Advertisement

Sharing Knowledge and Value for Nurturing Socioecological Production Landscapes: A Case of Payment for Ecosystem Services in Rejoso Watershed, Indonesia

  • Beria LeimonaEmail author
  • Francesca L. McGrath
  • Ni’matul Khasanah
Chapter
Part of the Science for Sustainable Societies book series (SFSS)

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.

Keywords

Sharing knowledge Sharing value Reverse auction Payment for ecosystem services Group contract Indonesia 

References

  1. Agarwal B (2010) Gender and green governance: the political economy of women’s presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 40:1213–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaruzaman S, Leimona B, Rahadian NP (2017a) Maintain the sustainability of PES program: lessons learnt from PES implementation in Sumberjaya, Way Besay Watershed, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  4. Amaruzaman S, Leimona B, Rahadian NP (2017b) Role of intermediaries in the payment for environmental services scheme: lessons learnt in the Cidanau watershed, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  5. Amaruzaman S, Khasanah N, Tanika L, Dwiyanti E, Lusiana B, Leimona B, Janudianto N (2018) Landscape characteristics of Rejoso watershed: assessment of land use – land cover dynamic, farming system and community resilience. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program, BogorGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyce JK (2002) The political economy of the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 14:150–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corbera E, Soberanis CG, Brown K (2009) Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry programme. Ecol Econ 68:743–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engel S, Palmer C (2008) Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecol Econ 65:799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ezzine-de-Blas D, Wunder S, Ruiz-Pérez M, del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez R (2016) Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS One 11:e0149847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franzen M, Eaves J (2007) Effect of market access on sharing practices within two Huaorani communities. Ecol Econ 63:776–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lapeyre R, Pirard R, Leimona B (2015) Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: what if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy 46:283–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 1–101Google Scholar
  14. Leimona B, Carrasco LR (2017) Auction winning, social dynamics and non-compliance in a payment for ecosystem services scheme in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 63:632–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 106–129Google Scholar
  16. 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 15:45–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 12:16–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, BogorGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu Z, Kontoleon A (2018) Meta-analysis of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services programmes in developing countries. Ecol Econ 149:48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 146:347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 31:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Pol 33:416–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGrath F, Carrasco L, Leimona B (2017) How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity. Ecosyst Serv 25:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLaren D, Agyeman J (2015) Sharing cities: a case for truly smart and sustainable cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 69:1202–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 6:274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Napitupulu L, Guèze M, Reyes-García V (2017) Sharing in a context of rural development. A study among a contemporary hunter-gatherer society in Indonesia. In: Reyes-García V, Pyhälä A (eds) Hunter-gatherers in a changing world. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Narloch U, Drucker AG, Pascual U (2017) What role for cooperation in conservation tenders? Paying farmer groups in the high Andes. Land Use Policy 63:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 64:1027–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy 4:254–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking Agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:244–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roderick J, Chavez-Tafur J (2014) Towards productive landscapes—a synthesis. Tropenbos International, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  34. Schröter 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 31:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suprayogo D, Widianto, Saputra DD, Sari RR, Ishaq RM, Tanto TD, Hairiah K (2018) Sistem Penggunaan Lahan “Ramah Infiltrasi” di DAS Rejoso Jawa Timur. In: Report. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program, Bogor, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Noordwijk M, Leimona B (2011) Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia. Payments, compensation or co-investment? World Agroforestry Centre – ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, p. 6pGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 37:389–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 16:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Whitten SM, Wünscher T, Shogren JF (2017) Conservation tenders in developed and developing countries− status quo, challenges and prospects. Land Use Policy 63:552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Widlok T (2013) Sharing: allowing others to take what is valued. HAU J Ethnographic Theory 3:11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beria Leimona
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francesca L. McGrath
    • 2
  • Ni’matul Khasanah
    • 1
  1. 1.World Agroforestry (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional OfficeBogorIndonesia
  2. 2.Arcadia FundLondonUK

Personalised recommendations