How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor?: preliminary Lessons from Latin America

By M. Grieg-Gran, I. Porras, Sven Wunder. 2005

524 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fbff5eb301f3180dfa84eab1a38e71ba462574de

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

Can the poor participate in payments for environmental services? Lessons from the Silvopastoral Project in Nicaragua (2008, background): “Many have assumed that PES will contribute to poverty reduction by making payments to poor land users, while others have warned of potential dangers (Kerr, 2002; Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Pagiola et al., 2002; Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Pagiola et al., 2005).”
The Different Dimensions of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) Schemes: A Systematic Review (2018, background): “Certainly, assessing the socioeconomic impacts of PES is complex and requires evaluation across a range of actors – ES providers, direct users, and beyond (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Hegde and Bull, 2011) – and time scales.”
Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? (2010, background): “For example, Landell-Mills and Porras (2002) listed almost 300 examples of such mechanisms worldwide, and the number has grown since.”
Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view (2010, background): “Although poverty alleviation is usually not the main objective of PES schemes, it is increasingly recognised to be an important positive side-effect of the environmental market (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Landell-Mills and Porras, 2002; Pagiola et al., 2005).”
Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico (2011, background): “Our results confirm that land tenure is a crucial aspect for PES to have impact on the poor (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Landell-Mills, 2002; Pagiola et al., 2005).”
Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. (2010, background): “Without such security, land stewards may have difficulty managing land for ecosystem services, claiming compensation for the services provided, and integrating ecosystem services with other productive activities to assemble a viable livelihood strategy (Grieg-Gran et al. 2005).”
Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services (2013, unknown): “…land-based ecosystem services requires access to land, thereby excluding the landless from such PES schemes; delivering such services most efficiently favours participation by larger landowners, with predictable consequences for local equity (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Zbinden and Lee, 2005).”
Payments for Environmental Services: Evolution Toward Efficient and Fair Incentives for Multifunctional Landscapes (2012, background): “These include lack of clear tenure, lack of land, high transaction costs, and high up-front investments needed to adopt new land-use practices (26, 94).”
Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica : A fuzzy multi-criteria analysis (2008, background): “Market mechanisms for forest environmental services are increasingly being used for promoting environmental conservation and their impacts on development are of considerable interest (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005).”
Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach (2010, background): “That is, analysing the factors conditioning the eligibility, ability, and willingness of the poor to participate in PES programs (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Pagiola et al., 2005; Proctor et al., 2008; Wunder, 2008).”
The forest transition: Towards a more comprehensive theoretical framework☆ (2010, background): “…have largely focused n forest systems, and mainly four services from such systems: arbon sequestration, watershed protection, biodiversity benefits nd landscape beauty (Coomes et al., 2008; Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; ohnstone and Bishop, 2007; Landel-Mills and Porras, 2002; Pagiola t al., 2005).”
Poverty, development, and environment (2010, background): “…at paying landowners for the opportunity costs of preserving natural landscapes that provide one or more diverse services: carbon sequestration, watershed protection, biodiversity benefits, wildlife protection, and landscape beauty (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005; Pagiola et al., 2005; Wunder, 2008).”
Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? (2012, background): “(Grieg-Gran et al., 2005).”
Targeting and implementing payments for ecosystem services: Opportunities for bundling biodiversity conservation with carbon and water services in Madagascar (2010, background): “Reviews of the PES approach have warned that without secure property rights “buyers” will be reluctant to join into contracts with land owners, and land owners will not be able to exclude others from accessing their land (Chomitz et al., 1999; Greig-Gran et al., 2005; Pagiola et al., 2005).”
Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil (2014, background): “But it is certainly a positive argument for those promoting PES schemes, not only as an instrument to address environmental issues but also as a rural development instrument with potential poverty alleviation features (Grieg-Gran et al., 2005).”
Property rights and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2009, background): “provision (e.g. Fearnside, 2003; Grieg-Gran et al., 2005).”