Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization

Geoforum

Volumn 46, Issue , 2013, Pages 5-15

  Shapiro Garza, Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Latin America; Market based; Mexico; Neoliberal; Payments for ecosystem services

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873955154     PISSN: 00167185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.018     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Agrawal, A., Angelsen, A., 2009. Using community forest management to achieve REDD+ goals. In: Angelsen, A. (Ed.), Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
2. Alix-Garcia, J.M., 2005. A tale of Two Communities and Other Deforestation Stories. Agricultral and Resource Economics, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA, p. 116.
3. Alix-Garcia, J., de Janvry, A., et al. A tale of two communities: explaining deforestation in Mexico. World Development 33:2 (2004), 219–238.
4. Alix-Garcia, J.M., de Janvry, A., et al., 2006. The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payment for environmental services. Environment and Development Economics.
5. Alix-Garcia, J., de Janvry, A., et al. The role of calibrated compensation and risk in designing payments for environmental services. Environment and Development Economics 13 (2008), 375–394.
6. Alix-Garcia, J., Shapiro, E.N., et al., in press. Forest conservation and slippage: evidence from Mexico's national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics.
7. Assies, W., Land tenure and tenure regimes in Mexico. Journal of Agrarian Change 8:1 (2008), 33–63.
8. Bacon, C., Mendez, V.E., et al. Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Fair Trade, Sustainable Livelihoods and Ecosystems in Mexico and Central America. 2008, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
9. Bailey, I., Wilson, G.A., Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate change: technocentrism, ecocentrism, and the carbon economy. Environment and Planning A 41 (2009), 2324–2341.
10. Bakker, K., Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95:3 (2005), 542–565.
11. Barnes, G., The evolution and resilience of community-based land tenure in rural Mexico. Land Use Policy 26 (2009), 393–400.
12. Barry, T., Zapata's Revenge: Free Trade and the Farm Crisis in Mexico. 1995, South End Press, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
13. Bennett, M.T., China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovation or business as usual?. Ecological Economics 65 (2008), 699–711.
14. Boyd, E., Governing the clean development mechanism: global rhetoric versus local realities in carbon sequestration projects. Environment and Planning A 41:10 (2009), 2380–2395.
15. Bray, D.B., 1997. La reconstrucción permanente de la naturaleza: Organizaciones campesinas y desarollo popular sustentable. In: Paré L., Bray, D.B., Burstein, J., Martínez, S. (Eds.), Semillas para el Cambio en el Campo: Medio Ambiente, Mercados y Organizaciones Campesina. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, DF, Mexico.
16. Bray, D.B., Merino-Pérez, L., et al. The Community Forest of Mexico: Managing for Sustainable Landscapes. 2005, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, USA.
17. Brockington, D., Duffy, R., et al. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas. 2008, Earth Scan, New York.
18. Brown, K., Corbera, E., Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy. Climate Policy 3 (2003), S41–S56.
19. Bruijnzeel, L.A., Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees?. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104 (2004), 185–228.
20. Bumpus, A.G., Liverman, D.M., Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of carbon offsets. Economic Geography 84:2 (2008), 127–155.
21. Calderón Hinojosa, F., 2007. “Discurso del presidente Felipe Calderón Hinojosa durante la “Presentación del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007–2012” en Palacio Nacional, Ciudad de México.” Discursos. < http://www.energia.gob.mx/webSener/portal/index.jsp?id=226> (retrieved 30.10.09).
22. Carlsen, L., 2003. The Mexican Farmer's Movement: Exposing the Myths of Free Trade, 2004. < http://www.choike.org/nuevo_ingles/informes/1374.html>.
23. Castree, N., Commodifying what nature?. Progress in Human Geography 27:2 (2003), 273–292.
24. Collier, P., Dollar, D., Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building and Inclusive World Economy. 2002, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
25. CONAFOR, 2002. Programa Estratégia Forestal para México 2025. < http://www.conafor.gob.mx/portal/docs/subsecciones/normateca/PEF_2025.pdf> (retrieved 05.07.09).
26. CONAFOR, 2009a. México impulsa acciones contra el cambio climático a través del pago por servicios ambientales. < http://www.conafor.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=361&Itemid=476> (retrieved 27.10.09).
27. CONAFOR, 2009b. Programa de pago por servicios ambientales. Expo Forestal, Mexico City, Mexico, CONAFOR.
28. CONAFOR, 2010. Visión de México sobre REDD+: Hacia una estrategia nacional. Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico, Comisíon Nacional Forestal.
29. CONAFOR, 2012. Payments for Ecosystem Services in Mexico. D. o. E. S. o. Forests. Comisión Nacional Forestal de México, Zapopan, Mexico. p. 34.
30. Corbera, E., Brown, K., Building institutions to trade ecosystem services: marketing forest carbon in Mexico. World Development 36:10 (2008), 1956–1979.
31. Corbera, E., Brown, K., et al. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 38:4 (2007), 587–613.
32. Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., et al. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 17 (2007), 365–380.
33. Corbera, E., Estrada, M., et al. Rights to land, forests and carbon in REDD+: insights from Mexico, Brazil and Costa Rica. Forests 2 (2011), 301–342.
34. Corson, C., Shifting environmental governance in a neoliberal world: US Aid for conservation. Antipode 42:3 (2010), 576–602.
35. Costanza, R., Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3 (2000), 4–10.
36. Dempsey, J., Robertson, M.M., in press. Ecosystem services: tensions, impurities and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography.
37. Dove, M., 2004. Shade: throwing light on politics and ecology in contemporary Pakistan. In: Paulson, S., Gezon, L.L. (Eds.), Political Ecology across Spaces, Scales and Social Groups. Rutgers University Press, pp. 217–238.
38. Ekers, M., Loftus, A., et al. Gramsci lives!. Geoforum 40 (2009), 287–291.
39. Escobar, A., Bergland, E., et al. Steps to an antiessentialist political ecology (and comments and replies). Current Anthropology 40:1 (1999), 1–30.
40. Facility, F.C.P., REDD Readiness Progress Fact Sheet: Mexico. REDD Readiness Progress Fact Sheets. 2012, World Bank, Washington, DC.
41. FAO, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010: Main Report. FAO Forestry Reports. 2010, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy p. 163.
42. FMCN, 2007. History of the Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. FMCN. < http://www.mexicanfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=78> (retrieved 30.10.09).
43. Fox, J., Governance and rural-development in Mexico – state intervention and public accountability. Journal of Development Studies 32:1 (1995), 1–30.
44. Fox, J., State–society relations in Mexico: historical legacies and contemporary trends. Latin American Research Review 35:2 (2000), 183–203.
45. Goldman, M., Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization. 2005, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
46. Gomes, R., Bone, S., et al. Exploring the bottom-up generation of REDD+ policy by forest-dependent peoples. Policy Matters 17 (2010), 161–168.
47. Guajardo, R., México conservará biodiversidad en su territorio mediante fondo patrimonial. 2009, Planeta Azul.
48. Harvey, D., The New Imperialism. 2003, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
49. Harvey, D., A Brief History of Neoliberalism. 2005, Oxford University Press, Oxford, Great Britain.
50. Harvey, N., Zapatismo y sustentabilidad. 2005, La Jornada, Mexico City, Mexico.
51. Heynen, N., McCarthy, J., et al., 2007. False promises. In: Heynen, N., McCarthy, J., Prudham, S., Robbins, P. (Eds.), Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences. Routledge, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–21.
52. Honey-Roses, J., Baylis, K., et al. A spatially explicit estimate of avoided forest loss. Conservation Biology 25:5 (2011), 1032–1043.
53. Ibarra, J.T., Barreau, A., et al. When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty: impacts of community conservation and payments for environmental services on an indigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico. International Forestry Review 13:3 (2011), 318–337.
54. INE, 2010. Situación general existente en las comunidades agrarias con respecto al manejo de los recursos naturales. El ejido y la conservación del Medio Ambiente en México. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Mexico City, Mexico, p. 25.
55. Instituto-de-Investigaciones-Juridicas, 2007. Constitución Politica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Titulo Primero – Capitulo I de las Garantias Individuales (Artículo 27). Información Jurídica, June 28, 2007. < http://info4.juridicas.unam.mx/ijure/fed/9/28.htm?s=> (retrieved 08.07.07).
56. Klooster, D., Forest transitions in Mexico: institutions and forests in globalized countryside. Professional Geographer 55 (2003), 227–237.
57. Klooster, D., Campesinos and Mexican forest policy during the twentieth century. Latin American Research Review 38:2 (2003), 94–126.
58. Kumar, M., Kumar, P., Valuation of ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics 64 (2008), 808–819.
59. Leff, E., Argueta, A., et al., 2002. Más allá del desarrollo sustenible: La construcción de una racionalidad ambiental para la sustenabilidad: Una visión desde América Latina. In: Leff, E., Ezcurra, E., Pisanty, I., Romero Lankao, P. (Eds.), La Transición hacia el Desarrollo Sustentable: Perspectivas de América Latina y el Caribe. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Mexico City, Mexico.
60. Lovbrand, E., Stripple, J., The climate as political space: on the territorialisation of the global carbon cycle. Review of International Studies 32 (2006), 217–235.
61. Lovell, H., Bukeley, H., et al. Carbon offsetting: sustaining consumption?. Environment and Planning A 41 (2009), 2357–2379.
62. Mansfield, B., Rules of privatization: contradictions in neoliberal regulation of north pacific fisheries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94:3 (2004), 565–584.
63. Marielle, C., Aguilar, J., Propuestas para valorar la función ambiental de la agricultura campesina. InterCambios, 3(27), 2003.
64. McAfee, K., Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and the rise of green developmentalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17:2 (1999), 133–154.
65. McAfee, K., The contradictory logic of global ecosystem services markets. Development and Change 43:1 (2012), 105–131.
66. McAfee, K., Shapiro, E.N., Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, and the state. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100:3 (2010), 1–21.
67. McCarthy, J., Prudham, S., Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum 35 (2004), 275–283.
68. McCarthy, N., De Janvry, A., et al. Common pool resource appropriation under costly cooperation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 42:3 (2001), 297–309.
69. McElwee, P., Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: panacea or problem?. Geoforum 43:3 (2012), 412–426.
70. Merino Pérez, L., Segura, G., 2002. Las políticas forestales y de conservación y sus impactos en las comunidades forestales en México. In: Bray, D.B., Merino Pérez, L., Barry, D. (Eds.), Los Bosques Comunitarios de México. Mexico City, Mexico, Instituto Nacional de Ecología and the Consejo Civil Mexicano de Silvicultura Sostentible, pp. 77–98.
71. Merino Pérez, L., González, A., et al., 2004. El programa de pago por servicios ambientales hidrológicos: Revisión crítica y propuestas de modificación. Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible, A.C., Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 1–28.
72. Merino Pérez, L., Rodríguez, J., Ortiz, G., García, A., 2008. Estudio estratégico sobre el sector forestal Mexicano. Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostentible, A.C., Mexico City, Mexico.
73. México, P.d. l.R.d., 2011. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007–2012: Quinto Informe de Ejecución. P.d.l.R.d. México. Presidencia de la Repúbilca de México, Mexico City, Mexico, p. 828.
74. Muñoz, C., Guevara, A., et al., 2002. Pagar por los servicos hidrológicos del bosque en México. In: Pagiola, S., Bishop, J., Landell-Mills, N. (Eds.), La Venta de Servicios Ambientales Forestales. Mexico City, Mexico, Instituto Nacional de Ecología, p. 462.
75. Muñoz Piña, C., de Janvry, A., et al. Recrafting rights over comon property resources in Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change 52:1 (2003), 129–158.
76. Muñoz Piña, C., Guevara, A., et al., 2005. Paying for the Hydrological Services of Mexico's Forests: Analysis, Negotiations and Results. < http://www.ine.gob.mx/dgipea/download/draft_ecological_economics.pdf> (retrieved 02.06.07).
77. Muñoz Piña, C., Guevara, A., et al., 2006. Pagar por los servicios hidrológicos del bosque en México. In: Pagiola, S., Landell-Mills, N., Bishop, J. (Eds.), Los Mecanismos Basados en el Mercado para la Conservación y el Desarollo. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Mexico City, Mexico.
78. Muñoz Piña, C., Guevara, A., et al. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 65 (2008), 725–736.
79. Mutto Osborne, T., Carbon forestry and agrarian change: access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. Journal of Peasant Studies 38:4 (2011), 859–883.
80. Nelson, K.C., de Jong, B.H.J., Making global initiatives local realities: carbon mitigation projects in Chiapas, Mexico. Global Environmental Change 13 (2003), 19–30.
81. Norgaard, R.B., Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 69 (2010), 1219–1227.
82. Pagiola, S., 2009. Financing Forest Conservation the REDD Initiative. International Parlimentary Hearing on Forest Protection and the Model of Payment for Ecosystem Services, Earth University, Costa Rica.
83. Peluso, N.L., 2007. Enclosure and privatization of neoliberal environments. In: Heynen, N., McCarthy, J., Prudham, S., Robbins, P. (Eds.), Neoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences. Routledge, New York, NY, USA, p. 298.
84. Peluso, N.L., Afiff, S., et al. Claiming the grounds for reform: Agrarian and environmental movements in Indonesia. Journal of Agrarian Change 8:2 (2008), 377–407.
85. Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., et al. Does REDD+ threaten to recentralize forest governance?. Science 328 (2010), 312–313.
86. Ponette-González, A., Weathers, K.C., et al., 2009. Water inputs across tropical montane landscape in Veracruz, Mexico: synergistic effects of land cover, rain and fog seasonality, and interannual precipitation variability. Global Change Biology 1–18.
87. Robertson, M.M., No net loss: wetland restoration and the incomplete capitalization of nature. Antipode 32:4 (2000), 463–493.
88. Robertson, M.M., The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum, 35, 2004, 361.
89. Robertson, M.M., The nature that capital can see: science, state and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24:3 (2006), 367–387.
90. Robertson, M.M., Discovering price in all the wrong places: the work of commodity definition and price under neoliberal environmental policy. Antipode 39:3 (2007), 500–526.
91. Rocheleau, D.E., Political ecology in the key of policy: from chains of explanation to webs of relation. Geoforum 39 (2008), 716–727.
92. Roth, R., Dressler, W.H., Market-oriented conservation governance: the particularites of place. Geoforum 43:3 (2012), 363–366.
93. Scott, D., Barnett, C., Something in the air: civic science and contentious environmental politics in pos-apartheid South Africa. Geoforum 40 (2009), 373–382.
94. Segura, G., 2000. Mexico's Forest Sector and Policies: A General Perspective. Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New Millenium. International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
95. SEMARNAT, 2008. “México asume compromisos al 2010 en materia de conservación y uso sostenible de la biodiversidad. Sala de Prensa del Gobierno Federal. < http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/prensa/semarnat/?contenido=36040> (retrieved 30.10.09).
96. Shapiro, E.N., forthcoming. Contesting market-based conservation: payments for ecosystem services as a surface of engagement for rural social movements in Mexico. Human Geography.
97. Stevenson, M., 2009. Mexico: ‘Green Fund’ Better than Carbon Credits, June 22, 2009. < http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_climate_forum_1> (retrieved 26.06.09).
98. Stolle-McAllister, J., Mexican Social Movements and the Transition to Democracy. 2005, McFarland and Company, Inc, Jefferson, NC, USA.
99. Tacconi, L., Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 73 (2012), 29–36.
100. Televisa, F., 2011. Servicios Ambientales de Oaxaca. Fundación Televisa. < http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150240516441246.315729.18716216245&type=3> (retrieved 12.05.12).
101. Toledo, V.M., 2006. El dilema del zapatismo: ¿izquierdismo o sustentabilidad? La Nación, p. 207.
102. Tuckman, J., Can Felipe Calderón make Mexico a Leader in Combating Climate Change?. 2009, The Guardian, London, UK.
103. UNORCA, 2007. UNORCA's Social Movements. < http://www.unorca.org.mx/ingles/movementactivities.htm> (retrieved 31.07.07).
104. Vance, E., Mexico sets climate targets. Nature, 484(7395), 2012, 2.
105. Vhugen, D., Miner, J., et al. Case Studies on REDD+ and Carbon Rights. Property Rights and Resource Governance Project. 2011, USAID, Washington, DC.
106. Wilder, M., Romero-Lankao, P., Paradoxes of decentralization: water reform and social implications in Mexico. World Development 34:11 (2006), 1977–1995.
107. World Bank, 2006. Project Information Document (PID) Appraisal Stage: Environmental Services, Project ID P087038. < http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/03/06/000090341_20060306135543/Rendered/PDF/35419.pdf> (retrieved 12.01.07).
108. World Bank, 2007. Two new World Bank Carbon Facilities will help fight climate change and deforestation. News & Broadcast. < http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,contentMDK:21506175~menuPK:51062077~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html (retrieved 27.10.09).
109. Wroughton, L., 2008. World Bank Names Countries for Forest Carbon Fund. < http://communities.thomsonreuters.com/Carbon/pages/print/posts/?bid=cc5b7f86-fd9a-4d0e-aede-50372eace1a0&mode=Full> (retrieved 25.06.09).
110. Wunder, S., Payment for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Papers 42 (2005), 1–32.
111. Wunder, S., The efficiency of payment for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21:1 (2007), 48–58.
112. WWF, 2003. Commercial Debt-for-Nature Swaps. Conservation Finance. < http://www.cbd.int/doc/external/wwf/wwf-commercial-swaps-en.pdf> (retrieved 30.10.09).
113. Xuan To, P., Dressler, W.H., et al. The prospects for payment for ecosystem services in Vietnam: a look at three payment schemes. Human Ecology 40:2 (2012), 237–249.