
Case studies1. PES and Eco-certific
Page 8 and 9:
Abbreviations andAcronymsCAFNETCAPC
Page 10 and 11:
FAO/W. Astrada©Payments forecosyst
Page 12 and 13:
the principles of equity and justic
Page 14 and 15:
Payments forecosystem services andf
Page 16 and 17:
FAO/M. Marzot©Payments forecosyste
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
©©D. Schwen8
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33: Payments forecosystem services andf
Page 46 and 47: Viewpoint 1Challenges and solutions
Page 48 and 49: Viewpoint I©©©B. G. Herren©FAO/
Page 50 and 51: Viewpoint 1©©B. G. Herren©©USDA
Page 52 and 53: Case Study 1PES and eco-certificati
Page 54 and 55: Case Study 1©©G. Mwaloma/ICRAF. P
Page 56 and 57: Case Study 1©©M. Mäkelä and S.
Page 58 and 59: Case Study 1©©D. Catacután/ICRAF
Page 60 and 61: © ©© FAO/photo © © D. credit I
Page 84 and 85: Case Study 2Geographical indication
Page 86 and 87: Case Study 2©©B. Garmash©©C. De
Page 88: 72,©©© FAO/O. Asselin
show all

agriculture and ecosystem services - Serena

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?