Benefit Distribution and Equity in Ecuador's Socio Bosque Program

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 26, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 1170-1184

  Krause, Torsten ^a   Loft, Lasse ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTRE BIK F   (Germany)

Author keywords

collective landownership; conservation; Ecuador; equity; incentive distribution; individual landownership

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; EQUITY; FINANCE; INCENTIVE; LANDOWNERSHIP; POPULATION DENSITY; POVERTY; RURAL POPULATION;

AMAZONIA; ANDES; ECUADOR;

EID: 84885059417     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2013.797529     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adger, W. N., K. Brown, J. Fairbrass, A. Jordan, J. Paavola, S. Rosendo, and G. Seyfang. 2003. Governance for sustainability: Towards a 'thick' analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environ. Plan. A 35 (6): 1095 - 1110.
2. Angelsen, A., M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, and L. V. Verchot. 2012. Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
3. Angelsen, A., and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff. 2008. Chapter 2-What are the key design issues for REDD and the criteria for assessing options? In Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications, ed. A. Angelsen, 11-21. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
4. Bertzky, M., C. Ravilious, A. L. Araujo Navas, V. Kapos, D. Carrión, M. Chíu, and B. Dickson. 2010. Carbon, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Exploring co-benefits-Ecuador. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
5. Börner, J., S. Wunder, S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff, M. R. Tito, L. Pereira, and N. Nascimento. 2010. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6): 1272 - 1282.
6. Bromley, D. W., and J. Paavola. 2002. Economics, ethics, and environmental policy: Contested choices. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
7. Brown, K., and E. Corbera. 2003. Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon economy. Climate Policy 3 (suppl. 1): S41 - S56.
8. Bucheli, F. J., and R. S. Mena. 2010. Ecuador-Land tenure and natural disasters. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization, FAO.
9. Chíu, M., and D. Carríon. 2011. National programme document Ecuador. Da Lat, Viet Nam: UN-REDD.
10. Coral, A. 2011. Metodología de Monitoreo para las Áreas Bajo Conservación de Socio Bosque. Quito, Ecuador: Ministerio del Ambiente.
11. Corbera, E. 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 4 (6): 612 - 619.
12. Corbera, E., K. Brown, and W. N. Adger. 2007a. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Change 38 (4): 27.
13. Corbera, E., N. Kosoy, and M. Martínez Tuna. 2007b. Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Global Environ. Change 17 (3-4): 365 - 380.
14. Corbera, E., C. G. Soberanis, and K. Brown. 2009. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3): 743 - 761.
15. Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387 (6630): 253 - 260.
16. Costenbader, J., ed. 2009. Legal frameworks for REDD. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature, IUCN.
17. de Koning, F., M. Aguiñaga, M. Bravo, M. Chiu, M. Lascano, T. Lozada, and L. Suarez. 2011. Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: The Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environ. Sci. Policy 14 (5): 531 - 542.
18. Dobson, A. 1998. Justice and the environment: Conceptions of environmental sustainability and dimensions of social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19. Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 65 (4): 663 - 674.
20. Garzón, B. R. 2009. REDD en Territorios Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazonica. Seran los pueblos indígenas los directos beneficiarios? Brasília, Brazil: Instituto Socioambiental ISA.
21. INEC. 2010a. Ecuador en Cifras-Extensión Territorial. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. http://www.ecuadorencifras.com/cifras-inec/extension.html#tpi=281
22. INEC. 2010b. Ecuador en Cifras-Densidad. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. http://www.ecuadorencifras.com/cifras-inec/extension.html#tpi=282
23. INEC. 2010c. Ecuador en Cifras-Pobreza Necesidades Básicas Insatisfechas. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. http://www.ecuadorencifras.com/cifras-inec/pobrezaNbi.html
24. International Tropical Timber Organization. 2009. Tropical forest tenure assessment. Trends, challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC: Rights and Resource Initiative & International Tropical Timber Organization.
25. Konow, J. 1996. A positive theory of economic fairness. J. Econ. Behav. Organization 31(1):13-35.
26. Konow, J. 2001. Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice. J. Econ. Behav. Organization 46 (2): 137 - 164.
27. Konow, J. 2003. Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J. Econ. Literature XLI: 52.
28. Lederer, M. 2011. From CDM to REDD+ -What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance? Ecol. Econ., 70 (11): 1900 - 1907.
29. Leimona, B., L. Joshi, and M. Noordwijk van. 2009. Can rewards for environmental services benefit the poor? Lessons from Asia, Vol. 3. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Igitur, Utrecht Publishing & Archiving Services for IASC.
30. Luttrell, C., L. Loft, M. F. Gebara, and D. Kweka. 2012. Who should benefit and why? Discourses on REDD+ benefit sharing. In Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices, ed. A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, and L. V. Verchot, 129 - 151. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
31. Markandya, A. 2011. Equity and distributional implications of climate change. World Dev. 39 (6): 1051 - 1060.
32. Martinez-Alier, J. 2002. The environmentalism of the poor. In A report for UNRISD, 1 - 59. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Witswatersrand.
33. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
34. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente del Ecuador. 2008. Acuerdo N°177. Quito: Ministerio del Medio Ambiente del Ecuador.
35. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente del Ecuador. 2012. Manual operativo unificado del Proyecto Socio Bosque. Quito: Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador.
36. Muñoz-Piña, C., A. Guevara, J. M. Torres, and J. Braña. 2008. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: Analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 65 (4): 725 - 736.
37. Muradian, R., E. Corbera, U. Pascual, N. Kosoy, and P. H. May. 2010. Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6): 1202 - 1208.
38. Naidoo, R., A. Balmford, R. Costanza, B. Fisher, R. E. Green, B. Lehner, T. R. Malcolm, and T. H. Ricketts. 2008. Ecosystem services special feature: Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (28): 9495 - 9500.
39. Pachamama. 2010. El dilemma de los bosques en el Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: Fundacíon Pachamama.
40. Pagiola, S. 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 65 (4): 712 - 724.
41. Pascual, U., R. Muradian, L. C. Rodríguez, and A. Duraiappah. 2010. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 69 (6): 1237 - 1244.
42. Perrings, C., S. Naeem, F. Ahrestani, D. E. Bunker, P. Burkill, G. Canziani, T. Elmqvist, R. Ferrati, J. Fuhrman, F. Jaksic, Z. Kawabata, A. Kinzig, G. M. Mace, F. Milano, H. Mooney, A.-H. Prieur-Richard, J. Tschirhart, and W. Weisser. 2010. Ecosystem services for 2020. Science 330 (6002): 323 - 324.
43. Peskett, L. 2011. Benefit sharing in REDD+: Exploring the implications for poor and vulnerable people. Washington, DC: World Bank and REDD-net. http://redd-net.org/files/BenefitSharingReport.pdf (accessed 16 May 2012).
44. Peskett, L., and G. Brodnig. 2011. Carbon rights in REDD+. Exploring the implications for poor and vulnerable people. Washington, DC: World Bank and REDD-net. http://redd-net.org/files/CarbonRightsReport.pdf (accessed 16 May 2012).
45. Proctor, W., T. Köllner, and A. Lukasiewicz. 2008. Equity considerations and payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Economy and Policy Research-Discussion Paper Series. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. http://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/RePEc/pdf/200831.pdf (accessed 15 May 2012).
46. Programa Socio Bosque. 2011. Resultados globales 2011. Quito: Programa Socio Bosque, Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador.
47. Reed, P. 2011. REDD+ and the Indigenous question: A case study from Ecuador. Forests 2 (2): 525 - 549.
48. República del Ecuador. 2008. Constitución de 2008. Quito: República del Ecuador.
49. Rosa, H., D. Barry, S. Kandel, and L. Dimas. 2004. Compensation for environmental services and rural communities: Lessons from the Americas. Working Paper Series, No. 95. Amherst, MA: Political Economy Research Institute University of Massachusetts.
50. Scherr, S., A. White, and A. Khare. 2004. For services rendered-The current status and future potential of markets for the ecosystem services provided by tropical forests. ITTO Technical Series No. 21. Yokohama, Japan: International Tropical Timber Organization.
51. Schokkaert, E. 1998. Mr. Fairmind is post-welfarist: Opinions on distributive justice. Catholic University of Leuven, Department of Economics, Discussion paper series (98.09). Leuven, Belgium.
52. Schokkaert, E., and K. Devooght. 2003. Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures. Social Choice Welfare 21 (2): 207 - 242.
53. SENPLADES. 2009. Plan Nacional Para el Buen Vivir-2009-2013. In Plan Nacional del Desarollo, 1-120. Quito: Secretaria Nacional de Planificacion y Desarollo. http://www.planificacion.gob.ec/plan-nacional-para-el-buen-vivir-2009-2013/ (accessed 19 April 2012).
54. Sierra, R., F. Campos, and J. Chamberlin. 2002. Assessing biodiversity conservation priorities: Ecosystem risk and representativeness in continental Ecuador. Landscape Urban Plan. 59 (2): 95 - 110.
55. Skutsch, M., and P. E. Van Laake. 2008. REDD as multi level governance in the making. Energy Environ. 19 (6): 14.
56. Stern, M., and B. S. Kernan. 2011. Report on biodiversity and tropical forests in Ecuador. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). http://transition.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/section_118/Ecuador_May_2011.pdf (accessed 16 April 2012).
57. Thompson, M. C., M. Baruah, and E. R. Carr. 2011. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 14 (2): 100 - 110.
58. U.S. Agency for International Development. 2012. Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) program. Key findings and opportunities for REDD+ in Ecuador, ed. T. T. ARD. Burlington, VT: U.S. Agency for International Development.
59. van Noordwijk, M., and B. Leimona. 2010. Principles for fairness and efficiency in enhancing environmental services in Asia: Payments, compensation, or co-investment? Ecol. Society 15 (4): 17.
60. Vatn, A., D. N. Barton, H. Lindhjem, S. Movik, I. Ring, and R. Santos. 2011. Can markets protect biodiversity? An evaluation of different financial mechanisms. NORAGRIC Report No. 60. Aas, Norway: Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB).