The working for water programme Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa

TL;DR: A payments for ecosystem services (PES) system came about in South Africa with the establishment of the government-funded Working for Water (WfW) programme that cleared mountain catchments and riparian zones of invasive alien plants to restore natural fire regimes, the productive potential of land, biodiversity, and hydrological functioning as mentioned in this paper.

About: This article is published in Ecological Economics.The article was published on 2008-05-01 and is currently open access. It has received 354 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Ecosystem services & Water supply.

Summary

Introduction

• The success of the programme is largely attributed to it being mainly funded as a poverty-relief initiative, although water users also contribute through their water fees.
• Conservation in South Africa has historically been perceived as a luxury and the concern of the wealthy, especially since almost all conservation efforts are focused on the protected areas, which tend to be geographic, economic, and sociopolitical enclaves.
• Payments for ecosystem services (PES) is a mechanism that could play a key role in achieving conservation goals and sustaining ecosystem health more generally.
• Water scarcity South Africa is a chronically water stressed country with between 500 m3 and 1000 m3 of water available per person per year (Ashton, 2002).

2.2. Threats to water supply

• In the grassland catchment areas, seepage wetlands act as sponges that catch much of the summer rainfall.
• These plantations intercept stream flow, especially when close to watercourses.
• Cullis et al. (2007) estimate that the current loss of usable water due to invasive alien plants is 695 million m3, equivalent to 4% of the total registered water use.
• If left unchecked, this could increase to more than 2,720 million m3, or 16% of total registered water use (Table 1).

2.3. The restoration process

• The control of invasive alien plants involves both manual clearing and the release of biological control agents.
• As long as seedbanks remain or there are nearby seed sources from invasive ornamental trees, windbreaks, or plantations, maintenance must be on-going, but costs are very low (less than R50 per ha per treatment which could be at intervals of 1-3 years depending on the species in question) if carried out regularly.
• Background Payments for Ecosystem Services in South Africa have largely come about through the establishment of the Working for Water (WfW) programme in 1995.
• The bulk of the funding over the last 11 years has been generated through poverty relief programmes (the Reconstruction and Development Programme, then the Special Public Works Programmes, which evolved to become the Expanded Public Works Programme).
• The funding from this source is focussed on the control of invasive alien plants with acknowledged negative impacts on water resources (DWAF, 2007).

3.2. Mandatory payments by water users

• The DWAF includes a water resource management fee in the water tariff charged to consumers.
• The water charge levied for catchment management does not distinguish between richer and poorer consumers per se, but it is superimposed on a stepped pricing system that does.
• The aim is to extend this to all 19 water management areas as some of the most stressed catchments have not yet been included.
• A total of between R23 million and R48 million per annum was allocated from funds raised through DWAF's water tariffs (Table 2).

3.3. Voluntary payments by water users

• Certain municipalities have entered into payment agreements with WfW to alleviate localised water shortages.
• Among these commodities, Pagiola and Platais (2007) argue that water services have the most potential for application of the PES approach as water users (1) are easy to identify; (2) receive clear, well-defined benefits; and (3) often already have financing mechanisms—none of which is true for biodiversity.
• The Working for Water Programme in South Africa: Restoration of water resources (natural capital) through the clearing of invasive alien plants from riparian areas in South Africa- costs and water benefits.

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What have the authors contributed in "The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in south africa" ?

This emerging PES system differs from others in that the service providers are previously unemployed individuals that tender for contracts to restore public or private lands, rather than the landowners themselves. There is a strong case for concentrating on the most valuable services provided by ecosystems, such as water supply, carbon sequestration, and fire protection, and using these as 'umbrella services ' to achieve a range of conservation goals. The model has since expanded into other types of ecosystem restoration and these have the potential to merge into a general programme of ecosystem service provision within a broader public works programme. The future prospects for expansion of PES for hydrological services are further strengthened by the legal requirement that Catchment Management Agencies be established. 

Q2. What are the other services that are needed for conservation in South Africa?

The other services will include wetland and riparian restoration (restoration of erosion gullies, etc.) and management, integrated grazing and land use regimes and an integrated veld and forest fire management regime. 

Q3. Why is there a high level of support of research into the impacts of invasive alien plants?

Because of the increasing scarcity of water in South Africa, there has been a high level of support of research into the impacts of invasive alien plants on water supply. 

Q4. What is the importance of a national control programme?

Given the scale of the existing impact and the fact that it continues to increase as the extent and density of the invasions increases, a national control programme is essential if the country's water resources are to be protected. 

Q5. How much water does Cullis et al. estimate to be lost?

Cullis et al. (2007) estimate that the current loss of usable water due to invasive alien plants is 695 million m3, equivalent to 4% of the total registered water use. 

Q6. What is the effect of alien plants on the watercourses?

In the Cape Mountain and river systems, infestation by alien invasive plants that escaped from commercial plantations and woodlots on farms—particularly Pinus, Acacia and Eucalyptus species—results in reductions in runoff. 

Q7. How many ha of riparian areas have an invasion density?

Initial estimates are that approximately 54% of all riparian areas also have an invasion density of at least 25%, or, effectively, some 460,000 ha (Versveld et al., 1998; Cullis et al., 2007). 

Q8. What is the way for introducing PES as a broad-scale conservation tool?

The way for introducing PES as a broad-scale conservation tool for achieving both biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service delivery has been paved by the development and evolution of the WfW-model. 

Q9. What is the main problem of the invasion of wetlands in the Western Cape?

The invasion of river courses and of important catchment areas is particularly problematic in terms of streamflow reduction (Versveld et al., 1998). 

Q10. What are the main challenges of water resource management in Africa?

With the existence of WfW and its related programmes, and the legislative environment regarding the control of catchment water resources, it will be possible to implement these systems with little need for major innovations or institutional reform. 

Q11. What is the rationale for the use of PES systems in South Africa?

With this rationale in mind, major conservation initiatives in South Africa are looking to PES systems, mainly for water, as potential financing mechanisms. 

Q12. What is the cost of clearing dense stands of Prosopis?

The capital costs of clearing dense stands of Prosopis are simply unaffordable to land users (around R2000 to R2500/ha for initial clearing alone), where the retail value of the land varies between R600 and RIOOO/ha.