Abstract
Socioecological production landscapes (SEPLS) are multifunctional and substantially contribute to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provisions. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is a policy tool that incentivizes landholders in production landscapes through voluntary and performance-based conservation contracts towards creating SEPLS that benefit all societies living within landscape. The design of PES covers explicitly defining ecological baselines of targeted landscape, calculating conservation opportunity costs, customizing contract agreement and payment modalities, and targeting agents with credible land claims and threats to ecosystem service degradation. Reverse auction represents a method to efficiently allocate contracts for the provision of ecosystem services in PES schemes. The PES gains allocative efficiency as contracts are allocated to the lowest-cost providers of ecosystem services through competitive bidding. In the context of developing countries, conservation contracts of PES scheme are mostly assigned to farming groups. Thus, a group-level auction was organized to accommodate collective decision-making in payment level for the scheme. This chapter is to discuss how group-level auctions enhance allocative efficiency due to sharing process during the auctions compared to the individual-level auction. A group auction allows exchanging and sharing knowledge, information and conservation values among farmer group members. The analysis shows that by allowing the group members to communicate with each other, sharing knowledge and value happened. This knowledge and value sharing encompasses how they understand the competitive bidding process, how their bids can influence the overall outcomes of winning or losing the conservation contracts, and the most importantly, how farmers share their conservation values as agricultural conservation efforts of PES not only benefit the external actors but also co-benefits themselves. This chapter presents the results from a PES pilot in Rejoso watershed, Indonesia, where smallholders in the up- and midstream are contributing to better watershed services, i.e. water infiltration and sedimentation reduction, to benefit downstream domestic and industrial water users.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The effect of market access on sharing behaviour in two Huaorani communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon reveals that hunters share mainly to reduce food risk.
- 2.
The practice of sharing among a contemporary hunter-gatherer society, the Punan Tubu from North Kalimantan, Indonesia, shows that sharing behavior is not directly related to individual levels of integration in the market economy nor to participation in national development programs, and changes in practices of sharing may occur as market food products are shared differently from nonmarket products, including meat, wild edibles, and/or cultivated food.
- 3.
Fifteen degraded watersheds which will be restored and rehabilitated within 2015ā2019 by the National Medium-Term Development Plan are Citarum, Ciliwung, Cisadane, Serayu, Solo, and Brantas (Java); Asahan Toba, Siak, Musi, Way Sekampung, and Way Seputih (Sumatera); Moyo (West Nusa Tenggara); Kapuas (Kalimantan); and Jeneberang and Saddang (Sulawesi).
- 4.
Cut-off price is the price paid by the auctioneer after cumulatively summing up all the bids offered by the participants, just above the conservation budget runs out. In this case study, the cut-off price is determined using the sealed-bid second-price method or Vickrey auction.
- 5.
https://www.bisnisjasa.id/2017/06/jenis-usaha-persewaan-yang-cocok-di-desa.html accessed on May 7, 2018.
- 6.
http://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/e09fa362-46ae-437b-981a-029676824808/downloads/1bpqjvkib_49047.pdf accessed on May 7, 2018.
References
Agarwal B (2010) Gender and green governance: the political economy of womenās presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ajayi OC, Jack BK, Leimona B (2012) Auction design for the private provision of public goods in developing countries: lessons from payments for environmental services in Malawi and Indonesia. World Dev 40:1213ā1223
Amaruzaman S, Leimona B, Rahadian NP (2017a) Maintain the sustainability of PES program: lessons learnt from PES implementation in Sumberjaya, Way Besay Watershed, Indonesia
Amaruzaman S, Leimona B, Rahadian NP (2017b) Role of intermediaries in the payment for environmental services scheme: lessons learnt in the Cidanau watershed, Indonesia
Amaruzaman S, Khasanah N, Tanika L, Dwiyanti E, Lusiana B, Leimona B, Janudianto N (2018) Landscape characteristics of Rejoso watershed: assessment of land useĀ ā land cover dynamic, farming system and community resilience. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program, Bogor
Boyce JK (2002) The political economy of the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
Calvet-Mir L, Corbera E, Martin A, Fisher J, Gross-Camp N (2015) Payments for ecosystem services in the tropics: a closer look at effectiveness and equity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:150ā162
Corbera E, Soberanis CG, Brown K (2009) Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexicoās carbon forestry programme. Ecol Econ 68:743ā761
Engel S, Palmer C (2008) Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecol Econ 65:799ā809
Ezzine-de-Blas D, Wunder S, Ruiz-PĆ©rez M, del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez R (2016) Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS One 11:e0149847
Franzen M, Eaves J (2007) Effect of market access on sharing practices within two Huaorani communities. Ecol Econ 63:776ā785
Lapeyre R, Pirard R, Leimona B (2015) Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: what if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy 46:283ā291
Latacz-Lohmann U, Schilizzi S (2005) Auctions for conservation contracts: a review of the theoretical and empirical literature Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, pp 1ā101
Leimona B, Carrasco LR (2017) Auction winning, social dynamics and non-compliance in a payment for ecosystem services scheme in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 63:632ā644
Leimona B, Pasha R, Rahadian N (2010) The livelihood impacts of incentive payments for watershed management in Cidanau watershed, West Java, Indonesia. In: Tacconi L, Mahanty S, Suich H (eds) Payments for environmental services, forest conservation and climate change: livelihoods in the REDD? Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 106ā129
Leimona B, Lusiana B, van Noordwijk M, Mulyoutami E, Ekadinata A, Amaruzaman S (2015a) Boundary work: knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia. Ecosyst Serv 15:45ā62
Leimona B, Van Noordwijk M, de Groot R, Leemans R (2015b) Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia. Ecosyst Serv 12:16ā28
Leimona B, Khasanah NM, Lusiana B, Amaruzaman S, Tanika L, Hairiah K, Suprayogo D, Pambudi S, Negoro FS (2018) A business case: co-investing for ecosystem service provisions and local livelihoods in Rejoso watershed. World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor
Liu Z, Kontoleon A (2018) Meta-analysis of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services programmes in developing countries. Ecol Econ 149:48ā61
Lundberg L, Persson UM, Alpizar F, Lindgren K (2018) Context matters: exploring the cost-effectiveness of fixed payments and procurement auctions for PES. Ecol Econ 146:347ā358
Mahanty S, Suich H, Tacconi L (2013) Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31:38ā47
McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Pol 33:416ā427
McGrath F, Carrasco L, Leimona B (2017) How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity. Ecosyst Serv 25:44ā55
McLaren D, Agyeman J (2015) Sharing cities: a case for truly smart and sustainable cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69:1202ā1208
Muradian R, Arsel M, Pellegrini L, Adaman F, Aguilar B, Agarwal B, Corbera E, Ezzine de Blas D, Farley J, Froger G (2013) Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv Lett 6:274ā279
Napitupulu L, GuĆØze M, Reyes-GarcĆa V (2017) Sharing in a context of rural development. A study among a contemporary hunter-gatherer society in Indonesia. In: Reyes-GarcĆa V, PyhƤlƤ A (eds) Hunter-gatherers in a changing world. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 127ā147
Narloch U, Drucker AG, Pascual U (2017) What role for cooperation in conservation tenders? Paying farmer groups in the high Andes. Land Use Policy 63:659ā671
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pascual U, Phelps J, Garmendia E, Brown K, Corbera E, Martin A, Gomez-Baggethun E, Muradian R (2014) Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. Bioscience 64:1027ā1036
Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy 4:254ā274
Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scaleārethinking Agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:244ā249
Roderick J, Chavez-Tafur J (2014) Towards productive landscapesāa synthesis. Tropenbos International, Wageningen
Schrƶter M, Koellner T, Alkemade R, Arnhold S, Bagstad KJ, Erb K-H, Frank K, Kastner T, Kissinger M, Liu J (2018) Interregional flows of ecosystem services: concepts, typology and four cases. Ecosyst Serv 31:231ā241
Suprayogo D, Widianto, Saputra DD, Sari RR, Ishaq RM, Tanto TD, Hairiah K (2018) Sistem Penggunaan Lahan āRamah Infiltrasiā di DAS Rejoso Jawa Timur. In: Report. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program, Bogor, Indonesia
Van Noordwijk M, Leimona B (2011) Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia. Payments, compensation or co-investment? World Agroforestry CentreĀ ā ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, p. 6p
Van Noordwijk M, Leimona B, Jindal R, Villamor GB, Vardhan M, Namirembe S, Catacutan D, Kerr J, Minang PA, Tomich TP (2012) Payments for environmental services: evolution toward efficient and fair incentives for multifunctional landscapes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:389ā420
Villamor G, van Noordwijk M (2011) Social role-play games vs individual perceptions of conservation and PES agreements for maintaining rubber agroforests in Jambi (Sumatra), Indonesia. Ecol Soc 16:27
Whitten SM, WĆ¼nscher T, Shogren JF (2017) Conservation tenders in developed and developing countriesā status quo, challenges and prospects. Land Use Policy 63:552ā560
Widlok T (2013) Sharing: allowing others to take what is valued. HAU J Ethnographic Theory 3:11ā31
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Ā© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leimona, B., McGrath, F.L., Khasanah, N. (2020). Sharing Knowledge and Value for Nurturing Socioecological Production Landscapes: A Case of Payment for Ecosystem Services in Rejoso Watershed, Indonesia. In: Saito, O. (eds) Sharing Ecosystem Services. Science for Sustainable Societies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8067-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8067-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-8066-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-8067-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)