Public employment programmes Special topic: Public employment programmes and South Africa’s Working for Water

Protecting people and the environment: Lessons learnt from Br azil’s Bolsa Verde, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, South Africa and 56 other experiences 35 terms of environmental conservation initiatives on the continent. It enjoys sustained political support for its job creation efforts and fight against poverty. According to UNDP, “[b]y combining sustainable water management and biodiversity protection with social protection and public works programming, this programme shows how budget spending can invest in natural capital by underwriting economic and social development” UNDP, 2012, p. 53; Department of Water Affairs, 2014; Ministry of Water and Environmental Affairs, 2014; Rodricks, 2010.

4.7 Comparison of case studies and Bolsa Verde

The table below summarizes and compares key facts on the four case studies presented above in addition to Bolsa Verde. It can be noted that the PES schemes vary significantly in design and implementation according to the objective for and context in which they were created. In Costa Rica, Mexico, and China, environmental degradation was the initial and foremost reason for the launch of the schemes. The Bolsa Verde programme and Ecuador’s Socio Bosque, on the contrary, also aimed to fight extreme poverty in rural areas from the outset. The Costa Rican, Mexican, and Chinese programmes do not target families as priority units, but rather individuals and institutions. In contrast, the Brazilian programme focuses on families according to the Bolsa Família concepts and methods. The targeting mechanisms in each of the five case studies include a geographic dimension with a focus on environmentally vulnerable areas. However, the way in which social criteria are included varies significantly across programmes. In Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador, a credit point mechanism has been developed that includes both environmental and social criteria. In China, entire villages in environmentally vulnerable areas are included, whereas in Brazil the social targeting mechanism uses the Bolsa Família programme’s existing tools. The costs of the Latin American programmes, given their relatively small size in terms of number of participants, enrolling some tens of thousands of establishments, families, andor individuals, seems to remain moderate. Under the Chinese programme, aggregate costs appear to be higher, but the outlays need to be seen against the fact that SLCP covers an enormous geographical area affecting 27 million households and aims to fight both environmental and social risks silting rivers leading to the loss of agricultural area and high rural poverty, which are crucial challenges for China. Future evaluations should analyse the costs of the respective programmes in detail. 36 Protecting people and the environment: Lessons learnt from Brazil’s Bolsa Verde, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, South Africa and 56 other experiences Table 4. Comparison of the five case studies Country Costa Rica Mexico Ecuador China Brazil Programme Pago por Servicios Ambientales PPSA Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hídrologicos PSAH Socio Bosque Sloping Lands Conversion Programme SLCP Bolsa Verde Year started 1996 2003 2008 2002 2011 Reason for launch Intense deforestation Intense deforestation Intense deforestation, high poverty rate in forest areas part of the National Development Plan Severe flooding due to soil erosion Part of the extreme poverty eradication plan and need to avoid deforestation Legal basis Ley Forestal 7.575, Ley de la Biodiversidad 7.788 Ley Federal de Derechos Art. 223 Acuerdo 169 2008, Ministerio del Ambiente Forest Law 1998 Water Law 2002 Law 12.512 Decree 7.572 Type of ES All four Watershed protection, biodiversity, carbon sequestration All four Watershed protection Not specified, could be considered as all four types Land included ha 1 million 2012, nationwide 2.2 million 2012, nationwide 1.23 million 2013 20 million 2011, focus on east- west 11.3 million 2011, mainly Legal Amazon 34 Providers 15,375 contracts 1997 –2012 5,400 contracts, many of which are group contracts 2003 –12 161,755 people 27 million rural households 2002 –08 72,112 families 2011 –14 Budget 2012: 42.4 million 341.8 million 1997 –2012 2010: 83.6 million 429 million 2003 – 12 18 million 2008 –13. 4.3 billion 2002 –10 2013: 38 million 2014: 44 million Financing Government budget, fuel tax, water tax sale of carbon credits, private funds, grants and loans Government budget, water-usage fee, voluntary private contributions, grants and loans Government Budget MAE, it is aimed to diversify sources Government budget Government budget MMA Compens. hayear 41 –294 On average: 64 32 –98 0.50 –60 depending on the total number of hectares included 36 –50 500family regardless of ha Duration of contract 5, 10, or 15 years, reapplication possible 5 years, reapplication possible 20 years, renewed automatically 2, 5, or 8 years 2 years, renewable for an undefined duration Monitoring Mainly site visits, complemented by satellite images; no social monitoring Mainly annual satellite images, complemented by site visits; no social monitoring Satellite imagesaerial photography and site visits; social monitoring: review of regular spending reports against investment plans Site visits; no social monitoring Environmental monitoring through satellite images + sample site visits; social monitoring through Bolsa Família Possible exit doors Agroforestry Forest management plans Right to non-destructive activities; investment plan; capacity building workshops; provision of access to credit Right to extract products from planted forests Not yet established, exit doors could be created via training, usage and management plans, agroforestry, and development of extractivist value chains 34 Bolsa Verde targeted the Legal Amazon in 2011 and has been extended to the North-East, Central, West, and South since 2012. Protecting people and the environment: Lessons learnt from Br azil’s Bolsa Verde, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, South Africa and 56 other experiences 37

5. Lessons learned from

literature and case studies This chapter presents the main design aspects of pro-poor PES schemes as mentioned in the literature, focusing on social rather than environmental aspects. A description follows on whether and how the presented PES case studies, including, when applicable, the South African public employment programme, address these design aspects. The design aspects presented here therefore provide a useful list of relevant aspects to take into consideration when designing a new pro-poor PES scheme or when evaluating and modifying an existing one to strengthen its pro-poor bias.

5.1 Participants of the PES scheme

Regarding the ES providers, a key question is whether some poor people are excluded from participating due to the targeting criteria, a complicated or costly application process, andor other transaction costs. 35 Another reason for the possible exclusion of poor people refers to a strict enforcement of rules necessary to reach environmental goals. In regards to the buyers, it is relevant to ask if poor people are among the buyers and have to pay for the services provided. 5.1.1. Are poor people excluded as providers due to targeting criteria? The decision of whom and what to target reflects the main objective of a programme. Thus, a PES that primarily has an environmental objective will prioritize targeting persons, households, or organizations in areas of high environmental risk those above the horizontal line in figure 2 below, while a programme with a key social objective will primarily target the most vulnerable people even though they might not live in the most threatened environmental areas those left of the vertical line in figure 2 below. If eligibility criteria focus on ecological aspects, a programme is very likely to exclude some poor people as environmental service hotspots do not necessarily coincide with areas where poor people live bottom left box in figure 2 below Leimona et al., 2009, p. 86. Figure 2. Targeting priorities 35 In this section, “poor” is defined in terms of monetary poverty. High Environmental Risk Poor people High Environmental Risk Non-poor people Low Environmental Risk Poor People Low Environmental Risk Non-poor people