Download to read offline
Uploaded byMark Reed
Public-private partnerships for resilient agro-ecosystems
This document discusses public-private partnerships for resilient agricultural landscapes. It proposes using blended finance approaches like payments for ecosystem services and landscape enterprise networks. Payments for ecosystem services involve voluntary transactions where ecosystem service buyers pay providers for maintaining certain land uses. Landscape enterprise networks aggregate demand from businesses and supply from farmers to design interventions that meet both business and farm needs. The document argues that aggregating demand and supply can increase funding and benefits while reducing costs. It also suggests blending public and private payments to leverage more investment and incentivize practices that markets won't support alone. Overall, the document advocates blended finance models to improve agricultural sustainability and environmental outcomes through cooperation across sectors.
More Related Content
Similar to Public-private partnerships for resilient agro-ecosystems
Public-private partnerships for resilient agro-ecosystems
- 1. www.resilientdairylandscapes.com Public-private partnerships for resilientagro-ecosystems Prof Mark Reed
- 2.
- 3.
- 4. Emissions from… Source: Herreroet al 2016 Nature Climate Peatland Livestock Source: Wetlands International
- 5. Poorly managed systems Environmental degradation Insecure livelihoods Knock-on effectsfor society and business
- 6.
- 8.
- 9. www.resilientdairylandscapes.com Payments for ecosystemservices • A voluntary transaction where • A well-defined ecosystem service (or land use likely to secure that service) • Is being “bought” by a (minimum one) ecosystem service buyer • From a (minimum one) ecosystem service provider • If and only if the ecosystem service provider secures provision (conditionality)
- 10. Public, private orblended Public PES-like schemes e.g. agri-environment Private PES schemes e.g. compliance, voluntary and regional carbon markets Blended e.g. private finance tops up public funding to get additional scheme entrants
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14. £ B1 B2 B3 1. Understand Businessneeds 3. Build a technical understanding of businesses’ common requirements from the landscape ‘Supply aggregator’ 4. Engage service provider (operating on behalf of farmers) to design and cost interventions / service offerings that meets the needs of businesses 5. Cut a deal ‘Demand aggregator’ 2. Convene businesses around their common interests STEP2:Thebasicoperatingunit 2
- 15.
- 16.
- 17. 1. Trade-off betweenfarmer uptake and quantification of benefits to investors 2. While complexity reduces land supply, limited quantification of benefits does not appear to significantly constrain demand if buyers have clear dependencies on natural capital 3. Brokers can reduce complexity and increase land supply if payment rates are high enough to pay for their services 4. Business to business trusted brokers speak the language of business
- 18. 5. Aggregating demandfor ecosystem services increases: • Amount of funding (by stacking payments for multiple benefits, bringing in non-regional buyers for carbon and reducing perceptions of free-riding); and • Resilience of funding (by spreading risks of non- delivery of benefits/payments to buyers and sellers) 6. Aggregating supply of services: • Increases market potential (availability of saleable benefits) and density (connected landscape scale opportunities rather than farms scattered across a region) • Reduces transaction costs (of contracting with multiple landowners)
- 19. 7. Prices don’thave to reflect carbon markets 8. Public and private payments can be stacked to increase uptake of agri-environment schemes, but high public payment rates will crowd out all but the most simple and attractive private schemes 9. Public schemes could be designed to leverage private investment, with public funding prioritised to unattractive or costly locations that the market won’t pay for 10. Blending public and private finance is likely to significantly alter cost-benefit ratios for land use GHG mitigation options, making them a more attractive proposition for reaching net zero emissions
- 20.