Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America

Corbera, Esteve; Kosoy, Nicolás; Tuna, Miguel Martínez

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.005

Cited by 316 publications

(193 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

179

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A number of tools and methods have been developed in recent years that can be used to assess, However, none of these enable site-scale data collection of high resolution without the need for specialist technical knowledge, long-term or highly detailed data collection or substantial costs. TESSA enables relatively rapid and inexpensive assessments by non-experts of the magnitude, monetary values (where appropriate) and distribution of ecosystem services delivered by sites, resulting in an understanding of the consequences of potential changes in land management on ecosystem service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6 provision and consideration of the equity implications of decisions-key to achieving any social development goals-that are often overlooked in other assessments (Pagiola et al, 2005;Corbera et al, 2007a, Corbera et al, 2007b. Hence TESSA was the most appropriate method to use in this study because it suited the capacity of the national NGO (Bird Conservation Nepal, BCN) implementing the work.…”

Section: Federation Of Community Forestry Users Nepal (Fecofun) Evimentioning

confidence: 99%

What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

Thapa²,

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Nepal, community forestry is part of a national strategy for livelihoods improvement and environmental protection. However, analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts of community forestry is often limited, restricted to a narrow set of benefits (e.g. non-timber forest products) and rarely makes comparisons with alternative land-use options (e.g. agriculture). This study, conducted at Phulchoki Mountain Forest Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) in the Kathmandu Valley, used methods from the Toolkit for Site-based Ecosystem Service Assessment (TESSA) to compare multiple ecosystem service values (including carbon storage, greenhouse gas sequestration, water provision, water quality, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods and nature-based recreation) provided by the site in its current state and a plausible alternative state in which community forestry had not been implemented. We found that outcomes from community forestry have been favourable for most stakeholders, at most scales, for most services and for important biodiversity at the site. However, not all ecosystem services can be maximised simultaneously, and impacts of land-use decisions on service beneficiaries appear to differ according to socio-economic factors. The policy implications of our findings are discussed in the context of proposals to designate Phulchoki Mountain Forest IBA as part of a Conservation Area.Keywords: beneficiaries; biodiversity conservation; community forestry; equity; livelihoods; participatory management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Forests are widely recognised as providing benefits not just for the conservation of nature but also for human well-being (Myers, 1997). These benefits, referred to as ecosystem services, are realised at a range of scales, including local-level forest products, regional-level watershed services and global benefits from global climate change mitigation through carbon storage and greenhouse gas sequestration. However, at the local level it is often the case that benefits and costs are not equitably distributed. In Nepal, despite improved forest management and environmental conditions since the introduction of community forests (Baland et al., 2010;Chhetri et al., 2012), some studies suggest that the poorest and the most marginalised members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 5 of communities, including women, may receive the least benefit (Keshev & Varughese, 2000; Malla et al., 2003;Adhikari, 2005;Ojha et al., 2009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ...

show abstract

Section: Federation Of Community Forestry Users Nepal (Fecofun) Evimentioning

confidence: 99%

What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

Thapa²,

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Globally, there are numerous PES initiatives ranging from local initiatives for conserving watersheds to regional and global arrangements for conservation of biodiversity and carbon sequestration (Corbera et al, 2007;Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002;. There are also initiatives related to landscape amenities and bundles of ecosystem services (Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contributes to the limited empirical evidence on the determinants of farmers' participation decision in agricultural land (land use-modifying) payments for ecosystem services (PES) in developing countries. It examines how farmer and farm characteristics, We used a multi-method approach to make use of both qualitative and quantitative data.We found that farm size, information, participation of farmers in the programme design and the needed degree of change in land management determined the adoption of sustainable land management practices. To foster the participation of small farmers, attention needs to be paid to the availability and access to information, participation of farmers in the design of programmes, local compatibility of practices, and support for initial costs of adoption. Keywords

show abstract

“…For example, some reforestation projects expect improved water availability downstream for reducing peoplés vulnerability, which is not always the case (Locatelli and Vignola 2009). Some mitigation projects claim that carbon revenues will diversify livelihoods and increase household incomes with an effect on the resilience of communities; however, carbon projects or payments for environmental services do not always result in higher household incomes, particularly when the incentivized activities lead to smaller benefits and larger costs for households (Corbera et al 2007;Locatelli et al 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects

Kongsager¹,

Locatelli

Chazarin

2015

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptation and mitigation share the ultimate purpose of reducing climate change impacts. However, they tend to be considered separately in projects and policies because of their different objectives and scales. Agriculture and forestry are related to both adaptation and mitigation: they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and removals, are vulnerable to climate variations, and form part of adaptive strategies for rural livelihoods. We assessed how climate change project design documents (PDDs) considered a joint contribution to adaptation and mitigation in forestry and agriculture in the tropics, by analyzing 201 PDDs from adaptation funds, mitigation instruments, and project standards [e.g., climate community and biodiversity (CCB)]. We analyzed whether PDDs established for one goal reported an explicit contribution to the other (i.e., whether mitigation PDDs contributed to adaptation and vice versa). We also examined whether the proposed activities or expected outcomes allowed for potential contributions to the two goals. Despite the separation between the two goals in international and national institutions, 37 % of the PDDs explicitly mentioned a contribution to the other objective, although only half of those substantiated it. In addition, most adaptation (90 %) and all mitigation PDDs could potentially report a contribution to at least partially to the other goal. Some adaptation project developers were interested in mitigation for the prospect of carbon funding, whereas mitigation project developers integrated adaptation to achieve greater longterm sustainability or to attain CCB certification. International and national institutions can provide incentives for projects to harness synergies and avoid trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation.

show abstract

Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America

Cited by 316 publications

References 22 publications

What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania

Addressing Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Together: A Global Assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About