Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism

Kosoy, Nicolás; Corbera, Esteve

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002

Cited by 667 publications

(384 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

372

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of particular concern is the potential of commodified ecosystem services to undermine traditional and other local institutions that (re)distribute resources, provide 'safety nets' for the poor, or establish sanctions for sustainable resource use (e.g. labour-sharing arrangements, patron-client relationships and belief-systems) (Birkenholtz, 2009;Kosoy and Corbera, 2010;Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002) .…”

Section: Contextual Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, optimism about the potential of PES is counteracted by mounting concerns that local equity may be undermined, or that existing inequalities may be worsened, as the local value 2 of ecosystem services is transformed by changes in their global value -whether caused by market forces or regional and global initiatives to pay for them (Ghazoul et al, 2010;Sikor et al, 2010). Such value shifts may serve the interests of elites and intermediary organisations, while local actors lose access to significant livelihood resources without any significant benefits or influence over the terms of trade (Corbera and Brown, 2010;Kosoy and Corbera, 2010;McAfee and Shapiro, 2010;Pascual et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services

McDermott

Mahanty

Schreckenberg

2013

Environmental Science & Policy

482

459

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern over social equity dominates current debates about payments for ecosystem services and reduced deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Yet, despite the apprehension that these initiatives may undermine equity, the term is generally left undefined. This paper presents a systematic framework for the analysis of equity that can be used to examine how local equity is affected as the global value of ecosystem services changes. Our framework identifies three dimensions that form the content (the what) of equity. The first, distributive equity, addresses the distribution of benefits and costs. The second, procedural equity, refers to decision-making. These are linked by the third dimension, contextual equity, which incorporates the pre-existing conditions that limit or facilitate people's access to decision-making procedures, resources and, thereby, benefits.The framework then asks how these dimensions are shaped by the scale and target group of concern (who), the framing of goals with respect to equity (why), and, crucially, how the decisions about the content, target and aims of equity are taken. By spurring debate around the fundamental ethical values at stake, this framework can guide analysts, policymakers and planners towards more open and inclusive processes for defining equity, along with affirmative efforts to engage marginalised people.

show abstract

Section: Contextual Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services

McDermott

Mahanty

Schreckenberg

2013

Environmental Science & Policy

482

459

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are still constraints associated with their widespread use, constraints that are attributed to methodologies that are not fully understood, poor transparency, a lack of acceptance by researchers and policy makers, and conceptual problems (Redford and Adams 2009). For example, limitations can be related to calculations of total economic values (TEV), double counting, a transfer of benefits that is automatically assumed, biases that are either inherent to or generated by the survey process, and uncertainties in natural systems under various scenarios (Hadker et al 1997;Chee 2004;Kosoy and Corbera 2010). In addition, some of the intrinsic values of nature (e.g., natural beauty, the intrinsic value of existing species, values of sacred places to faith groups, etc.)…”

Section: Practical Considerations Core Elementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas

Pechacek

Guo

et al. 2012

AMBIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protected areas are powerful instruments to tackle the biodiversity crises. However, local communities believe that protected areas generate downsides for which they should be compensated. We reviewed (1) problem evolution, (2) the idea of compensation schemes, and (3) practical considerations. We found that compensations for conservation-related losses are insufficiently considered when protected areas are established. Schemes include controversial resettlements of human populations, traditional reimbursements, and recently favored incentive payments to encourage local communities to conserve biodiversity on their lands. The compensation process is typically composed of the verification of losses/facts, estimation of costs, and delivery of payments. Compensation schemes promote tolerance and awareness, and responsibility of the broader society while minimizing confrontations. They have the power to mainstream concern about human welfare in protected area management, and are therefore a key to successful conservation. Verifying the impact of compensations on achievement of conservation goals remains, however, difficult to prove.

show abstract

“…To sell bio-sequestered carbon on a market, it must therefore be metaphorically "disembedded" from its supporting context through complex, costly, and continuous techniques of measurement, calculation, and monitoring to "abstract" it as a homogenous entity that can be exchanged on the market. These contradictory characteristics of forest-based carbon offsets make them the quintessential fictitious commodity (Kosoy and Corbera 2010;Lansing 2010;Osborne 2015).…”

Section: Agrarian Context and Carbon Markets In Mexicomentioning

confidence: 99%