Participation in the world's first clean development mechanism forest project: The role of property rights, social capital and contractual rules

Ecological Economics

Volumn 69, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1292-1302

  Gong, Yazhen ^a   Bull, Gary ^b   Baylis, Kathy ^c  

^a RENMIN UNIVERSITY OF CHINA   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Contractual rules; Guangxi CDM project; Property rights; Social capital; Transaction costs

Indexed keywords

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM; CLIMATE CHANGE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; INCENTIVE; INCOME DISTRIBUTION; LAND MANAGEMENT; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PROPERTY RIGHTS; RURAL POPULATION; SOCIAL CAPITAL; TRANSACTION COST;

CHINA; GUANGXI ZHUANGZU;

EID: 77950302457     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.017     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Asquith N.M., Vargas M.T., and Wunder S. Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65 4 (2008) 675-684
2. Australian Greenhouse Office. Planning Forest Sink Projects: A Guide to Carbon Pooling and Investment Structures (2005)
3. Bhalla A.S. Uneven Development in the Third World: A Study of China and India (1992), New York, St. Martin's Press
4. Bennett M. China's sloping land conversion programme: institutional innovation or business as usual?. Ecological Economics 65 4 (2008) 699-711
5. Carter M.R. Risk sharing and incentives in the decollectivization of agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers 39 (1987) 577-595
6. Cacho O.J., Marshall G.R., and Milne M. Transaction and abatement costs of carbon-sink projects in developing countries. Environment and Development Economics 10 5 (2005) 597-614
7. Project Development Document (PDD) for AR-AM0001: facilitating reforestation for Guangxi watershed management in pearl river basin, China. CDM Executive Board.
8. In: Dillman D.A., Smyth J.D., and Christian L.M. (Eds). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Third Edition (2008), Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Inc
9. Engel S., Pagiola S., and Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice. Ecological Economics 65 4 (2008) 663-674
10. Gibson C.C., Williams J.T., and Ostrom E. Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33 2 (2004) 273-284
11. Grieg-Gran M., Porras I., and Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 33 9 (2005) 1511-1527
12. Guangxi Forestry Bureau. Social Assessment on Guangxi Integrated Forestry Development and Conservation Project (2006)
13. Haupt F., and von Lüpke H. Obstacles and opportunities for afforestation and reforestation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. FAO Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products (2007)
14. Keenan, R.J., Davey, S., Grieve, A., Moran, B., Donaldson, J. 2004. Market mechanisms and assessment methods for environmental services from private forests in Australia. In Proceedings of the workshop forests for poverty reduction: opportunities with clean development mechanism, environmental services and biodiversity, Seoul, Korea. Edited by Anonymous Food and agriculture organization of the united nations (FAO), Bangkok pp. 49-60.
15. Kosoy N., and Corbera E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69 6 (2010) 1228-1236 (this issue)
16. Kumar K.B., and Matsusaka J. From families to formal contracts: An approach to development. Journal of Development Economics 90 1 (2008) 106-119
17. Lyon F. Community groups and livelihoods in remote rural Areas of Ghana: how small-scale farmers sustain collective action. Community Development Journal 38 (2003) 323-331
18. Milne, M., 1999. Transaction costs of forest carbon projects (Working paper No. Working Paper CC05. ACIAR project ASEM 1999/093) University of New England.
19. Muradian R., Pascual U., Corbera E., Kosoy N., and May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69 6 (2010) 1202-1208 (this issue)
20. Narayan, D., 1999. Bonds and bridges: social capital and poverty. Policy Research Working Paper 2167. Washington, D.C: World Bank.
21. North D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (1990), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
22. Ostrom E., and Nagendra H. Tenure is not sufficient: monitoring is essential. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 8 3 (2007) 175-199
23. Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1991), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
24. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 65 4 (2008) 712-724
25. Pagiola S., Ramírezb E., Gobbic J., de Haana C., Ibrahimc M., and Murgueitiod E. Paying for the environmental services of silvopastoral practices in Nicaragua. Ecological Economics 64 2 (2007) 374-385
26. Pagiola S., Arcenas A., and Platais G. Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? an exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33 2 (2005) 237-253
27. Pearson T., Walker S., and Brown S. Guidebook for the formulation of afforestation and reforestation projects under Clean Development Mechanism. International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) Technical Series 25 (2006)
28. Pretty J., and Ward H. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29 2 (2001) 209-227
29. Reedy H. Feasibility assessment of afforestation for carbon sequestration: exploring options for aggregating and selling afforestation carbon credits from small landowners. Canadian Forest Service (Pacific Forest Center) (2003)
30. Richardson G. The prudent village: risk pooling institutions in medieval English agriculture. Journal of Economic History 65 (2005) 386-413
31. Smith J., and Scherr S.J. Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods. World Development 31 12 (2003) 2143-2160
32. Sobel J. Can we trust social capital?. Journal of Economic Literature 40 1 (2002) 139-154
33. Tschakert P., Coomes O.T., and Potvin C. Indigenous livelihoods, slash-and-burn agriculture, and carbon stocks in eastern Panama. Ecological Economics 60 4 (2007) 807-820
34. UNEP Risoe Center, 2009. CDM Pipeline overview. Retrieved April 19, 2009, from http://www.cdmpipeline.org.
35. van Kooten G.C., Thomsen R., Hobby T.G., and Eagle A.J. Social dilemmas and public range management in Nevada. Ecological Economics 57 4 (2006) 709-723
36. van Kooten G.C., Shaikh S.L., and Suchanek P. Mitigating climate change by planting trees: the transaction costs trap. Land Economics 78 4 (2002) 559-572
37. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69 6 (2010) 1245-1252 (this issue)
38. Williamson O.E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: firms, Markets, Relational Contracting (1985), The Free Press, New York
39. Wunder, S., 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts No. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42).