1. The project included ecosystem restoration, use of several forms of technology, community building, and economic benefits for local farmers.
2. The project was carried out through a university project that focused on service learning and included a US NGO, a Nicaraguan NGO, the Nicaraguan government and a funding agency from the US (NCIIA).
3. The technical innovation was to combine solar power with water pumps and drip irrigation and put this at the right spot on the landscape. Solar products were being made availalbe through a local store-front operated by one of the NGOs. Information needed to be made availalble to both farmers and the store to find which areas were suitable for drip irrigation.
4. Rural Nicaragua is an information poor environment. There is insufficient information at the plot level to make these decisions (that is readilyt available in the US). Land owners have constructed shallow wells and dams for water, but there is no map of these and some have been abandoned. A topological/hydrological model was applied to find areas that are most likely feasible optitions.
5. The project resulted in:
a. a demonstration drip irrigation system that worked for one season and provided tomatos and other vegetables to market.
b. a report to the US NGO that summarized the overall project
c. a website that provided a template for how to make all this information on land condition and weather to be made available (cuenca-clima)
d. student involvement and continuing courses that promote solar technology skills at PSU
1. Floating treatment wetlands have been proposed as part of a larger set of technologies that should be considered for restoring water quality in Upper Klamath and Agency Lakes. A proposal has been submitted that would test the technical aspects of employing FTW that were paid for by government agencies.
2. The entrepreneurial approach to this would be to study the conditions that might allow individuals to employ innovative technologies to remove P from the lake using something like FTW.
3. An example environmental entrepreneur might be able to grow native plants on floating islands, remove the islands, compost the high P parts and maybe use the other parts for some product. The operator would get paid for: removing P (tradeable units), compost, other products. Regulatory and compliance conditions would be very important. For example it costs $750 for a permit from DSL to anchor anything in the lake and obtaining permits to compost material in Klamath County costs about $2300.
4. There are aspects of this in which the theory about enviromental entrepreneurism will help inform the project.
a. Dean and McMullen (date)
- failure of the market has led to environmental degradation (P input without any penalties)
- claim that sustainable entrepreneur is profit driven whereas social entrepreneurism is mission driven, referencing Dees
- list 5 categories of market failure that seem to apply to the Klamath Basin (KB)
- entrepreneurs play a proactive role in creating institutions to meet their needs (more than incumbant firms)
- internalize externalities rather than a political solution - but I think the political approach is a necessary adjunct in this case - but making money off plants that grow in high P environments would be a good example
- the water in the lake is covered by rights and these are highly regulated. Would there have to be permits for removing water in the plants or for the increased evapotranspiration from floating wetlands?
- The Coasian entrepreneur might use some regulations to exclude others from a public setting. For example, maybe only a certatin number of anchoring permits would be allowed. Another example might be to put an embargo on importing P fertilizers into the drainage basin as has been done in other, much smaller, areas.
- The env-entrep should reduce transaction costs. For example the TMDL model and enforcement is very expensive. Independent verification (through lab tests) of the amount of P actually removed in plant batches would be much more certain and free to the government.
b. York and Venkataraman 2010
- environmental entrepreneurs address uncertainty, provide innovations and locate resources
- there is not always a tradeoff between improving the environment and improving the economy - for example hiring local people to operate FTW
- it is unclear what conditions are necessary for env-entrep
- 3 factors: uncertainty, innovation and politcal and instutional conditions that provide resources
- uncertainty -claim that entrepreneurs deal with multiple value systems better than incumbant firms. Env-Entrep are driven by the opportunities created by uncertainty, knowledge assymetry and ambiguity.
- innovation includes both technical and social. Env-Entrep are more likely to introduce innovations than incumbent firms
- resource allocation requires political and economic freedom, eco-augmenting systems need to be at a delicate balance between regulation and freedom. Strict valuation of resources restricts experimentation. There needs to be the ability/freedom to make mistakes and learn from them (which is missing in most government agencies).
- The more uncertain and intractable the problem is then the better Env-Entrep are able to handle the problem relative to incumbent firms.