How to achieve fairness in payments for ecosystem services? Insights from agrobiodiversity conservation auctions

Land Use Policy

Volumn 35, Issue , 2013, Pages 107-118

  Narloch, Ulf ^a   Pascual, Unai ^a,b,c   Drucker, Adam G ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b BASQUE CENTRE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE BC3   (Spain)

^c BASQUE FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE   (Spain)

^d BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

Bolivia; Conservation auction; Cost effectiveness; Equity; Peru; PES

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; EQUITY; LANDOWNER; SMALLHOLDER;

BOLIVIA; PERU;

EID: 84879290535     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Alix-Garcia J., De Janvry A., Sadoulet E. The role of deforestation risk and calibrated compensation in designing payments for environmental services. Environment and Development Economics 2008, 13:375-394.
2. Almas O., Cappelen A.W., Sørensen E.Ø., Tunogodden B. Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science 2010, 328(5982):1176-1178.
3. Baylis K., Peplow S., Rausser G., Simon L. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:754-765.
4. Bellon M.R. Participatory Research Methods for Technology Evaluation: A Manual or Scientists Working with Farmers 2001, CIMMYT, Mexico, DF.
5. Börner J., Wunder S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff S., Rügnitz Tito M., Pereira L., Nascimento N. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1272-1282.
6. Brown K., Corbera E. Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy. Climate Policy 2003, 3(S1):41-56.
7. Brush S.B. Ethnoecology, biodiversity, and modernization in Andean potato agriculture. Journal of Ethnobiology 1992, 12:161-185.
8. Cappelen W.A., Hole A.D., Sørensen E.O., Tungodden B. The pluralism of fairness ideals: an experimental approach. American Economic Review 2007, 97(3):818-827.
9. Chen X., Lupi F., Viña A., He G., Liu J. Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conservation Biology 2010, 24:1469-1478.
10. Cook K.S., Hegtvedt K.A. Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology 1983, 9:217-241.
11. Corbera E., Pascual U. Ecosystem services: heed social goals. Science 2012, 335(6069):655-656.
12. Corbera E., Brown K. Building institutions to trade ecosystem services: marketing forest carbon in Mexico. World Development 2008, 36:1956-1979.
13. Corbera E., Brown K., Adger W.N. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Development and Change 2007, 38(4):587-613.
14. Corbera E., Kosoy N., Martínez T. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change 2007, 17:365-380.
15. Dolan P., Edlin R., Tsuchiya A., Wailoo A. It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it: characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 2007, 64:157-170.
16. Engel S., Palmer C. Payments for environmental services as an alternative to logging under weak property rights: the case of Indonesia. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:799-809.
17. Frohlich N., Oppenheimer J., Kurki A. Modelling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Public Choice 2004, 119:91-117.
18. FAO State of Food and Agriculture: Paying Farmers for Environmental Services 2007, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
19. FAO Second Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome Italy: Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 2009, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
20. Faravelli M. How context matters: a survey based experiment on distributive justice. Journal of Public Economics 2007, 91:1399-1422.
21. Ferraro P.J. Asymmetric information and contract design for payment for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:810-821.
22. Ferraro P.J., Kiss A. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 2002, 298:1718-1719.
23. Gibbons J.M., Nicholson E., Milner-Gulland E.J., Jones J.P. Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48(5):1218-1226.
24. Greiner R., Stanley O. More than money for conservation: exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:4-10.
25. Guillet D. Tenure, ecological zone, and agricultural regime in the Central Andes. American Ethnologist 1981, 8(1):139-154.
26. Hajkowicz S. The evolution of Australia's natural resource management programs: towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy 2009, 26(2):471-478.
27. Hellin J., Higman S. Quinoa and food security. Feeding the Market: South American Farmers Trade and Globalization 2003, 131-168. Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) Publishing, London, UK. J. Hellin, S. Higman (Eds.).
28. Ishihara I., Pascual U. Social capital in community level environmental governance: a critique. Ecological Economics 2009, 68:1549-1562.
29. Jack B.K., Leimona B., Ferraro P.K. A revealed preference approach to estimating supply curves for ecosystem services: use of auctions to set payments for soil erosion control in Indonesia. Conservation Biology 2009, 23:359-367.
30. Jack B.K., Kouskya C., Simsa K.R.E. Designing payments for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2010, 105(28):9465-9470.
31. Jackson L.E., Pascual U., Hodking T. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 2007, 121:196-210.
32. Jindal R., Kerr J.M., Ferraro P.J., Swallow B.M. Social dimensions of procurement auctions for environmental service contracts: evaluating tradeoffs between cost-effectiveness and participation by the poor in rural Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:71-80.
33. Kinzig A.P., Perrings C., Chapin F.S., Polasky S., Smith V.K., Tilman D., Turner B.L. Paying for ecosystem services-promise and peril. Science 2011, 334:603-604.
34. Kleijn D., Sutherland W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2003, 40:947-969.
35. Konow J. A positive theory of economic fairness. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation 1996, 31:13-35.
36. Konow J. Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 2001, 46(2):137-164.
37. Konow J. Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature 2003, 41:1186-1237.
38. Konow J. Is fairness in the eye of the beholder? An impartial spectator analysis of justice. Social Choice and Welfare 2009, 33(1):101-127.
39. Kosoy N., Martinez-Tuna M., Muradian R., Martinez-Alier J. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics 2007, 61:446-455.
40. Landell-Mills N. Developing markets for forest environmental services: an opportunity for promoting equity while securing efficiency?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 2002, 360:1817-1825.
41. Latacz-Lohmann U., van der Hamsvoort C.P.C.M. Auctions as a means of creating a market for public goods from agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1998, 49(3):334-345.
42. Leimona B., Joshi L., van Noordwijk M. Can rewards for environmental services benefit the poor? Lessons from Asia. International Journal of the Commons 2009, 3:82-107.
43. Mayer E. The Articulated Peasant: Household Economies in the Andes 2002, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
44. Michelbach P.A., Scott J.T., Matland R.E., Bornstein B.A. Doing Rawls justice: an experimental study of income distribution norms. American Journal of Political Science 2003, 47(3):523-539.
45. Milder J.C., Scherr S.J., Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 2010, 15(2):4.
46. Muñoz I., Paredes M., Thorp R. Group inequalities and the nature and power of collective action: case studies from Peru. World Development 2007, 35(11):1929-1946.
47. Muñoz-Piña C., Guevara A., Torres J.M., Braña J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:725-736.
48. Muradian R., Arsel M., Pellegrini L., Adaman F., Aguilar B., Agarwal B., Corbera E., Ezzine de Blas D., Farley J., Froger G., Garcia-Frapolli E., Gómez-Baggethun E., Gowdy J., Kosoy N., Le Coq J.F., Leroy P., May P., Méral P., Mibielli P., Norgaard R., Ozkaynak B., Pascual U., Pengue W., Perez M., Pesche D., Pirard R., Ramos-Martin J., Rival L., Saenz F., Van Hecken G., Vatn A., Vira B., Urama K. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00309.x (in press).
49. Naidoo R., Balmford A., Ferraro P.J., Polasky S., Ricketts T.H., Rouget M. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2007, 21(12):681-687.
50. Narloch U. Payments for Agrobiodiversity Services: How to Make Incentive Mechanisms Work for Conservation 2011, University of Cambridge, Department of Land Economy, mimeo, Cambridge, UK.
51. Narloch U., Drucker A.G., Pascual U. Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for the sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources. Ecological Economics 2011, 70(11):1837-1845.
52. Narloch U., Pascual U., Drucker A.G. Cost-effectiveness targeting under multiple conservation goals and equity considerations in the Andes. Environmental Conservation 2011, 38(4):417-425.
53. Narloch U., Pascual U., Drucker A.G. Collective Action Dynamics Under External Rewards: Experimental Insights from Farming Communities in the Andes. World Development 2012, 40(10):2096-2107.
54. O'Neill J., Spash C. Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Environmental Values 2000, 9(4):521-536.
55. Orlove B.S., Godoy R. Sectoral fallow systems in the Central Andes. Journal of Ethnobiology 1986, 6(1):169-204.
56. Pagiola S., Arcenas A., 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 2005, 33(2):237-253.
57. Pagiola S., Rios A.R., Arcena A. Poor household participation in payments for environmental services: lessons from the silvopastoral project in Quindío. Colombia. Environmental Resource Economics 2010, 47:371-394.
58. Pascual U., Muradian R., Rodríguez L.C., Duraiappah A. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in Payments for Environmental Services: a conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1237-1244.
59. Prager K., Reed M., Scott A. Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale--rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 2012, 29(1):244-249.
60. Rolfe J., Windle J. Comparing a best management practice scorecard with an auction metric to select proposals in a water quality tender. Land Use Policy 2011, 28:175-184.
61. Rojas W., Valdivia R., Padulosi S., Pinto M., Soto J.L., Alcocer E., Guzmán L., Estrada R., Apapza V., Bravo R. From neglect to limelight: issues, methods and approaches in enhancing sustainable conservation and use of Andean grains in Peru and Bolivia. JARTS Supplement 2009, 92:1-32.
62. Schilizzi S. Equity Judgments and Context Dependence: Knowledge, Efficiency and Incentives. Working Paper 1106 2011, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
63. Schilizzi S., Latacz-Lohmann U. Assessing the performance of conservation auctions: an experimental study. Land Economics 2007, 83:497-515.
64. Schokkaert E., Devooght K. Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures. Social Choice and Welfare 2003, 21:207-242.
65. Sierra R., Russman E. On the efficiency of environmental service payments: a forest conservation assessment in the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 2006, 59:131-141.
66. Smale M., Bellon M.R., Jarvis D., Sthapit B. Economic concepts for designing policies to conserve crop genetic resources on farms. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 2004, 51:121-135.
67. Sommerville M., Jones J.P.G., Rahajaharison M., Milner-Gulland E.J. The role of fairness and benefit distribution in community-based payment for environmental services interventions: a case study from Menabe, Madagascar. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1262-1271.
68. Stanish C., Haley K.J. Power, fairness, and architecture: modeling early chiefdom development in the Central Andes. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 2005, 14(1):53-70.
69. Stoneham G., Chaudhri V., Ha A., Strappazzon L. Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trials. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2003, 47:477-500.
70. Swallow B.M., Kallesoe M.F., Iftikhar U.A., van Noordwijk M., Bracer C., Scherr S.J., Raju K.V., Poats S.V., Kumar Duraiappah A., Ochieng B.O., Mallee H., Rumley R. Compensation and rewards for environmental services in the developing world: framing pan-tropical analysis and comparison. Ecology and Society 2009, 14(2):26-36.
71. Syme G.J., Fenton D.M. Perceptions of equity and procedural preferences for water allocation decisions. Society and Natural Resources 1993, 6(4):347-360.
72. Tapia M.E., Fries A.M. Guía de Campo de Los Cultivos Andinos 2007, FAO y ANPE, Lima, Peru.
73. The Economist The Andes New Cash Crop: Quinoa Selection 2012, Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/21554570/email.
74. Trawick P. The moral economy of water: equity and antiquity in the Andean commons. American Anthropologist 2001, 103:361-379.
75. Uchida E., Xu J., Rozelle S. Grain for Green: cost-effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set-aside program. Land Economics 2005, 81(2):247-264.
76. van Noordwijk M., Leimona B. Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia: payments, compensation, or co-investment?. Ecology and Society 2010, 15(4):17-35.
77. VSF Quinua y Territorio. Agronomes Veterinaires Sans Frontiers Ruralter 2009, La Paz, Bolivia.
78. Weitzman M.L. The Noah's Ark Problem. Econometrica 1998, 66:1279-1298.
79. Wilson M.A., Howarth R.B. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics 2002, 41(3):431-443.
80. Windle J., Rolfe J. Exploring the efficiencies of using competitive tenders over fixed price grants to protect biodiversity in Australian rangeland. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:388-398.
81. Wu J.J., Zilberman D., Babcock B.A. Environmental and distributional impacts of conservation targeting strategies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2001, 41:333-350.
82. Wunder S. Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics?. Ecology and Society 2006, 11(2):23.
83. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 2007, 21:48-58.
84. Wünscher T., Engel S., Wunder S. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:822-833.
85. Yaari M., Bar-Hillel M. On dividing justly. Social Choice and Welfare 1984, 1:1-24.
86. Zbinden S., Lee D. Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica's PSA program. World Development 2005, 33:255-272.
87. Zilberman D., Lipper L., McCarthy N. When could payments for environmental services benefit the poor?. Environment and Development Economics 2008, 13:255-278.
88. Zimmerer K.S. Changing Fortunes: Biodiversity and Peasant Livelihood in the Peruvian Andes 1996, University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.
89. Zimmerer K.S. Common field agriculture as a cultural landscape of Latin America: development and history in the geographical customs of resource use. Journal of Cultural Geography 2002, 19(2):37-63.
90. Zimmerer K.S. Woodlands and agrobiodiversity in irrigation landscapes amidst global change (Bolivia, 1990-2002). Professional Geographer 2010, 62(3):335-356.