IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v139y2017icp91-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Funding Source Influences the Form of REDD+ Initiatives: The Case of Market Versus Public Funds in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • Piffer Salles, Guilherme
  • Paiva Salinas, Delhi Teresa
  • Paulino, Sônia Regina

Abstract

The Mechanism to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), which is being implemented by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is considered essential to provide economic incentives for the adoption of forest-based mitigation measures against global climate change. This article analyses the key characteristics of REDD+ pilot initiatives in Brazil from different perspectives concerning the concept of payment for environmental services, while exploring how these characteristics relate to the funding models adopted, regardless of whether they are sourced from public funds or via the carbon market. Data collected from publicly available databases are analysed using hypothesis tests. Ten variables from 89 pilot initiatives approved by the Voluntary Carbon Market or the Fundo Amazônia (Amazon Fund) are examined. Findings show that initiatives under each funding model have distinct characteristics in terms of stakeholders, criteria for incentive concession, time frames, geographical reach, as well as Measurement, Report and Verification (MRV) practices. Differences are consistent with distinct theoretical conceptions on incentive-based economic instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Piffer Salles, Guilherme & Paiva Salinas, Delhi Teresa & Paulino, Sônia Regina, 2017. "How Funding Source Influences the Form of REDD+ Initiatives: The Case of Market Versus Public Funds in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 91-101.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:139:y:2017:i:c:p:91-101
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916310266
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    2. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    3. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    4. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    5. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    6. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    7. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    8. Mattia Fosci, 2013. "The economic case for prioritizing governance over financial incentives in REDD+," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 170-190, March.
    9. Cacho, Oscar J. & Lipper, Leslie & Moss, Jonathan, 2013. "Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 232-243.
    10. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    11. Sunderlin, William D. & Larson, Anne M. & Duchelle, Amy E. & Resosudarmo, Ida Aju Pradnja & Huynh, Thu Ba & Awono, Abdon & Dokken, Therese, 2014. "How are REDD+ Proponents Addressing Tenure Problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 37-52.
    12. Lederer, Markus, 2011. "From CDM to REDD+ -- What do we know for setting up effective and legitimate carbon governance?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1900-1907, September.
    13. Roldan Muradian & Murat Arsel & Lorenzo Pellegrini & Fikret Adaman & Bernardo Aguilar & Bina Agarwal & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine de Blas & Joshua Farley & Géraldine Froger & Eduardo Garcia-Frapoll, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions," Post-Print hal-03067404, HAL.
    14. Arraes, Ronaldo de Albuquerque e & Mariano, Francisca Zilania & Simonassi, Andrei Gomes, 2012. "Causas do Desmatamento no Brasil e seu Ordenamento no Contexto Mundial," Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology (Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural-RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 50(1), pages 1-22, March.
    15. Duchelle, Amy E. & Cromberg, Marina & Gebara, Maria Fernanda & Guerra, Raissa & Melo, Tadeu & Larson, Anne & Cronkleton, Peter & Börner, Jan & Sills, Erin & Wunder, Sven & Bauch, Simone & May, Peter &, 2014. "Linking Forest Tenure Reform, Environmental Compliance, and Incentives: Lessons from REDD+ Initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 53-67.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sheng, Jichuan & Hong, Qiu & Han, Xiao, 2019. "Neoliberal conservation in REDD+: The roles of market power and incentive designs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Sheng, Jichuan, 2019. "Neoliberal environmentality and incentive-coordinated REDD+ contracts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 400-407.
    3. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Hong, 2018. "Governmentality within REDD+: Optimizing incentives and efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 611-622.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haas, Johannes Christian & Loft, Lasse & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2019. "How fair can incentive-based conservation get? The interdependence of distributional and contextual equity in Vietnam's payments for Forest Environmental Services Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 205-214.
    2. Ma, Zhao & Bauchet, Jonathan & Steele, Diana & Godoy, Ricardo & Radel, Claudia & Zanotti, Laura, 2017. "Comparison of Direct Transfers for Human Capital Development and Environmental Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 498-517.
    3. Kaiser, Josef & Krueger, Tobias & Haase, Dagmar, 2023. "Global patterns of collective payments for ecosystem services and their degrees of commodification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    4. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    5. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    6. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    7. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Vásquez, William F., 2012. "The viability of local payments for watershed services: Empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 169-176.
    8. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    9. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    10. Kristin Nicolaus & Jens Jetzkowitz, 2014. "How Does Paying for Ecosystem Services Contribute to Sustainable Development? Evidence from Case Study Research in Germany and the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-24, May.
    11. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.
    12. Gwenole Le Velly & Céline Dutilly Diane & Driss Ezzine de Blas & Chloë Fernandez, 2015. "PES as Compensation ? Redistribution of Payments for Forest Conservation in Mexican Common Forests," CERDI Working papers halshs-01226800, HAL.
    13. García-Amado, Luis Rico & Pérez, Manuel Ruiz & Escutia, Felipe Reyes & García, Sara Barrasa & Mejía, Elsa Contreras, 2011. "Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2361-2368.
    14. Reutemann, Tim & Engel, Stefanie & Pareja, Eliana, 2016. "How (not) to pay — Field experimental evidence on the design of REDD+ payments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 220-229.
    15. Chan, Kai M.A. & Anderson, Emily & Chapman, Mollie & Jespersen, Kristjan & Olmsted, Paige, 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 110-122.
    16. Teo Dang Do & Anchana NaRanong, 2019. "Livelihood and Environmental Impacts of Payments for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, August.
    17. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    19. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    20. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:139:y:2017:i:c:p:91-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.