Participation dynamics and institutional change in the Scolel Té carbon forestry project, Chiapas, Mexico

Geoforum

Volumn 59, Issue , 2015, Pages 63-72

  Hendrickson, Cary Y ^a,b   Corbera, Esteve ^a,c  

^a INSTITUT DE CIÈNCIA I TECNOLOGIA AMBIENTALS   (Spain)

^b SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^c Department of Economics and Economic History Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Campus UAB ^*  (Spain)

Author keywords

Carbon; Forests; Mexico; Participation; Payments; Property

Indexed keywords

CARBON SEQUESTRATION; FINANCE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; INSTITUTIONAL REFORM; LAND TENURE; LOCAL PARTICIPATION;

CHIAPAS; MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA];

EID: 84919884316     PISSN: 00167185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.11.022     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abebe, S., Barton, D., Rusch, G., 2011. A review of the cost effectiveness and performance of selected Verifiable Emission Reduction (VER) carbon offsets, Joint Technical Brief No.1, POLICYMIX and FUNCiTREE. http://policymix.nina.no.
2. Adams W.M., Aveling R., Brockington D., Dickson B., Elliott J., Hutton J., Roe D., Vira B., Wolmer W. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 2004, 306(5699):1146-1149.
3. Agrawal A., Nepstad D., Chhatre A. Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation". Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011, 36:373-396.
4. Anderson Emily K., Zerriffi H. Seeing the trees for the carbon: agroforestry for development and carbon mitigation. Clim. Change 2012, 115(3-4):741-757.
5. Asner G.P., Powell G.V.N., Mascaro J., Knapp D.E., Clark J.K., Jacobson J., Kennedy-Bowdoin T., et al. High-resolution forest carbon stocks and emissions in the Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2010, 107(38):16738-16742.
6. Benessiah K. Carbon and livelihoods in Post-Kyoto: assessing voluntary carbon markets. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 77:1-6.
7. Bottazzi P., Cattaneo A., Rocha D.C., Rist S. Assessing sustainable forest management under REDD+: a community-based labour perspective. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93:94-103.
8. Cabello J., Gilbertson T. A colonial mechanism to enclose lands: a critical review of two REDD? - focused special issues. Ephemera 2012, 12(1/2):162-180.
9. Carter S. Socio-Economic Benefits in Plan Vivo Projects: Trees For Global Benefits, Uganda 2009, Plan Vivo Foundation and ECOTRUST.
10. Chappel A. Making the Voluntary Carbon Market Work for the Poor. Current and Future Roles. Forum for the Future 2008, DFID, www.forumforthefuture.org.uk.
11. Chhatre A., Agrawal A. Synergies and trade-offs between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2009, 106:17667-17670.
12. Corbera, E., 2005. Interrogating Development in Carbon Forestry Activities: A Case Study from Mexico. Doctoral dissertation, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
13. Corbera E., Brown K. Offsetting benefits? Analyzing access to forest carbon. Environ. Plan. A 2010, 42(7):1739.
14. Corbera E., Brown K., Adger N. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Change 2007, 38(4):587-613.
15. Corbera E., Soberanis González C., Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:743-761.
16. De Jong, B.H.J., Soto-Pinto, L., Montoya-G!omez, G., Nelson, K., Taylor, J., Tipper, R., 1997. Forestry and agroforestry land-use systems for carbon mitigation: an analysis in Chiapas, Mexico. In: Adger, W.N., Pettenella, D., Whitby, M. (Eds.), Climate-Change Mitigation and European Land-use Policies, pp. 269-284.
17. DeCaro D., Stokes M. Social-psychological principles of community-based conservation and conservancy motivation: attaining goals within an autonomy-supportive environment. Conserv. Biol. 2008, 22(6):1443-1451.
18. Diaz, D., Hamilton, K., Johnson, E., Kandy, D., Peters-Stanley, M., 2011. State of the forest carbon markets 2011: From canopy to currency. Ecosystem Marketplace.
19. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice - an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65(4):663-674.
20. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2004. A review of carbon sequestration projects, Rome. http://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/misc37e.pdf.
21. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2010. 'Climate Smart' Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1881e/i1881e00.pdf.
22. Ferraro P., Kiss A. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 2002, 298(5599):1718-1719.
23. Fletcher R. Neoliberal environmentality: towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conserv. Soc. 2010, 8(3):171-181.
24. Fletcher R., Breitling J. Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Geoforum 2012, 43(3):402-411.
25. 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, 33:1511-1527.
26. Haya B. Failed Mechanism: How the CDM is Subsidizing Hydro Development and Harming the Kyoto Protocol 2007, International Rivers Publications.
27. Jindal R., Swallow B., Kerr J. Forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Africa: potential benefits and challenges. Nat. Resour. Forum 2008, 32(2).
28. Kerr J., Vardhan M., Jindal R. Prosocial behavior and incentives: evidence from field experiments in rural Mexico and Tanzania. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73:220-227.
29. Kollmuss A., Zink H., Polycarp C. Making Sense of the Voluntary Carbon Market: A Comparison of Carbon Offset Standards 2008, WWF, Germany.
30. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39:2073-2083.
31. Landell-Mills, N., Porras, I.T., 2002. Silver bullet or fools' gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
32. McCauley D. Selling out on nature. Nature 2006, 443(7):27-28.
33. Muñoz-Piña C., Guevara A., Torres J.M., Braña J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:725-736.
34. Muradian R., Arsel M., Pellegrini L., Adaman F., Aguilar B., Agarwal B., Corbera E., et al. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6(4):274-279.
35. Nelson K., de Jong B. Making global initiatives local realities: carbon mitigation projects in Chiapas, Mexico. Glob. Environ. Change 2003, 13:19-30.
36. Nigh, R., Diemont, S., 2013. The Maya milpa: fire and the legacy of living soil. Front. Ecol. Environ., 11(s1), e45-e54.
37. Olsen K.H. The clean development mechanism's contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature. Clim. Change 2007, 84(1):59-73.
38. Olsen K. The clean development mechanism's contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature. Clim. Change 2007, 84(1):59-73.
39. Osborne T. Carbon Capital: The Political Ecology of Carbon Forestry and Development in Chiapas 2010, Energy and Resources Group, University of California Berkeley, Mexico, Berkeley.
40. Osborne T. Carbon forestry and agrarian change: access and land control in a Mexican rainforest. J. Peas. Stud. 2011, 38(4):859-883.
41. Pagiola S. Guidelines for 'Pro-Poor' Payments for Environmental Services 2007, World Bank, Washington DC.
42. 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 Dev. 2005, 33:237-253.
43. Paladino, S., 2008. The social and economic impacts of campesino adoption of Agroforestry systems for carbon capture - case study of participants in Scolel Té, Chiapas, Mexico El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, Mexico City. Internal Project Report.
44. Pattanayak S., Wunder S., Ferraro P. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2010, 4(2):254-274.
45. Persha L., Agrawal A., Chhatre A. Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 2011, 331(6024):1606-1608.
46. Peters-Stanley, M., Hamilton, K., Marcello, T., Sjardin, M., 2012. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2011. Ecosystem Marketplace and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
47. Plan Vivo Foundation, 2012. Plan Vivo Standards. http://www.planvivo.org/wp-content/uploads/Plan-Vivo-Standard-2012-consultation-draft.pdf.
48. Quechulpa Montalvo S., Esquivel Bazan E., Fournier S. Scolel Té Program Plan Vivo Annual Report 2010 2011, AMBIO, San Cristobal de las Casas.
49. Reynolds T. Institutional determinants of success among forestry-based carbon sequestration projects in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2012, 40(3):542-554.
50. Rico García-Amado L., Ruiz Pérez M., Reyes Escutia F., Barrasa García S., Contreras Mejía E. Efficiency of payments for environmental services: equity and additionality in a case study from a biosphere reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70(12):2361-2368.
51. Robertson N., Wunder S. Fresh Tracks in the Forest: Assessing Incipient Payments for Environmental Services Initiatives in Bolivia 2005, CIFOR, Bogor.
52. Rosa H., Kandel S., Dimas L. Compensation for Environmental Services and Rural Communities 2003, PRISMA, San Salvador.
53. Roshetko J., Lasco R., Angeles M. Smallholder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 2007, 12(2):219-242.
54. Ruiz-De-Oña-Plaza C., Soto-Pinto L., Paladino S., Morales F., Esquivel E. Constructing public policy in a participatory manner: from local carbon sequestration projects to network governance in Chiapas, Mexico. Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Systems 2011, 247-262. Springer, Netherlands.
55. Schneider L. Is the CDM Fulfilling its Environmental and Sustainable Development Objectives? An Evaluation of the CDM and Options for Improvement 2007, Öko-Institut, Institute for Applied Ecology.
56. Shiferaw B.A., Okello J., Reddy R.V. Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2009, 11(3):601-619.
57. Skutsch M., Vickers B., Georgiadou Y., McCall M. Alternative models for carbon payments to communities under REDD+: a comparison using the Polis model of actor inducements. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14(2):140-151.
58. Smith J., Scherr S. Capturing the value of forest carbon for local livelihoods. World Dev. 2003, 31:2143-2160.
59. 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. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1262-1271.
60. Southgate, D., Haab, T., Lundine, J., Rodri{dotless}guez, F., 2007. Responses of poor, rural households in Ecuador and Guatemala to payments for environmental services. Ohio State University (unpublished).
61. Vatn A. Cooperative behavior and institutions. J. Socio-Econ. 2009, 38:188-196.
62. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(6):1245-1252.
63. Waylen K., Fischer A., McGowan P., Thirgood S., Milner-Gullard E. Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24(4):1119-1129.
64. Wunder S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts 2005, CIFOR, Jakarta.
65. Wunder S. The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21(1):48-58.
66. Wunder S. Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2008, 13(3):279.