Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: Market-based incentives or state control of resources?

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 5, Issue , 2013, Pages 94-101

  Suhardiman, Diana ^a   Wichelns, Dennis ^b   Lestrelin, Guillaume ^c   Thai Hoanh, Chu ^d  

^a INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE   (Laos)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^c Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement IRD   (Laos)

^d International Water Management Institute IWMI   (Laos)

Author keywords

Conservation; Forest programs; Hydropower; Livelihoods; State territorialization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884596267     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Bakker K. Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Annals of the Association of American Geographer 2010, 95(3):542-565.
2. Benda-Beckmann K.von Forum shopping and shopping forums: Dispute processing in a Minangkabau village in West Sumatra. Journal of Legal Pluralism 1981, 19:117-159.
3. Benda-Beckmann F., von Strijbosch F. Anthropology of Law in the Netherlands: Essays in Legal Pluralism 1986, Foris, Dordrecht.
4. Bennett M.T. China's sloping land conversion program: institutional innovations or business as usual?. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:699-711.
5. Berman P.S. The new legal pluralism. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2009, 5:225-242.
6. Berthoud G. Market. The Development Dictionary: ±A Guide to Knowledge as Power 1992, 70-87. Zed Books, London and New York. W. Sachs (Ed.).
7. Bulte E., Lipper L., Stringer R., Zilberman D. Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues and empirical perspectives. Environment and Development Economics 2008, 13:245-254.
8. Cai H.H. Why social forestry in Vietnam? A trainer's perspective. Social Forestry Training Network in Vietnam 1999, Social Forestry Support Program, Helvetas, Hanoi, No. 1 October 1999.
9. Carpenter S.R., Bennett E.M., Peterson G.D. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecology and Society 2006, 11(1):29.
10. Castree N. Neoliberalising nature I: the logics of de- and re-regulation. Environment and Planning A 2008, 40(1):131-152.
11. Castree N. Commodifying what nature?. Progress in Human Geography 2003, 27(2):273-292.
12. Chiramba, T., Mogoi, S., Martinez, I., Jones, T., 2011. Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services (PFES): Pilot implementation in Lam Dong province, Vietnam. Paper presented at UN Water International Conference, Water in the Green Economy in Practice: Towards Rio+20. Zaragoza, Spain, 3-5 October 2011.
13. Christiansen J., Hall R., Chandler H., Torfs M., Zogbi M., Lovera S., Leibman D. Nature for Sale: the Impacts of Privatizing Water and Biodiversity 2005, Friends of the Earth International, The Netherlands.
14. Clement F., Amezaga J.M. Afforestation and forestry land allocation in northern Vietnam: analysing the gap between policy intentions and outcomes. Land Use Policy 2009, 26(2):458-470.
15. Coase R.H. The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics 1960, 3:1-44.
16. Costanza R., d'Arge R., de Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon B., Limburg K., Naeem S., O'Neill R.V., Paruelo J., Raskin G.R., Sutton P., van der Belt M. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387:253-260.
17. Cox K. Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local 1997, Guilford, New York.
18. Donovan D., Rambo T., Fox J., Trong Cuc Le, Duc Vien Tran Development Trends in Vietnam's Northern Mountain Region 1997, vol. I:105. National Politic Publishing House, Hanoi.
19. Emerton L., Lopaying D. Options for the Development of a River Basin fund for Nam Ngum river basin. MRC-GIZ Cooperation Programme Watershed Management Project 2011, 2011. Final Draft Report.
20. Escobar A. Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography 2001, 20:139-174.
21. Fairhead J., Leach M., Scoones I. Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?. Journal of Peasant Studies 2012, 39(2):237-261.
22. Ferraro P., Kiss A. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 2002, 298:1718-1719.
23. Vietnam Forest Sector Progress Report 2006-2010 2010, Forest Sector Monitoring Information System (FOMIS), MARD.
24. Gauvin C., Uchida E., Rozelle S., Xu J., Zhan J. Cost effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services with dual goals of environment and poverty alleviation. Environmental Management 2010, 45:488-501.
25. Gomez-Baggethun E., De Groot R., Lomas P.L., Montes C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 2010, 69:1209-1218.
26. Government of Vietnam, 2010. Decree No. 99/2010/ND-CP on the Policy for Payment for Forest Environmental Services. Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Hanoi, September 24, 2010.
27. Grieg-Gran M., Porras I., Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 2005, 33(9):1511-1527.
28. Harvey D. The Condition of Postmodernity 1989, Blackwell, Oxford.
29. Hebinck P., Verschoor G. Resonances and dissonances in development. Actors, networks and cultural repertoires 2001, Royal van Gorcum, The Netherlands.
30. Heynen N., McCarthy J., Prudham S., Robbins P. Neoliberal environments: false promises and unnatural consequences 2007, Routledge, London and New York.
31. Jessop B. Hollowing out the 'nation state' and multilevel governance. A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy 2004, 11-25. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. P. Kennet (Ed.).
32. 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.
33. Landell-Mills N., Poras I. Silver bullet or fool's gold? A global review of markets for environmental services and their impact on the poor 2002, IIED, London, UK.
34. Leimona B., Joshi J., van Noordwijk M. Can rewards for environmental services benefit the poor? Lessons from Asia. International Journal of the Commons 2009, 3(1):82-107.
35. Liu J., Li S., Ouyang Z., Tam C., Chen X. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105(28):9477-9482.
36. Lovera, S., 2004. Environmental Markets Impoverish the Poor. http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/articles.opinion.php?component_id=2268&component_version_id=6648&language_id=12.
37. McAfee K. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and the rise of green developmentalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 1999, 17(2):133-154.
38. McAfee K., Shapiro E.N. Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements and the state. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2010, 100(3):579-599.
39. McElwee P. Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: panacea or problem?. Geoforum 2012, 43(3):412-426.
40. Migdal J. Strong societies and weak states: State-society relations and state capabilities in the third world 1988, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
41. Migdal J. State in society: studying how states and societies transform and constitute one another 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
42. 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. [online].
43. Mollinga P.P., Bolding A. The politics of irrigation reform: contested policy formulation and implementation in Asia, Africa and Latin America 2004, Ashgate, London.
44. Mosse D. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice 2004, Pluto Press, London.
45. Munoz-Pina C., Guevara A., Torres J.M., Brana J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forest: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:725-736.
46. Muradian R., Rival L. Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 2012, 1(2012):93-100.
47. Nguyen T.P. The role of the government in developing and implementing ±the policy on payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam. FSSP Newsletter, Hanoi 2009, 26-27:5-6.
48. Norgaard R. Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(6):1219-1227.
49. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:712-724.
50. Pagiola S., Platais C. Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice 2007, World Bank, Washington DC.
51. Peluso N., Lund C. New frontiers of land control: introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies 2011, 38(4):667-681.
52. Perrings C.A., Maler K.G., Folke C., Holling C.S., Jansson B.O. Biodiversity Loss: Ecological and Economic Issues 1995, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
53. Peter J., Nguyen C.T., Nguyen T.B.T. The pilot payment for forest environmental services in Lam Dong province. FSSP Newsletter, Hanoi 2009, 26-27:11-13.
54. Pham T.T., Campbell B.M., Garnett S., Aslin H., Hoang M.H. Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environmental Conservation 2010, 37(1):64-72.
55. Schulte-Nordholt H. Renegotiating boundaries: Access, agency and identity in post-Suharto Indonesia. Bijdragen tot de Taal Land en Volkenkunde 2003, 159(4):550-589.
56. Scott J. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance 1987, Yale University Press, US.
57. Shelley B.G. 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 2011, 1219:209-225.
58. Sikor T. Forest policy reform: from state to household forestry. Stewards of Vietnam's Upland Forest 1998, 18-38. Berkeley: Asia Forest Network. M. Poffenberger (Ed.).
59. Sikor T., Thanh T.N. Exclusive versus inclusive devolution in forest management: insights from forest land allocation in Vietnam's Central Highlands. Land Use Policy 2007, 24(4):644-653.
60. Swyngedouw E. Neither global nor local: Glocalization and the politics of scale. Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local 1997, 137-166. Guilford, New York. K. Cox (Ed.).
61. To, P.X., 2012. PanNature website:. http://www.nature.org.vn/en/tai-lieu/mrf2011/PPP_09_PES_in_Vietnam.pdf.
62. To P.X., Dressler W., Mahanty S., Pham T., Zingerli C. The prospects for payment for ecosystem services in Vietnam: a look at three payment schemes. Human Ecology 2012, 40(2):237-249.
63. Uchida E., Xu J., Rozelle S. Grain for green: cost effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set aside program. Land Economics 2005, 81:247-264.
64. Vandergeest P. Mapping nature: territorialization of forest rights in Thailand. Society and Natural Resources 1996, 9(2):159-175.
65. Vandergeest P., Peluso N. Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory and Society 1995, 24(3):385-426.
66. Van Hecken G., Bastiaensen J. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environmental Science and Policy 2010, 13:785-792.
67. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(6):1245-1252.
68. Vien Tran Duc Achievements and challenges to resource management and improving people's lives in the Midland-the mountainous regions of Vietnam 2001, National Politic Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam.
69. Vien Tran Duc Land policy and issues of forest resource management based on the community, in: Sustainable development of Vietnam mountainous regions: 10 years looking back and planned issues 2002, 472-490. Agriculture Publishing House, Hanoi.
70. Winrock International, 2011. Payment for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study on Pilot Implementation in Lam Dong province, Vietnam from 2006-2010. downloaded 18 August 2011. http://www.winrock.org/fnrm/files/PaymentForForestEnvironmentalServicesARBCPCaseStudy.pdf.
71. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 2008, 13(3):279-297.
72. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 2005, 21(1):48-58.
73. Wunder S., Alban M. Decentralized payments for environmental services: the cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:685-698.
74. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:834-852.
75. Wunder S., The B.D., Ibarra E. Payment is Good, Control is Better: Why Payments for Environmental Services so far Have Remained Incipient in Vietnam 2005, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.