IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v96y2020ics0264837718320003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The politics of environmental market instruments: Coalition building and knowledge filtering in the regulation of forest certificates trading in Brazil

Author

Listed:
  • van der Hoff, Richard
  • Rajão, Raoni

Abstract

Market instruments for environmental governance have a foundation in an economic theorythat claims to be universal and atemporal, but their materialization in practice always takes place in specific socioeconomic and political contexts. The Brazilian trade in forest certificates (CRA) is a new market instrument that allows farmers that have deforested illegally prior to 2008 to become compliant by acquiring certificates from other farmers that conserve a forest area beyond legal requirements. Even though the CRA market has been praised as an innovative environmental policy, it is still unclear whether it will be implemented even after more than two decades of political debate, congressional approval of legislation and substantial investments in new supporting systems. This research paper aims to analyze the materialization of this market by reconstructing how policy participants form advocacy coalitions (i.e. environmental protection, market viability and agricultural consolidation) to advance their interests. Our results show that advocacy coalitions filter (i.e. absorb, reject or transform) new ideas, experiences and knowledge in order to influence the regulations for forest certificate trading. In doing so, they often combine positions, form new alliances and merge with other advocacy coalitions in accordance with the interests of their constituents. These fluid allegiances within and between coalitions explain why market materialization remains ambiguous and unlikely to become operational in the near future.

Suggested Citation

  • van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni, 2020. "The politics of environmental market instruments: Coalition building and knowledge filtering in the regulation of forest certificates trading in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:96:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718320003
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718320003
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104666?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. B. Timothy Heinmiller & Kevin Pirak, 2017. "Advocacy Coalitions in Ontario Land Use Policy Development," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 34(2), pages 168-185, March.
    2. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    3. 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.
    4. Cunha, Felipe Arias Fogliano de Souza & Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Cosenza, Carlos Alberto Nunes & Lucena, André F.P., 2016. "The implementation costs of forest conservation policies in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 209-220.
    5. Brenda Brito, 2017. "Potential trajectories of the upcoming forest trading mechanism in Pará State, Brazilian Amazon," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
    6. Frank J. Convery, 2009. "Reflections--The Emerging Literature on Emissions Trading in Europe," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 3(1), pages 121-137, Winter.
    7. Flavio L. M. Freitas & Gerd Sparovek & Göran Berndes & U. Martin Persson & Oskar Englund & Alberto Barretto & Ulla Mörtberg, 2018. "Potential increase of legal deforestation in Brazilian Amazon after Forest Act revision," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(11), pages 665-670, November.
    8. Paula Bernasconi & Stefan Blumentrath & David N Barton & Graciela M Rusch & Ademar R Romeiro, 2016. "Constraining Forest Certificate’s Market to Improve Cost-Effectiveness of Biodiversity Conservation in São Paulo State, Brazil," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    9. van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni & Leroy, Pieter, 2019. "Can REDD+ still become a market? Ruptured dependencies and market logics for emission reductions in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 121-129.
    10. Elliott, Chris & Schlaepfer, Rodolphe, 2001. "Understanding forest certification using the Advocacy Coalition Framework," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3-4), pages 257-266, July.
    11. Sandra Nicolle & Maya Leroy, 2017. "Advocacy coalitions and protected areas creation process: Case study in the Amazon," Post-Print hal-01529019, HAL.
    12. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    13. Villamor, Grace B., 2006. "The rise of protected area policy in the Philippine forest policy: An analysis from the perspective of Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 162-178, November.
    14. Chomitz, Kenneth M. & Thomas, Timothy S. & Brandão, Antônio Salazar P., 2005. "The economic and environmental impact of trade in forest reserve obligations: a simulation analysis of options for dealing with habitat heterogeneity," Brazilian Journal of Rural Economy and Sociology (Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural-RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 43(4), pages 1-28, December.
    15. World Bank & Ecofys, "undated". "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2018," World Bank Publications - Reports 29687, The World Bank Group.
    16. Solveig Aamodt, 2018. "The Ability to Influence: A Comparative Analysis of the Role of Advocacy Coalitions in Brazilian Climate Politics," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(3), pages 372-397, May.
    17. Pirard, Romain & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2014. "Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 106-114.
    18. Barnes, Clare & van Laerhoven, Frank & Driessen, Peter P.J., 2016. "Advocating for Change? How a Civil Society-led Coalition Influences the Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 162-175.
    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. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    2. Young, Carlos Eduardo Frickmann & Castro, Biancca Scarpeline, 2021. "Financing mechanisms to bridge the resource gap to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services in Brazil," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    3. Xiaodi Yang & Di Wang, 2022. "Heterogeneous Environmental Regulation, Foreign Direct Investment, and Regional Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Xiaoping Zhou & Xiaotian Li & Wei Song & Xiangbin Kong & Xiao Lu, 2021. "Farmland Transitions in China: An Advocacy Coalition Approach," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, January.
    3. van der Hoff, Richard & Rajão, Raoni & Leroy, Pieter, 2019. "Can REDD+ still become a market? Ruptured dependencies and market logics for emission reductions in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 121-129.
    4. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    5. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    7. Pierre Mokondoko & Robert H Manson & Taylor H Ricketts & Daniel Geissert, 2018. "Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, February.
    8. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    9. Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 150-157.
    10. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Schirpke, Uta & Marino, Davide & Marucci, Angelo & Palmieri, Margherita, 2018. "Positive effects of payments for ecosystem services on biodiversity and socio-economic development: Examples from Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 96-105.
    12. Keles, Derya & Delacote, Philippe & Pfaff, Alexander & Qin, Siyu & Mascia, Michael B., 2020. "What Drives the Erasure of Protected Areas? Evidence from across the Brazilian Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Brito, Brenda, 2020. "The pioneer market for forest law compliance in Paragominas, Eastern Brazilian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. 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.
    15. West, Thales A.P. & Monge, Juan J. & Dowling, Les J. & Wakelin, Steve J. & Gibbs, Holly K., 2020. "Promotion of afforestation in New Zealand’s marginal agricultural lands through payments for environmental services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    16. Géraldine Froger & Valérie Boisvert & Philippe Méral & Jean-François Le Coq & Armelle Caron & Olivier Aznar, 2015. "Market-Based Instruments for Ecosystem Services between Discourse and Reality: An Economic and Narrative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(9), pages 1-17, August.
    17. Uta Schirpke & Rocco Scolozzi & Riccardo Da Re & Mauro Masiero & Davide Pellegrino & Davide Marino, 2020. "Enhancing outdoor recreation and biodiversity through payments for ecosystem services: emerging potentials from selected Natura 2000 sites in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2045-2067, March.
    18. 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.
    19. Farhan, Farwiza & Hoebink, Paul, 2019. "Can campaigns save forests? Critical reflections from the Tripa campaign, Aceh, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 17-27.
    20. Primmer, Eeva & Varumo, Liisa & Krause, Torsten & Orsi, Francesco & Geneletti, Davide & Brogaard, Sara & Aukes, Ewert & Ciolli, Marco & Grossmann, Carol & Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica & Kister, Jutta , 2021. "Mapping Europe’s institutional landscape for forest ecosystem service provision, innovations and governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).

    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:lauspo:v:96:y:2020:i:c:s0264837718320003. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.