What should we call instruments commonly known as payments for environmental services? A review of the literature and a proposal

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - Tập 1219 Số 1 - Trang 209-225 - 2011

Barry G. Shelley¹

¹Graduate Programs in Sustainable International Development, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts

Tóm tắt

Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners have used various terms to describe instruments that reward the stewardship of ecosystem services that benefit “external” actors. Payments for environmental services, or PES, has been the predominant name. However, critics have challenged both the payments and environmental components of this nomenclature, most commonly proposing markets, compensation, or rewards as alternatives for the former, and ecosystem for the latter. Additional questions arise regarding what to call the agents directly involved in the transaction: sellers and buyers, or stewards and beneficiaries? For some, concerns about this terminology have emerged from so‐called “pro‐poor PES” debates that ask if actors could and should incorporate poverty alleviation goals into PES instruments. This review of the modulating use of terms and the arguments about which best fit theory and experience points to the key policy and ethical issues at stake as PES programs face critical and timely questions about the direction they will head. The author contends that the choices of terms will influence that direction and proposes a new alternative—rewards for ecosystem service stewardship (RESS)—that better encompasses pro‐poor options.

Từ khóa

Tài liệu tham khảo

Shilling J.D.&J.Osha.2003.Paying for environmental stewardship: using markets and common‐pool property to reduce rural poverty while enhancing conservation. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Macroeconomics Program Office. Washington DC .http://assets.panda.org/downloads/shilling.pdf(accessed October 10 2006).

10.5751/ES-02499-140226

Wunder S.2005.Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). Bogor Barat Indonesia.http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP‐42.pdf(accessed September 26 2006).

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007

Hope R.A. I.T.Porras&M.Miranda.2005.Can payments for environmental services contribute to poverty reduction? A livelihoods analysis from Arenal Costa Rica. Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research. Newcastle Upon Tyne UK.http://www.cluwrr.ncl.ac.uk/related_documents/costa_rica/reports/R8174‐Lvhds‐Hope.pdf(accessed October 8 2006).

Rojas M.&B.Aylward.2003.What are we learning from experiences with markets for environmental services in Costa Rica? A review and critique of the literature. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). London.http://www.iied.org/eep/(accessed October 8 2006).

Landell‐Mills N.&I. T.Porras.2002.Silver bullet or fools gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). London.http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/9066IIED.pdf(accessed October 8 2006).

10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011

Gutman P.2003.From goodwill to payments for environmental services: a survey of financing options for sustainable natural resource management in developing countries. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Macroeconomics Program Office. Washington DC.http://assets.panda.org/downloads/fin_alt.pdf(accessed October 8 2006).

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2003, Ecosystems and Human Well‐Being: A Framework for Assessment

Katoomba Group. n.d.About us. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://www.katoombagroup.org/~katoomba/about.php(accessed November 13 2007).

Katoomba Group.2000.Proceedings of the first meeting of the International Working Group on New Markets for Environmental Services from Forests. April 11–12. Katoomba Australia. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/events/events3/sydneyproceedings.pdf(accessed December 14 2010).

Katoomba Group.2000.Developing commercial markets for environmental services of forests: Katoomba Workshop II proceedings and summary of key issues. October 4–6. Vancouver and Parksville British Columbia. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/events/events4/bc2000_proceedings2.pdf(accessed December 14 2010).

Katoomba Group.2001.New markets for a green economy: Katoomba Workshop III proceedings and summary of key issues. March 23–26. Rio de Janeiro and Teresopolis Brazil. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/events/events5/ProceedingsKatoombaIII.pdf(accessed December 14 2010).

Katoomba Group.2003.Beyond carbon: emerging markets for ecosystem services.October 29–30. Ruschlikon Switzerland. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://www.katoombagroup.org/event_details.php?id=8(accessed December 14 2010).

Katoomba Group.2004.Proceedings of the meeting of the Katoomba Group. November 20–21. Pattaya Thailand. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://www.katoombagroup.org/documents/events/event9/proceedings(accessed December 14 2010).

Katoomba Group.2006. Valuing Environmental Services. October 3–4. Sao Paolo Brazil. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://www.katoombagroup.org/event_details.php?id=12(accessed December 14 2010).

Katoomba Group. n.d. Conservation backgrounder. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/static/about.conservation_backgrounder.php#1(accessed November 13 2007).

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002

Rosa H. S.Kandel&L.Dimas.2003.Compensation for environmental services and rural communities: lessons from the Americas and key issues for strengthening community strategies. Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA). San Salvador El Salvador.http://www.prisma2.org.sv/web/publicacion_detalle.php?id=83(accessed March 7 2004).

Shelley B., 2008, La Nueva Ruralidad En América Latina: Avances Teóricos y Evidencias Empíricas, 205

Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA). n.d. Del pago por servicios ambientales a la compensación por servicios ecosistémicos. Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA). San Salvador El Salvador.http://www.prisma2.org.sv/web/publicacion_detalle.php?id=304(accessed February 7 2008).

Poats S.V.2007. Report on the Latin American regional workshop on compensation for environmental services and poverty alleviation in Latin America April 26–28 2006 Quito Ecuador. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Nairobi Kenya.http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/es/(accessed April 4 2008).

Raju K.V.et al.2007.Asia regional workshop on compensation for ecosystem services May 8–10 2006 Bangalore India. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Nairobi Kenya.http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/es/(accessed November 13 2008).

Ochieng B. B.Otiende&R.Rumley.2007. African regional workshop on compensation for ecosystem services (CES) May 22–24 2006 Nairobi Kenya. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). Nairobi Kenya.http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/es/(accessed April 5 2008).

10.1017/S1355770X08004348

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006

Pagiola S., 2002, Selling Forest Environmental Services: Market‐Based Mechanisms for Conservation and Development, 1

Scherr S.J. A.White&A.Khare.2004.For services rendered: the current status and future potential of markets for the ecosystem services provided by tropical forests. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Yokohama Japan.http://www.forest‐trends.org/documents/publications/For%20Services%20Rendered%20(ITTO).pdf(accessed October 8 2006).

Bayon R.2004.Making environmental markets work: lessons from early experience with sulfur carbon wetlands and other related markets. Forest Trends. Washington DC.http://www.forest‐trends.org/documents/publications/Environmental%20Markets_R%20Bayon_final.pdf(accessed October 8 2006).

van Noordwijk M. F.J.Chandler&T.P.Tomich.2004.An introduction to the conceptual basis of RUPES: rewarding upland poor for the environmental services they provide. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Office. Bogor West Java Indonesia.http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/sea/networks/RUPES/wpapers.htm(accessed October 7 2006).

InfoResources Focus.2004.Compensation for ecosystem services (CES): a catalyst for ecosystem conservation and poverty alleviation?http://www.inforesources.ch(accessed October 8 2006).

Friedman G., 2003, Natural Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership, 29

10.5751/ES-03064-140234

10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018

10.1126/science.1152110

Declaración de Puyo.2006. Encuentro taller internacional servicios ambientales: La naturaleza como mercancia. May 19–20 2006 Puyo Ecuador. Movimiento Mundial por los Bosques Tropicales. Montevideo Uruguay.http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Ecuador/Puyo.html(accessed December 2 2006).

Lovera S. n.d.Guest editorial: environmental markets impoverish the poor. Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.opinion.php?component_id=2268&component_version_id=6448&language_id=12(accessed November 13 2007).

Wunder S.&M.T.Vargas.2006.Beyond “markets”: why terminology matters. The Katoomba Group. Washington DC.http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.opinion.php?component_id=1252&component_version_id=6544&language_id=12(accessed February 4 2007).

Scholar Hub - Công cụ hỗ trợ trích dẫn và phân tích khoa học Việt Nam

Về chúng tôi

Scholar Hub là công cụ hỗ trợ trích dẫn và phân tích các bài báo, công bố khoa học Việt Nam. Công cụ trợ giúp người nghiên cứu, tạp chí, đơn vị nghiên cứu tra cứu, phân tích và thống kê dữ liệu nghiên cứu khoa học tại Việt Nam và quốc tế.