IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v62y2016icp109-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+

Author

Listed:
  • Trædal, Leif Tore
  • Vedeld, Pål Olav
  • Pétursson, Jón Geir

Abstract

This paper applies a critical institutional framework to analyze the transformation and path dependency of market-resembling environmental policy processes, exemplified by the implementation of forest PES in Vietnam. Here PES did not enter an institutional vacuum, but was rather transformed through a process of reproducing existing institutional structures. This partly reflects established norms and values about ‘best-ways’ of organizing forest management, but also existing structures of power, tenure and some groups' control over forest resources. In this sense, from a path dependency perspective, the new and ‘innovative’ market-based approaches, such as PES, do not represent ‘critical junctures’ with profound impacts on the future trajectory of forest management. The findings may have important implications for the prospects of implementing similar initiatives, such as REDD+. Future schemes of PES and REDD+ should hence to a higher degree take into account the limitations and challenges of institutional reproduction, interplay and path dependency in their planning and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:62:y:2016:i:c:p:109-117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934115300654
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.001?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. Sikor, Thomas & Nguyen, Tan Quang, 2007. "Why May Forest Devolution Not Benefit the Rural Poor? Forest Entitlements in Vietnam's Central Highlands," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 2010-2025, November.
    4. Dang, Thi Kim Phung & Turnhout, Esther & Arts, Bas, 2012. "Changing forestry discourses in Vietnam in the past 20years," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 31-41.
    5. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    6. Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 279-297, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    10. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    11. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    12. Pham Thu Thuy & Garnett & Aslin, 2011. "Organisational and Institutional Opportunities and Constraints for Poor Households to Participate in Payment for Environmental Service Schemes in Vietnam," Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 57-76, June.
    13. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    14. Pierson, Paul, 2000. "Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(2), pages 251-267, June.
    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. To, Phuc & Dressler, Wolfram, 2019. "Rethinking ‘Success’: The politics of payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 582-593.

    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. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Dekker, Thijs & Ojea, Elena & Lorenzo-Arribas, Altea, 2019. "Dissecting price setting efficiency in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A meta-analysis of payments for watershed services in Latin America," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    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. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    5. Singh, Neera M., 2015. "Payments for ecosystem services and the gift paradigm: Sharing the burden and joy of environmental care," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 53-61.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    9. Rodrigo Muniz & Maria João Cruz, 2015. "Making Nature Valuable, Not Profitable: Are Payments for Ecosystem Services Suitable for Degrowth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-27, August.
    10. Meyer, Claas & Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2018. "Qualitative comparative institutional analysis of environmental governance: Implications from research on payments for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 169-180.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. Farrell, Katharine N., 2014. "Intellectual mercantilism and franchise equity: A critical study of the ecological political economy of international payments for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 137-146.
    15. 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.
    16. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Waylen, Kerry A., 2018. "PES What a Mess? An Analysis of the Position of Environmental Professionals in the Conceptual Debate on Payments for Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 218-237.
    17. Brimont, L. & Karsenty, A., 2015. "Between incentives and coercion: the thwarted implementation of PES schemes in Madagascar׳s dense forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 113-121.
    18. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    19. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2014. "Recasting payments for ecosystem services (PES) in water resource management: A novel institutional approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 144-154.
    20. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 117-125.

    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:forpol:v:62:y:2016:i:c:p:109-117. 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/forpol .

    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.