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

Ecosystem Services

Volumn 6, Issue , 2013, Pages 64-71

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

^a INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE   (Laos)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

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

Author keywords

Conservation; Forest programs; Hydropower; Livelihoods; State territorialization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84890076037     PISSN: 22120416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.006     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Bakker K. Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 95(3):542-565.
2. Benda-Beckmann K.von Forum shopping and shopping forums: Dispute processing in a Minangkabau village in West Sumatra. J. Leg. Plur. 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?. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:699-711.
5. Berman P.S. The new legal pluralism. Ann. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 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. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13:245-254.
8. Cai, H.H., 1999. Why social forestry in Vietnam? A trainer's perspective. Social Forestry Training Network in Vietnam. No. 1 October 1999. Social Forestry Support Program. Helvetas, Hanoi.
9. Carpenter S.R., Bennett E.M., Peterson G.D. Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol. Soc. 2006, 11(1):29.
10. Castree N. Neoliberalising nature I: The logics of de-and re-regulation. Environ. Plan. A 2008, 40(1):131-152.
11. Castree N. Commodifying what nature?. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 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. J. Law Econ. 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., Le Trong Cuc, Vien Tran Duc Development Trends in Vietnam's Northern Mountain Region 1997, Volume I. National Politic Publishing House, Hanoi, (105 pp.).
19. Emerton, L., Lopaying, D., 2011. Options for the development of a river basin fund for Nam Ngum river basin, Lao PDR. MRC-GIZ Cooperation Programme Watershed Management Project. Final draft report, March 2011.
20. Escobar A. Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Polit. Geogr. 2001, 20:139-174.
21. Fairhead J., Leach M., Scoones I. Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?. J. Peasant Stud. 2012, 39(2):237-261.
22. Ferraro P., Kiss A. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 2002, 298:1718-1719.
23. Forest Sector Monitoring Information System (FOMIS). 2010. Vietnam Forest Sector Progress Report 2006-2010. 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. Environ. Manage. 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. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1209-1218.
26. Grieg-Gran M., Porras I., Wunder S. How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Dev. 2005, 33(9):1511-1527.
27. Harvey D. The Condition of Postmodernity 1989, Blackwell, Oxford.
28. Hebinck P., Verschoor G. Resonances and Dissonances in Development. Actors, Networks and Cultural Repertoires 2001, Royal van Gorcum, The Netherlands.
29. Heynen N., McCarthy J., Prudham S., Robbins P. Neoliberal environments: false promises and unnatural consequences 2007, Routledge, London and New York.
30. 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.).
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Leimona B., Joshi J., van Noordwijk M. Can rewards for environmental services benefit the poor? Lessons from Asia. Int. J. Commons 2009, 3(1):82-107.
34. Liu J., Li S., Ouyang Z., Tam C., Chen X. Ecological and socioeconomic effects of China's policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2008, 105(28):9477-9482.
35. 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.
36. McAfee K. Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and the rise of green developmentalism. Environ. Plan. D Soc. Space 1999, 17(2):133-154.
37. McAfee K., Shapiro E.N. Payments for ecosystem services in Mexico: nature, neoliberalism, social movements and the state. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2010, 100(3):579-599.
38. McElwee P. Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: panacea or problem?. Geoforum 2012, 43(3):412-426.
39. Migdal J. Strong Societies and Weak States: State-society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World 1988, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
40. Migdal J. State in Society: Studying How States and Societies Transform and Constitute One Another 2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
41. Milder J.C., Scherr S.J., Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15(2):4. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art4/.
42. Mollinga, P.P., Bolding, A. 2004. The Politics of Irrigation Reform: Contested Policy Formulation and Implementation in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Ashgate, London.
43. Mosse D. Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice 2004, Pluto Press, London.
44. Munoz-Pina C., Guevara A., Torres J.M., Brana J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forest: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:725-736.
45. Muradian R., Rival L. Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1(2012):93-100.
46. Nguyen T.P. The role of the government in developing and implementing the policy on payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam. Hanoi: FSSP Newslett. 2009, 26-27:5-6.
47. Norgaard R. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(6):1219-1227.
48. Pagiola S. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:712-724.
49. Pagiola S., Platais C. Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice 2007, World Bank, Washington DC.
50. Peluso N., Lund C. New frontiers of land control: Introduction. J. Peasant Stud. 2011, 38(4):667-681.
51. 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.
52. Peter J., Nguyen C.T., Nguyen T.B.T. The pilot payment for forest environmental services in Lam Dong province. Hanoi: FSSP Newslett. 2009, 26-27:11-13.
53. 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. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37(1):64-72.
54. Schulte-Nordholt H. Renegotiating boundaries: Access, agency and identity in post-Suharto Indonesia. Bijdr. Taal Land Volkenkunde 2003, 159(4):550-589.
55. Scott J. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance 1987, Yale University Press, US.
56. Shelley B.G. What should we call instruments commonly known as payments for environmental services? A review of the literature and a proposal. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 2011, 1219:209-225.
57. 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.).
58. 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.
59. 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.).
60. To, P.X., 2012. PanNature website: http//www.nature.org.vn/en/tai-lieu/mrf2011/PPP_09_PES_in_Vietnam.pdf.
61. 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.
62. Uchida E., Xu J., Rozelle S. Grain for Green: Cost effectiveness and sustainability of China's conservation set aside program. Land Econ. 2005, 81:247-264.
63. Vandergeest P. Mapping nature: territorialization of forest rights in Thailand. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1996, 9(2):159-175.
64. Vandergeest P., Peluso N. Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theory Soc. 1995, 24(3):385-426.
65. Van Hecken G., Bastiaensen J. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010, 13:785-792.
66. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(6):1245-1252.
67. 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.
68. Vien, Tran Duc, 2002. Land policy and issues of forest resource management based on the community, in: Proceedings of the Sustainable development of Vietnam Mountainous Regions: 10 years Looking Back and Planned Issues. Agriculture Publishing House, Hanoi. pp. 472-490.
69. Winrock International, 2011. Payment for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study on Pilot Implementation in Lam Dong province, Vietnam from 2006-2010. (accessed 18.08.11). http://www.winrock.org/fnrm/files/PaymentForForestEnvironmentalServicesARBCPCaseStudy.pdf.
70. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: Concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13(3):279-297.
71. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 2005, 21(1):48-58.
72. Wunder S., Alban M. Decentralized payments for environmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:685-698.
73. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:834-852.
74. 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.