An Assessment of Intermediary Roles in Payments for Ecosystem Services Schemes in the Context of Catchment Management: An Example from South West England

Hadrian Cook,Laurence Couldrick,Laurence Smith

doi:10.1142/s146433321750003x

Abstract

Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES) schemes are an underdeveloped component of the policy mix for catchment management in many countries. The importance of intermediaries to such schemes is acknowledged in the literature but few studies go beyond theory to evaluate practice. This paper analyses generic intermediary functions for PES. It then evaluates an innovative example from southwest England that provides illustrations, and some lessons regarding necessary capabilities and characteristics for intermediaries, and understanding of their form, functions and modalities. The ‘UpStream Thinking’ project was co-developed by a private water company and an environmental charity. The former translated effective demand from shareholders and water customers for improved raw water quality into finance, whilst the latter had capabilities for catchment-scale on-farm delivery and trusted acceptance as an intermediary. While any sector can potentially provide a PES intermediary, the value driven, not-for-profit and politically neutral voluntary sector proves to be a good fit. Such ‘boundary organisations’ are also well placed for horizontal coordination of catchment management authorities and actions.

Highlights

Catchment Management Challenges and Payments for Ecosystem ServicesWater pollution, over abstraction and flood risk are linked problems requiring coordinated solutions
As an environmental charity with more than 15 years of experience working in the region, Westcountry Rivers Trust (WRT) could offer itself as an intermediary for the development and operationalisation of Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES) based on its knowledge of the catchment-wide actions that could be provided by farmers to improve water quality and of the farms and farmers located there
Management of transaction costs is central (Section: ‘Roles for PES Intermediaries’ above, and Table 2), intermediary performance should be evaluated in the context of broader factors including the difficulty of the situation, multiple and possibly conflicting scheme goals, political and policy influence and the existing institutional and actor landscape (Bosselmann and Lund, 2013; Huber-Stearns et al, 2013)

Summary

Introduction

Over abstraction and flood risk are linked problems requiring coordinated solutions. Of most relevance to this paper are inputbased payments to land managers by beneficiaries via one or more intermediary for a bundle of ecosystem services; a combination in bold font, and with reference to second column rows numbered as type 2–3–2 Schemes of this type are rare in Europe (Perrot-Maître, 2006), as environmental pollution is usually controlled by a statutory agency. In simple terms PES intermediaries can be defined as those actors performing functions that facilitate transactions between buyers and providers of ecosystem services Such definition focuses on the roles that intermediaries perform and does not limit the type, characteristics or scale of the organisation concerned. Five overarching roles are identified: (A) scoping and scheme design, (B) scheme administration, 1750003-9

Scoping and scheme design

Representation and mediation

Building social capital and trust

A Developed Economy Case Study

Findings

Final Conclusions