Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle

Pirard, Romain; Lapeyre, Renaud

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.005

Cited by 77 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Policy instruments that use economic incentives for the governance of ecosystem services and the management of land use conflicts, most common within agricultural landscapes, have gained in importance over the past years [1]. The number of publications referring to the concept of payments for ecosystem services (PES) has been increasing substantially over the past two decades at the international level [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large governmental payments for ecosystem services programs (PES) have frequently been criticized for their limited environmental effectiveness. The use of local intermediaries has been considered as one possibility for improving the environmental effectiveness of such programs. German Landcare Associations (LCAs) have been identified as one intermediary that holds the potential to positively influence the implementation of agri-environmental measures (AEMs). This paper empirically assesses the involvement of LCAs in the context of AEM implementation in Germany. An online questionnaire was distributed to all LCAs in Germany. In a first step, we examine if LCAs (1) provide social networks between stakeholders and (2) provide agri-environmental information and assistance to farmers. In a second step, the LCAs assess (3) their perception of how strongly their work influences farmers' participation in PES schemes and (4) if they pursue the spatial targeting of AEMs. In a third step, we relate the relative level of social networks and the provision of agri-environmental information and assistance to their stated influence on farmers' participation in and spatial targeting of AEMs. Finally we derive overall conclusions on how intermediaries can enhance the effectiveness of PES programs in general.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Proponents of this approach view "true PES" as a means to put Coase theorem into practice [7••] and emphasize the advantages of PES over traditional command and control mechanism-such as cost effectiveness, flexibility, and greater respect for freedom [e.g., 30,94,95]. The extensive use of market rhetoric among the scholars, who talk about buying and selling ecosystem services [6••, 7••, 96], led to the general misconception that PES are inherently market-based instruments (MBI), and as such rely on the competitive market forces for their functionality [97,98].…”

Section: Commodification Legitimacy and Market-based Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payments for Ecosystem Services—the Case of Forests

Prokofieva

2016

Curr Forestry Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) is a trending topic in environmental resource management. The literature on PES has been growing almost exponentially, and practical applications of PES schemes are mushrooming all around the world. In this review article, I present the existing definitions of PES, the factors to consider during the design and implementation stages of PES programs, as well as discuss the recent theoretical debates related to PES in the literature-specifically those related to commodification and legitimacy of PES, its behavioral implications as well as the issues of power and equity. Despite a wealth of accumulated knowledge in the theoretical and experimental fields related to PES, there is still a considerable lack of empirical studies assessing the practical implementation of PES in the field. Only a few schemes are actually systematically assessed, and there is still a lack of a unified comprehensive framework for the thorough evaluation of existing practical experiences. I outline some of the future research challenges that need to be tackled in order to gain a better understanding of the opportunities that the PES mechanism offers to environmental policy makers and other interested stakeholders.

show abstract

“…However, in contrast with PES, this inclusion has not been promoted by practitioners or specialists of global value chains, standards, or labels. It stemmed instead from scholarly endeavor and is associated with attempts to inventory, classify, or compare MBIs [10,12,68]. Ad hoc legitimizing narratives have been drawn up in retrospect.…”

Section: Eco-certification: Recognition Of Ecosystem Services As Joinmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is therefore quite normal that they should appear as the privileged type of MBI to account for ES. However, environmental certification is sometimes referred to as well in this context [10][11][12]58,59]. …”

Section: Payments For Ecosystem Services: From Discourse To Politicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While referring to the market, this notion is not clearly anchored in economic theory. Its definition and scope are still debated, and the term is very loosely used to refer to a wide range of policy tools such as taxes, cap-and-trade allowances, eco-labels, carbon or biodiversity offsets, or payments for ecosystem services [10][11][12]. There is no consensual list nor commonly accepted classification of MBIs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services between Discourse and Reality: An Economic and Narrative Analysis

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the mid-1990s, the concept of ecosystem services has become increasingly popular in academic circles and among decision-makers. Because of its inclusive character, this concept has given rise to different interpretations in economics. Since its inception, it has been associated with the development of market-based instruments (MBIs) in conservation policies. From this perspective, the sustainable provision of ecosystem services is hindered by market failures (e.g., public good attributes, externalities) and prices that do not capture the full value of the natural assets. MBIs are therefore recommended. According to their promoters, they provide powerful incentives to conserve the environment while at the same time offering new sources of income to support rural livelihoods. Our paper contends that OPEN ACCESS Sustainability 2015, 7 11596 different economic narratives, and associated representations of the market failure at stake with the provision of ecosystem services, may support different policy instruments that are all coined as MBIs.As an illustration, we analyze the economic discourse underlying payments for ecosystem services and eco-labels, and we underline the variety of institutional forms to which they give rise in order to emphasize the differences between discourse and practice.

show abstract

Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle

Cited by 77 publications

References 37 publications

How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance

How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance

Payments for Ecosystem Services—the Case of Forests

Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services between Discourse and Reality: An Economic and Narrative Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About