Dealing with myth-perceptions: how to reduce communication and perception gaps before Rewards for Environmental Services negotiations can start?

R ewards for environmental services (RES) schemes should become a sustainable mechanism, not a project-based one per se. At its initial development, all the main stakeholders involved – poor rural people who are the major environmental service providers, environmental service beneficiaries and intermediaries – usually face a number of questions: Is RES is a realistic expectation that will benefit all stakeholders Will poor rural people be wasting their valuable time and resources in pursuit of rewards, only to be disappointed Conservation efforts still rarely achieve a stable or increasing supply of environmental services. Many other factors, including ‘extreme’ events (such as dry years and natural disasters) can influence supply. This also raises a number of questions: What services should be targeted Do these services qualify for market- based recognition What interventions can be technically supported and planned RUPES has developed a logical sequence of steps that: (1) are quick and inexpensive; (2) integrate across disciplines; (3) clarify criteria and indicators of environmental service functions; (4) address the complexity of the landscape and how this landscape provides environmental services; and (5) test the limits of science in providing clarity on environmental services as a basis for ‘realistic’ agreements. A realistic agreement is an agreement that ensures real impacts on both environmental service provision and benefits for both their providers and beneficiaries. These steps, or tools, are Rapid Hydrological Appraisal (RHA), Rapid Agrobiodiversity Appraisal (RABA), and Rapid Carbon Stock Appraisal (RACSA). In addition, we present the Rapid Tenure Claim Appraisal (RATA) to identify competing perceived legal claims among stakeholders, which is commonly found in developing countries

---

• View source