Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism

By Nicolás Kosoy, E. Corbera. 2010

867 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e87ba3bc4f1240674b2e5ca04035636b1c88bb6f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Virtual nature, violent accumulation: The ‘spectacular failure’ of carbon offsetting at a Ugandan National Park (2014, background): “Consequently, incentives exist for ‘distancing’ evidence of encroachment from consumers (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010), as such extensive deforestation rightfully poses critical questions of leakage and permanence (Galik and Jackson, 2009), as well as concerns about the human rights and socio-economic…”
The Devil in the Detail: A Practical Guide on Designing Payments for Environmental Services (2016, background): “Several authors have pointed out that in situations where intrinsic motivations are important, there is a possibility that PES may “crowd-out” such motivations (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Vatn, 2010).”
Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico (2011, background): “Some authors suggest that PES could attract political support for conservation, but could also result in a commodification of a growing number of environmental services (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010; Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Ledant, 2008).”
Redefining payments for environmental services (2012, background): “Kosoy and Corbera (2010) emphasise that ecosystem properties evolve from the interplay of various factors including behavioural, biological, physical, and social interactions.”
Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence (2015, background): “Thus the effectiveness of economic incentives in achieving biodiversity conservation remains contested, and some authors suggest that the changes they can induce in motivations may, under certain conditions, undermine long term conservation efforts (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Vatn, 2010; Gómez-Baggeth”
The New ‘Passive Revolution’ of the Green Economy and Growth Discourse: Maintaining the ‘Sustainable Development’ of Neoliberal Capitalism (2015, background): “…resources but leads to more influence of corporations and international agencies over local resource use; and the commodification of nature can lead to a loss of local values and livelihoods and the displacement of ecological unsustainability to other places (Fletcher 2010; Kosoy and Corbera 2010).”
Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability (2017, background): “However, a substantial gap remains between these constructive suggestions for improving PES programs and the more fundamental critiques that have been levied against PES and market-based mechanisms more generally (Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; McAfee & Shapiro, 2010; Spash, 2008).”
Effects of Monetary Versus Environmental Information Framing: Implications for Long-Term Pro-Environmental Behavior and Intrinsic Motivation (2018, neutral): “Other studies show that monetary incentives may undermine long-term efforts regarding ecosystem conservation (Gómez-Baggethun & Ruiz-Pérez, 2011; Kosoy & Corbera, 2010; Muradian et al., 2013; Vatn, 2010).”
Fairly efficient, efficiently fair: Lessons from designing and testing payment schemes for ecosystem services in Asia (2015, background): “…of ES through PES can create technical problems in simultaneously addressing efficiency and fairness outcomes ; it also raises ethical arguments by obscuring cultural , political and social relationships in environmental service generation as also discussed by Kosoy and Corbera ( 2010 ) .”
Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions:Comparison of three programs from Cambodia? (2010, neutral): “…over threats and potential impacts of interventions, less specific payment programs that reward a set of outcomes (habitat protection and no-hunting agreements in the tourism and agri-environment cases) may be much more effective than a tightly targeted program (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010-this issue).”
Payments for ecosystem services as neoliberal conservation: (Reinterpreting) evidence from the Maloti-Drakensberg, South Africa (2012, background): “In several recent contributions, PES is referred to as commodity fetishism (Kosoy and Corbera 2010), a complexity blinder (Norgaard 2010), as well as ‘desirable from both a rural development and a social equity perspective’ (Blignaut et al. 2010: 1322).”
Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “PES for being a new form of ‘‘commodity fetishism’’ that oversimplifies complex ecosystem relationships, values and processes of production to a simple market price (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010).”
Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration (2014, background): “Layering may lead to double-counting (for example paying for the peatland restoration many times over on the basis of different benefits), and it assumes that services are produced independently, and that each service can be clearly delineated and quantified separately (Kosoy and Corbera, 2010).”