Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Sharing Ecosystem Services

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The effect of market access on sharing behaviour in two Huaorani communities in the Ecuadorian Amazon reveals that hunters share mainly to reduce food risk.

  2. 2.

    The practice of sharing among a contemporary hunter-gatherer society, the Punan Tubu from North Kalimantan, Indonesia, shows that sharing behavior is not directly related to individual levels of integration in the market economy nor to participation in national development programs, and changes in practices of sharing may occur as market food products are shared differently from nonmarket products, including meat, wild edibles, and/or cultivated food.

  3. 3.

    Fifteen degraded watersheds which will be restored and rehabilitated within 2015ā€“2019 by the National Medium-Term Development Plan are Citarum, Ciliwung, Cisadane, Serayu, Solo, and Brantas (Java); Asahan Toba, Siak, Musi, Way Sekampung, and Way Seputih (Sumatera); Moyo (West Nusa Tenggara); Kapuas (Kalimantan); and Jeneberang and Saddang (Sulawesi).

  4. 4.

    Cut-off price is the price paid by the auctioneer after cumulatively summing up all the bids offered by the participants, just above the conservation budget runs out. In this case study, the cut-off price is determined using the sealed-bid second-price method or Vickrey auction.

  5. 5.

    https://www.bisnisjasa.id/2017/06/jenis-usaha-persewaan-yang-cocok-di-desa.html accessed on May 7, 2018.

  6. 6.

    http://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/e09fa362-46ae-437b-981a-029676824808/downloads/1bpqjvkib_49047.pdf accessed on May 7, 2018.

References

  • Agarwal B (2010) Gender and green governance: the political economy of womenā€™s presence within and beyond community forestry. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 40:1213ā€“1223

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Amaruzaman S, Leimona B, Rahadian NP (2017a) Maintain the sustainability of PES program: lessons learnt from PES implementation in Sumberjaya, Way Besay Watershed, Indonesia

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Amaruzaman S, Leimona B, Rahadian NP (2017b) Role of intermediaries in the payment for environmental services scheme: lessons learnt in the Cidanau watershed, Indonesia

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Amaruzaman S, Khasanah N, Tanika L, Dwiyanti E, Lusiana B, Leimona B, Janudianto N (2018) Landscape characteristics of Rejoso watershed: assessment of land useĀ ā€“ land cover dynamic, farming system and community resilience. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program, Bogor

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Boyce JK (2002) The political economy of the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 14:150ā€“162

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Corbera E, Soberanis CG, Brown K (2009) Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: an analysis of Mexicoā€™s carbon forestry programme. Ecol Econ 68:743ā€“761

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Engel S, Palmer C (2008) Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecol Econ 65:799ā€“809

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Ezzine-de-Blas D, Wunder S, Ruiz-PĆ©rez M, del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez R (2016) Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS One 11:e0149847

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Franzen M, Eaves J (2007) Effect of market access on sharing practices within two Huaorani communities. Ecol Econ 63:776ā€“785

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Lapeyre R, Pirard R, Leimona B (2015) Payments for environmental services in Indonesia: what if economic signals were lost in translation? Land Use Policy 46:283ā€“291

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 1ā€“101

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Leimona B, Carrasco LR (2017) Auction winning, social dynamics and non-compliance in a payment for ecosystem services scheme in Indonesia. Land Use Policy 63:632ā€“644

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 106ā€“129

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 15:45ā€“62

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 12:16ā€“28

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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, Bogor

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Liu Z, Kontoleon A (2018) Meta-analysis of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services programmes in developing countries. Ecol Econ 149:48ā€“61

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 146:347ā€“358

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 31:38ā€“47

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Pol 33:416ā€“427

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • McGrath F, Carrasco L, Leimona B (2017) How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity. Ecosyst Serv 25:44ā€“55

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • McLaren D, Agyeman J (2015) Sharing cities: a case for truly smart and sustainable cities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 69:1202ā€“1208

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 6:274ā€“279

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Napitupulu L, GuĆØze M, Reyes-GarcĆ­a V (2017) Sharing in a context of rural development. A study among a contemporary hunter-gatherer society in Indonesia. In: Reyes-GarcĆ­a V, PyhƤlƤ A (eds) Hunter-gatherers in a changing world. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 127ā€“147

    ChapterĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Narloch U, Drucker AG, Pascual U (2017) What role for cooperation in conservation tenders? Paying farmer groups in the high Andes. Land Use Policy 63:659ā€“671

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    BookĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 64:1027ā€“1036

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Pattanayak SK, Wunder S, Ferraro PJ (2010) Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Rev Environ Econ Policy 4:254ā€“274

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scaleā€”rethinking Agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:244ā€“249

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Roderick J, Chavez-Tafur J (2014) Towards productive landscapesā€”a synthesis. Tropenbos International, Wageningen

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Schrƶter 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 31:231ā€“241

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Suprayogo D, Widianto, Saputra DD, Sari RR, Ishaq RM, Tanto TD, Hairiah K (2018) Sistem Penggunaan Lahan ā€œRamah Infiltrasiā€ di DAS Rejoso Jawa Timur. In: Report. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program, Bogor, Indonesia

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • Van Noordwijk M, Leimona B (2011) Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia. Payments, compensation or co-investment? World Agroforestry CentreĀ ā€“ ICRAF, SEA Regional Office, Bogor, p. 6p

    Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 37:389ā€“420

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • 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 16:27

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Whitten SM, WĆ¼nscher T, Shogren JF (2017) Conservation tenders in developed and developing countriesāˆ’ status quo, challenges and prospects. Land Use Policy 63:552ā€“560

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

  • Widlok T (2013) Sharing: allowing others to take what is valued. HAU J Ethnographic Theory 3:11ā€“31

    ArticleĀ  Google ScholarĀ 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beria Leimona .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Ā© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Leimona, B., McGrath, F.L., Khasanah, N. (2020). Sharing Knowledge and Value for Nurturing Socioecological Production Landscapes: A Case of Payment for Ecosystem Services in Rejoso Watershed, Indonesia. In: Saito, O. (eds) Sharing Ecosystem Services. Science for Sustainable Societies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8067-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics