Engaging Stakeholders on Ecosystem Services in the ESIA Context Emily Cooper ERM

Transcription

1 Engaging Stakeholders on Ecosystem Services in the ESIA Context Emily Cooper ERM Insert then choose Picture select your picture. Right click your picture and Send to back. IAIA Symposium on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services January 8, 2013

2 Engagement on ES in ESIA Two types of engagement needed internal and external Internal building ES into the internal ESIA process; facilitating workshops; getting the social, cultural, health and environment specialists talking to each other. External - engaging with affected communities to identify and prioritize services, predict impacts and design appropriate mitigation. 2

3 Identifying and Prioritizing ES in ESIA Ecosystem Services Process ESHIA Stage ES Identification (screening) ES Scoping ES Prioritization ES Impact Assessment ES Mitigation & Monitoring Scoping Baseline Impact Assessment ESMPs Stakeholder Engagement 3

4 ES Prioritization IFC standards do not dictate how to prioritize ES Those services for which Project impacts would be most likely to result in adverse impacts on communities Emphasis on stakeholder engagement in the prioritization process As practitioners, we needed to develop clear prioritization criteria for implementation: Importance of ecosystem services to beneficiaries Replaceability or availability or spatial alternatives 4

5 Identifying and Prioritizing ES Importance of ecosystem services to beneficiaries is assessed according to the following criteria and assigned a rating from low - essential: intensity of use e.g. daily, weekly or seasonal use; quantitative data will be used if available and relevant; scope of use - e.g. household versus village level, commercial use only, subsistence only or both; degree of dependence - e.g. contribution of wild fish to total protein in the diet; contribution of fishing to employment in the community; and the importance expressed by beneficiaries, including cultural / historical importance. The weight given to each of these components will vary slightly depending upon the service, but stakeholder values should take precedence over other criteria where the rating is not clear. Where a service may be of greater or lesser importance to different stakeholder groups, two (or more) ratings should be assigned so that impacts on these groups can be assessed individually. 5

6 Identifying and Prioritizing ES Availability of alternatives: The replaceability of a service is assessed according to the following criteria and assigned a rating from low to high: the existence of spatial alternatives, including both natural replacements (e.g. the replacement of one type of wild food with another) and man-made substitutes (e.g. availability of man-made drugs as an alternative to medicinal plants); the accessibility, cost and sustainability of potential alternatives, including a consideration of other users and the existing status and threats to the resource(s) providing natural alternatives to the service; and preference / appetite for and cultural appropriateness of alternative services. 6

7 Identifying and Prioritizing ES Importance of service to beneficiaries Assigning a priority rating to ecosystem services: Replaceability of Service High (many spatial alternatives) Moderate (some spatial alternatives) Low (few to no spatial alternatives) Low Low Low Medium Moderate Low Medium High High Medium High Critical Essential High Critical Critical 7

8 Engaging Communities on Ecosystem Services - Examples 8

9 9

10 10

11 Influence of consultation on priority ratings Service Desktop Post Consultation Other notes Provisioning Wild caught fish High Critical Replaceability different from expectation Freshwater Medium High Importance different from expectation Livestock farming Medium High low-income & elderly Information on a particular group Regulating Natural drainage and flood control Medium High Shoreline protection Medium Medium Information on trends Cultural Spiritual or religious value Medium Critical New find Recreation High Medium 11

12 ES Baseline Table - Detail Service Livestock farming Description and Examples in the Key Project Area Livestock rearing is a supplementary livelihood activity in the area. Many families own a few cows as a source of meat and dairy for household consumption, selling excess dairy products at markets in the city. Households do not own pasture land but rather graze livestock opportunistically on available land. Beneficiaries Local communities (general) Poor & Elderly households Importance to Beneficiaries (Low- Essential) Local communities: Moderate Poor and elderly households: High Livestock farming is not a primary source of food or income in the area, but can be an important supplement for both, particularly in poorer households and households with elderly members. Locals noted that older people almost always have livestock and are more dependent upon them than the rest of the population. Replaceability (Low-High) Moderate The availability of alternative grazing land for local households is low to moderate, given the very small scale of grazing activities. Opportunistic grazing is broadly tolerated. However, open plots near local settlements have been declining, particularly on the eastern bank of the river, where housing developments are expanding rapidly. Priority Rating (Importance x Replaceability) Local communities: Medium Elderly & poor households: High 12