IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v47y2015i10p2080-2096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Implications on equity in agricultural carbon market projects: a gendered analysis of access, decision making, and outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Jean Lee
  • Adrian Martin
  • Patti Kristjanson
  • Eva Wollenberg

Abstract

Carbon market projects have focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, often at the expense of achieving sustainable development goals. A central pillar in sustainable development is equity, yet most projects pay little attention to equity implications for underrepresented farmers, especially women. Agricultural carbon market projects that explicitly seek to promote sustainable agricultural land management practices are quickly gaining attention worldwide for their promise to deliver the ‘triple-win’: adaptation, food security, and mitigation. Previous experience with other payment for ecosystem services projects indicate that women often are marginalized and their needs ignored. To address this gap, this case study examined the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project with a focus on gender equity in access, decision making, and outcomes. Results show that women had less access to joining the project than men, because they did not have the same level of influence in decision making at a household level. At the project level, both men and women had little influence in establishing project requirements and potential benefits, as these were decided upon prior to farmer recruitment. Regarding outcomes, women tended to participate in more project activities, and would in return reap more nonmonetary benefits than men. However, the costs involved in achieving these benefits was nontrivial: women's farm labor time increased significantly due to the substantial time and effort required to implement sustainable agricultural land management practices. If agricultural soil carbon market projects are to achieve better outcomes by addressing equity issues, they need to pay special attention to gender and the differing needs of farmers—male, female, young, old, poor, and less poor—by involving them at the project design stage. Our findings show the importance of additional project benefits unrelated to carbon income for addressing the requirements of equity perceived by both the implementing agency and women themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean Lee & Adrian Martin & Patti Kristjanson & Eva Wollenberg, 2015. "Implications on equity in agricultural carbon market projects: a gendered analysis of access, decision making, and outcomes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(10), pages 2080-2096, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:47:y:2015:i:10:p:2080-2096
    DOI: 10.1177/0308518X15595897
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X15595897
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0308518X15595897?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gladwin, Christina H. & Thomson, Anne M. & Peterson, Jennifer S. & Anderson, Andrea S., 2001. "Addressing food security in Africa via multiple livelihood strategies of women farmers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 177-207, April.
    2. Rocheleau, Dianne & Edmunds, David, 1997. "Women, men and trees: Gender, power and property in forest and agrarian landscapes," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 1351-1371, August.
    3. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    4. 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.
    5. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    6. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    7. Locatelli, Bruno & Rojas, Varinia & Salinas, Zenia, 2008. "Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica: A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 275-285, April.
    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. Katie Tavenner & Todd A. Crane, 2018. "Gender power in Kenyan dairy: cows, commodities, and commercialization," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(3), pages 701-715, September.

    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. 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.
    2. Blundo-Canto, Genowefa & Bax, Vincent & Quintero, Marcela & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Perez-Marulanda, Lisset, 2018. "The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 160-183.
    3. Bhattarai, Basundhara & Beilin, Ruth & Ford, Rebecca, 2015. "Gender, Agrobiodiversity, and Climate Change: A Study of Adaptation Practices in the Nepal Himalayas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 122-132.
    4. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Tschakert, Petra, 2007. "Environmental services and poverty reduction: Options for smallholders in the Sahel," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 75-86, April.
    6. Margareta Amy Lelea & Lydia Madintin Konlan & Rashida Chantima Ziblila & Lara Elena Thiele & Araba Amo-Aidoo & Brigitte Kaufmann, 2022. "Strategies to Promote Sustainable Development: The Gendered Importance of Addressing Diminishing African Locust Bean ( Parkia biglobosa ) Resources in Northern Ghana’s Agro-Ecological Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    7. Li Yang & Guanghua Qiao, 2023. "Grassland Ecological Compensation, Income Level and Policy Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis Based on a Survey of Herders in Ecological Protection Redline Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    8. Vorlaufer, Miriam & Ibanez, Marcela & Juanda, Bambang & Wollni, Meike, 2015. "Conservation vs. equity: Can payments for environmental services achieve both?," EFForTS Discussion Paper Series 18, University of Goettingen, Collaborative Research Centre 990 "EFForTS, Ecological and Socioeconomic Functions of Tropical Lowland Rainforest Transformation Systems (Sumatra, Indonesia)".
    9. Andeltová, Lucie & Catacutan, Delia C. & Wünscher, Tobias & Holm-Müller, Karin, 2019. "Gender aspects in action- and outcome-based payments for ecosystem services—A tree planting field trial in Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 13-22.
    10. Clot, Sophie & Andriamahefazafy, Fano & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Méral, Philippe, 2015. "Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services (CRES) and efficient design of contracts in developing countries. Behavioral insights from a natural field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 85-96.
    11. Agarwal, Bina, 2009. "Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women's participation in community forest governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2785-2799, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Sunderland, Terry & Achdiawan, Ramadhani & Angelsen, Arild & Babigumira, Ronnie & Ickowitz, Amy & Paumgarten, Fiona & Reyes-García, Victoria & Shively, Gerald, 2014. "Challenging Perceptions about Men, Women, and Forest Product Use: A Global Comparative Study," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 56-66.
    14. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    15. 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.
    16. Bremer, Leah L. & Farley, Kathleen A. & Lopez-Carr, David & Romero, José, 2014. "Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for ‘win–win’?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 148-165.
    17. Emmanuel Kumi & Albert Arhin & Thomas Yeboah, 2014. "Can post-2015 sustainable development goals survive neoliberalism? A critical examination of the sustainable development–neoliberalism nexus in developing countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 539-554, June.
    18. Cerian Gibbes & Allison L. Hopkins & Armando Inurreta Díaz & Juan Jimenez-Osornio, 2020. "Defining and measuring sustainability: a systematic review of studies in rural Latin America and the Caribbean," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 447-468, January.
    19. Guerra, Raissa, 2016. "Assessing preconditions for implementing a Payment for Environmental Services initiative in Cotriguaçu (Mato Grosso, Brazil)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PA), pages 31-38.
    20. Chu, Long & Quentin Grafton, R. & Keenan, Rodney, 2019. "Increasing Conservation Efficiency While Maintaining Distributive Goals With the Payment for Environmental Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 202-210.

    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:sae:envira:v:47:y:2015:i:10:p:2080-2096. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.