IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v127y2023ics0264837723000121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Richard
  • Lippe, Melvin
  • Dolom, Priscilla
  • Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe
  • Tamayo, Fabian
  • Torres, Bolier

Abstract

Effective policy instruments are needed to halt or even reverse ongoing tropical deforestation. In this context, the increased focus on incentive-based instruments on the one hand and the unchanged support for classical command and control measures on the other, call for smart policy mixes. We aim to identify the effectiveness of policy instruments and of policy mixes based on stakeholder perceptions. We also aim to analyze stakeholders’ power in order to appraise the relevance of different instruments on national forest policy agendas. Our study implements related research based on more than 100 key informant interviews along the pantropical country-context of Ecuador, Philippines and Zambia. Principal component analysis is applied to identify forest policy mixes, and social network analysis to quantify stakeholder power. Our results show that despite recent discussions and support for incentive-based mechanisms like REDD+ and market-based solutions, regulative instruments are equally advocated. There is an astonishing congruence in the support of national stakeholders for specific policy instruments like reforestation subsidies, protected areas, and measures to combat illegal logging. But despite this high congruence, the policy instruments need to be implemented in country-specific combinations, because we find diverging stakeholder perceptions on national policy mixes. These diverging perceptions require good governance within the related decision and implementation processes. Whereas NGOs in general have a stronger focus on regulatory instruments, enterprises show more support for economic measures. International organizations have the most balanced perception in this respect, followed by national governments. National governments are the most powerful stakeholders. Their power is required to coordinate decision processes and ensure implementation. The almost equally powerful role of international organizations poses questions of ownership. We present a detailed analysis of policy mixes and recommendations for each of the three countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Richard & Lippe, Melvin & Dolom, Priscilla & Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Tamayo, Fabian & Torres, Bolier, 2023. "Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:127:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723000121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723000121
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106546?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. Sandström, Camilla & Kanyama, Annika Carlsson & Räty, Riitta & Sonnek, Karin Mossberg & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Mossing, Annika & Nordin, Annika, 2020. "Policy goals and instruments for achieving a desirable future forest: Experiences from backcasting with stakeholders in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Eric F. Lambin & Holly K. Gibbs & Robert Heilmayr & Kimberly M. Carlson & Leonardo C. Fleck & Rachael D. Garrett & Yann le Polain de Waroux & Constance L. McDermott & David McLaughlin & Peter Newton &, 2018. "The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 109-116, February.
    3. Kärkkäinen, Leena & Lehtonen, Heikki & Helin, Janne & Lintunen, Jussi & Peltonen-Sainio, Pirjo & Regina, Kristiina & Uusivuori, Jussi & Packalen, Tuula, 2020. "Evaluation of policy instruments for supporting greenhouse gas mitigation efforts in agricultural and urban land use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Michael Howlett & Jonathan Kim & Paul Weaver, 2006. "Assessing Instrument Mixes through Program‐ and Agency‐Level Data: Methodological Issues in Contemporary Implementation Research," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 23(1), pages 129-151, January.
    5. Stanzel, Jens & Krott, Max & Schusser, Carsten, 2020. "Power alliances for biodiversity—Results of an international study on community forestry," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Fischer, Richard & Tamayo Cordero, Fabian & Ojeda Luna, Tatiana & Ferrer Velasco, Rubén & DeDecker, Maria & Torres, Bolier & Giessen, Lukas & Günter, Sven, 2021. "Interplay of governance elements and their effects on deforestation in tropical landscapes: Quantitative insights from Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    7. Rahman, Md Saifur & Giessen, Lukas, 2017. "Formal and Informal Interests of Donors to Allocate Aid: Spending Patterns of USAID, GIZ, and EU Forest Development Policy in Bangladesh," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 250-267.
    8. Daniela A. Miteva & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Paul J. Ferraro, 2012. "Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 69-92, Spring.
    9. Brian Blankespoor & Susmita Dasgupta & David Wheeler, 2017. "Protected areas and deforestation: new results from high‐resolution panel data," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(1), pages 55-68, February.
    10. Edward T. Game & Heather Tallis & Lydia Olander & Steven M. Alexander & Jonah Busch & Nancy Cartwright & Elizabeth L. Kalies & Yuta J. Masuda & Anne-Christine Mupepele & Jiangxiao Qiu & Andrew Rooney , 2018. "Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(9), pages 452-454, September.
    11. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    12. Rahman, Md Saifur & Miah, Sohag & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "A new model of development coalition building: USAID achieving legitimate access and dominant information in Bangladesh’s forest policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 248-261.
    13. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Céline Dutilly & José-Alberto Lara-Pulido & Gwenolé Le Velly & Alejando Guevara-Sanginés, 2016. "Payments for Environmental Services in a Policymix: Spatial and Temporal Articulation in Mexico," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Jan Börner & Dario Schulz & Sven Wunder & Alexander Pfaff, 2020. "The Effectiveness of Forest Conservation Policies and Programs," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 45-64, October.
    15. Schröter, Barbara & Hauck, Jennifer & Hackenberg, Isabel & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2018. "Bringing transparency into the process: Social network analysis as a tool to support the participatory design and implementation process of Payments for Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 206-217.
    16. Arild Angelsen & Thomas K. Rudel, 2013. "Designing and Implementing Effective REDD + Policies: A Forest Transition Approach," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 91-113, January.
    17. Ojeda Luna, Tatiana & Zhunusova, Eliza & Günter, Sven & Dieter, Matthias, 2020. "Measuring forest and agricultural income in the Ecuadorian lowland rainforest frontiers: Do deforestation and conservation strategies matter?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Nansikombi, Hellen & Fischer, Richard & Kabwe, Gillian & Günter, Sven, 2020. "Exploring patterns of forest governance quality: Insights from forest frontier communities in Zambia’s Miombo ecoregion," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. von Kleist, Kurt & Herbohn, John & Baynes, Jack & Gregorio, Nestor, 2021. "How improved governance can help achieve the biodiversity conservation goals of the Philippine National Greening Program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Hayes, Tanya M., 2006. "Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An Institutional Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2064-2075, December.
    21. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    22. Zhang, Ying & Chen, Shuai, 2021. "Wood trade responses to ecological rehabilitation program: Evidence from China's new logging ban in natural forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    23. Soliku, Ophelia & Schraml, Ulrich, 2020. "Protected areas management: A comparison of perceived outcomes associated with different co-management types," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    24. Fischer, Richard & Hargita, Yvonne & Günter, Sven, 2016. "Insights from the ground level? A content analysis review of multi-national REDD+ studies since 2010," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 47-58.
    25. Fernando Reboredo, 2013. "Socio-economic, environmental, and governance impacts of illegal logging," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 295-304, June.
    26. Jan Börner & Kathy Baylis & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Paul J Ferraro & Jordi Honey-Rosés & Renaud Lapeyre & U Martin Persson & Sven Wunder, 2016. "Emerging Evidence on the Effectiveness of Tropical Forest Conservation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-11, November.
    27. Jonah Busch & Kalifi Ferretti-Gallon, 2017. "What Drives Deforestation and What Stops It? A Meta-Analysis," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 3-23.
    28. Tumaneng-Diete, T. & Ferguson, Ian S. & MacLaren, Donald, 2005. "Log export restrictions and trade policies in the Philippines: bane or blessing to sustainable forest management?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 187-198, February.
    29. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    30. Pablo Cuenca & Juan Robalino & Rodrigo Arriagada & Cristian Echeverría, 2018. "Are government incentives effective for avoided deforestation in the tropical Andean forest?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    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. Giudice, Renzo & Börner, Jan, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness and income effects of alternative forest conservation policy mixes for the Peruvian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Zhang, Shouguo & Zhang, Jianjun & Sha, Anmeng & Zhang, Yaping & Zhang, Di, 2023. "How to recognize the role of policy clusters in built-up land intensity: An empirical case of the Yangtze River Economic Belt of China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. Ziqiang Zhang & Jie He & Ming Huang & Wei Zhou, 2023. "Is Regulation Protection? Forest Logging Quota Impact on Forest Carbon Sinks in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Qianqian Zhang & Tao Li & Jianzhong Yan & Liuna Xie & Xiongwei Tan, 2024. "Targeted Poverty Alleviation for the Livelihood Improvement of Poverty-Stricken Households: A Case Study of Wuxi County, China," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 36(6), pages 1519-1544, December.
    5. Marcelo Luna & Luciano Barcellos-Paula, 2024. "Structured Equations to Assess the Socioeconomic and Business Factors Influencing the Financial Sustainability of Traditional Amazonian Chakra in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Dobšinská, Zuzana & Báliková, Klára & Jarský, Vilém & Hríb, Michal & Štifil, Roman & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2024. "Evaluation analysis of the compensation payments schemes for ecosystem services: The case of Czech and Slovak Republic," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).

    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. Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Fischer, Richard & Tamayo, Fabian & Navarrete, Bolier Torres & Günter, Sven, 2022. "Analyzing forest policy mixes based on the coherence of policies and the consistency of legislative policy instruments: A case study from Ecuador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Delacote, Philippe & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Simonet, Gabriela, 2022. "Revisiting the location bias and additionality of REDD+ projects: the role of project proponents status and certification," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Tacconi, Luca & Rodrigues, Rafael J. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2019. "Law enforcement and deforestation: Lessons for Indonesia from Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Giudice, Renzo & Börner, Jan, 2021. "Benefits and costs of incentive-based forest conservation in the Peruvian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Fatem, Sepus M. & Awang, San A. & Pudyatmoko, Satyawan & Sahide, Muhammad A.K. & Pratama, Andita A. & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2018. "Camouflaging economic development agendas with forest conservation narratives: A strategy of lower governments for gaining authority in the re-centralising Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 699-710.
    6. Moses Kazungu & Eliza Zhunusova & Gillian Kabwe & Sven Günter, 2021. "Household-Level Determinants of Participation in Forest Support Programmes in the Miombo Landscapes, Zambia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Espada, Ana Luiza Violato & Kainer, Karen A., 2024. "Decision making processes and power dynamics in timber production co-management: A comparative analysis of seven Brazilian Amazonian community-based projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    8. Kazungu, Moses & Ferrer Velasco, Rubén & Zhunusova, Eliza & Lippe, Melvin & Kabwe, Gillian & Gumbo, Davison J. & Günter, Sven, 2021. "Effects of household-level attributes and agricultural land-use on deforestation patterns along a forest transition gradient in the Miombo landscapes, Zambia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    9. Chervier, Colas & Costedoat, Sébastien, 2017. "Heterogeneous Impact of a Collective Payment for Environmental Services Scheme on Reducing Deforestation in Cambodia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 148-159.
    10. Fischer, Richard & Tamayo Cordero, Fabian & Ojeda Luna, Tatiana & Ferrer Velasco, Rubén & DeDecker, Maria & Torres, Bolier & Giessen, Lukas & Günter, Sven, 2021. "Interplay of governance elements and their effects on deforestation in tropical landscapes: Quantitative insights from Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    11. Rubén Ferrer Velasco & Margret Köthke & Melvin Lippe & Sven Günter, 2020. "Scale and context dependency of deforestation drivers: Insights from spatial econometrics in the tropics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-32, January.
    12. Zhao, Jiacheng & Liu, Jinlong & Giessen, Lukas, 2023. "How China adopted eco-friendly forest development: Lens of the dual-track mechanism," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    13. Javier Montoya-Zumaeta & Eduardo Rojas & Sven Wunder, 2019. "Adding rewards to regulation: The impacts of watershed conservation on land cover and household wellbeing in Moyobamba, Peru," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-22, November.
    14. West, Thales A.P., 2024. "Formal designation of Brazilian indigenous lands linked to small but consistent reductions in deforestation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    15. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M., 2017. "Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 8-28.
    16. Blackman, Allen & Goff, Leonard & Rivera Planter, Marisol, 2018. "Does eco-certification stem tropical deforestation? Forest Stewardship Council certification in Mexico," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 306-333.
    17. Aurelio Garc?a-Garc?a, 2022. "The limits to growth of buen vivir socialism: Ecuador?s alternative development model from 2007 to 2017," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 11(1), pages 25-59.
    18. Jung, Suhyun & Polasky, Stephen, 2018. "Partnerships to prevent deforestation in the Amazon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 498-516.
    19. Zhang, Daojun & Yin, Runsheng, 2019. "Spatial characteristics of degraded land and their implications to the design and implementation of landscape restoration programs: West China as an example," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Corbera, Esteve & Lapeyre, Renaud, 2019. "Payments for Environmental Services and Motivation Crowding: Towards a Conceptual Framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 434-443.

    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:127:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723000121. 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.