Abstract
The chapter summarizes the insights of the previous chapter. It shows that market-based instruments in general and PES in particular only work if they encourage local entrepreneurship and innovation, if they are well-embedded into existing macro- and meso-economic institutions, if they take into account the level of economic development and the specific ownership structure. The chapter concludes by arguing that the real success of PES and other market-based institutions may be rooted in its capacity to serve as a vehicle for the creation of local markets for environmental goods that not only improve the environmental sustainability of agricultural practices but also stimulate local economic development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See also the findings of the most recent conference on PES in Costa Rica, co-organized by FAO: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3754e/i3754e.pdf
References
Aerni P (2007) Exploring the linkages of commerce, higher education and human development: a historical review. ATDF J 4(2):35–48
Aerni P (2009) What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand. Ecol Econ 68(6):1872–1882
Cohen B, Winn MI (2007) Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. J Bus Ventur 22(2007):29–49
Ferraro P (2008) Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 65:811–22
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653
Gómez-Baggethun E, Rudolf de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol Econ 69(6):1209–1218
Hanley N, Kirkpatrick H, Simpson I, Oglethorpe D (1998) Principles for the provision of public goods from agriculture: modeling moorland conservation in Scotland. Land Econ 74(1):102–113
Kinzig AP, Perrings C, Chapin FS, Polasky S, Smith VK, Tilman D, Turner BL (2011) Paying for ecosystem services—promise and peril. Science 334:603–604
Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69:1228–1236
Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479
Modelo M (2014) The paradox of fair trade. Stanf Soc Innov Rev Winter:40–45, http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/The_Paradox_of_Fair_Trade.pdf
Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1202–1208
Norgaard R (2010) Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol Econ 69(6):1219–1227
Pirard R (2012a) Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ Sci Policy 19–20:59–68
Pirard R, Billé R, Sembrés T (2010) Upscaling payments for environmental services (PES): critical issues. Trop Conserv Sci 3(3):249–261
Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29(1):244–249
Rawlings LB, Rubio GM (2005) Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs. World Bank Res Obs 20(1):29–55
Schumpeter J (2008) Capitalism, socialism and democracy (first published in 1942). Harper Perennial, New York, NY
Swift MJ, Izac A-MN, van Noordwijk M (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking the right questions? Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1):113–134
Tinbergen J (1952) On the theory of economic policy. North Holland, Amsterdam
Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environ Sci Policy 13(8):785–792
Vatn A (2010) An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1245–1252
Wen C, Siu YL, Hubacek K (2012) Carrot and stick—a novel policy experiment of transboundary watershed protection in China. Environ Sci Technol 46:6451–6452
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aerni, P. (2016). Conclusions. In: The Sustainable Provision of Environmental Services. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19345-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19345-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19344-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19345-8
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)