- Email: [email protected]
Social dimensions of market-based instruments: Introduction
Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 1–3
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Social dimensions of market-based instruments: Introduction夽 Romy Greiner ∗ Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 April 2012 Received in revised form 27 April 2012 Accepted 27 April 2012 Keywords: Market-based instruments PES REDD Social dimensions Poverty Property rights Multipliers Nested scales
a b s t r a c t This themed issue of Land Use Policy builds on the papers presented at an international symposium entitled Social Dimensions of Market-based Instruments, convened by the Charles Darwin University in Darwin, Australia, in November 2010. The symposium set out to review the extent to which market-based instruments were being employed as social policy tools in various contexts, what challenges achieving relevant social policy objectives posed, what trade-offs arose between environmental, social and economic objectives, and whether and how tensions could be resolved. The contributions to this themed issue provide conceptual-theoretical and empirical takes on the topic. They consider poverty, property rights and equality perspectives of participation and quantify social implications at the program, regional and national levels. They reveal converging messages, e.g. in relation to treatment of poverty, common property rights and nesting across scales. In combination, the papers make a compelling case that social implications of MBIs cannot be ignored and ought to be considered in design and evaluation even if programs do no pursue social objectives, as social dimensions can enhance or affect program effectiveness and efficiency. In doing so, the contributions expand the role that MBIs can play in ensuring sustainable resource use and offer considerations for policy design. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
About this issue The application of market-based instruments (MBIs) in public policy has been proliferating in many countries over the past two decades as tools for achieving environmental objectives, including water and air quality protection, biodiversity conservation, landscape management, forest conservation, and others. The underlying paradigm of MBIs is one of achieving socially efficient use of environmental resources by shifting the cost of negative externalities associated with resource use to users or polluters (e.g. Hahn and Stavins, 1991; Siebert, 1995). More recently, MBIs have seen growing use by also embracing the beneficiary-pays paradigm to encourage and reward positive externalities, specifically through the use of payments for environmental services (PES) for land managers (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010). The papers in this themed edition focus predominantly on PES-style programs. MBIs tend to be evaluated against economic/financial and environmental criteria. However, because MBIs affect production and consumption behaviour of businesses, households and individuals,
夽 Forthcoming, in a 2012 Themed Issue entitled “Social dimensions of Marketbased Instruments” of Land Use Policy. ∗ Tel.: +61 418 242 156. E-mail address: [email protected] 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.022
they invariably have social consequences, beneficial or detrimental. The treatment of social consequences in the literature to date has been scant. It is this gap which the papers in this themed issue seek to help close. Conceptually, social benefits can arise, for example, by MBIs providing (i) income diversification opportunities for farming households and therefore new livelihoods for primary producers, (ii) new economic opportunities for poor landholders and indigenous communities in return for the provision of environmental services, thereby helping to reduce poverty and dependence on social welfare, and (iii) alternative income sources in rural and remote regions, thereby helping to retain rural populations and diversify rural economies, particularly in areas where there are few other opportunities. Social costs can arise, for example, by MBIs (i) imposing costs on pollution activities of businesses which cannot be off-set or passed on to customers, thereby reducing enterprise viability and possibly forcing lay-off of workers, (ii) exacerbating wealth inequality in regions by excluding landholders with low security of tenure from participation or (iii) the ending of MBI programs leaving participants disadvantaged comparative to nonparticipants. The papers in this themed edition have been assembled to (1) improve the conceptual understanding of the social dimensions of MBIs, (2) consolidate the literature with specific focus on experiences with social dimensions of MBIs, (3) contribute to the body of literature a series of empirical case studies to enhance the
2
R. Greiner / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 1–3
understanding of social consequences – intended or unintended – of MBIs and (4) engender a discussion as to whether and to what extent social implications ought to be considered in the design of MBIs. This themed issue commences with a contribution by Greiner and Stanley (this issue), who articulate a framework for conceptualising social implications of PES. They differentiate three types of benefits (or dis-benefits): ‘Type A’ benefits accrue to the service provider as a direct result of the remuneration received, ‘type B’ benefits are unrelated to remuneration and accrue to the service provider in the process of undertaking the service, and ‘type C’ benefits represent the broader social flow-on effects associated with type A and B benefits. Social co-benefits are illustrated in the context of northern Australia with specific focus on participation of indigenous landowners in PES-style programs. Greiner and Stanley show that PES schemes can be both socially efficient and environmentally effective in the presence of extreme social disadvantage of service providers, where poverty reduction constitutes a necessary condition for environmental service provision. The typology of social co-benefits is helpful also for conceptualising the social dimensions described in the subsequent contributions. Zammit (this issue) provides a policy maker perspective and reviews two PES-style conservation programs in southern Australia. He demonstrates that landholders reap social benefits from program participation through improved knowledge, capacity and understanding of conservation values, and improved property and succession planning. He finds that conservation MBIs can also contribute to building of social capital in rural communities and the transitioning of agriculture towards post-productivist expressions which better fit modern social and cultural values relating to landscapes. Zammit concludes that it is important for PESstyle programs to generate social benefits as they foster long-term change in attitudes, values and practices for biodiversity conservation on private land – thus generating intrinsic motivation, which helps perpetuate on-farm biodiversity conservation beyond program lifespans. Completing the Australian picture, Moon (this issue) reports on empirical research which explores social conditionality of non-participation of farmers in PES-style conservation programs. She finds that conditional non-participants are influenced by external sources of control while internal sources of control such as anti-government attitudes and the politics of land management dominate for resistant non-participants. She concludes that financial incentive schemes may sway conditional nonparticipants provided the programs are ‘practical and credible’, well communicated and preferably administered by non-government organisations. Europe has a particularly long history of PES-style programs for landscape conservation. Courtney et al. (this issue) quantify the broader social co-benefits – which they term ‘incidental’ benefits – of agri-environmental schemes in England. Using a regional-scale input–output model parameterised with data from a survey of program participants, they are able to quantify the indirect and induced regional income and employment effects of different types of PES-schemes. They find that ‘higher level’ schemes which are competitive, have longer contract periods, involve livestock and include capital works achieve significantly larger employment and income multipliers. This suggests a positive relationship between the extent of environmental benefit and social co-benefits in terms of rural development achieved. Courtney et al. warn against geographical targeting of schemes to maximise social co-benefits but suggest that reviews ought to estimate social impacts in addition to scheme effectiveness and efficiency. Several contributions investigate bio-carbon based PES, in particular those based on the Reductions of Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and associated initiatives happening in developing countries.1 Mahanty et al. (this issue) compare seven REDD+ initiatives from Latin America, western Africa and south-east Asia to explore the extent to which land tenure and household wealth affect access to schemes by local resource users and managers. They demonstrate that (i) private land ownership is not a necessary condition for PES schemes to function as long as common property or use rights are formally recognised, (ii) inclusion of common property lands in REDD+ schemes results in notably higher levels of participation of poorer households, but (iii) participation of poor households is limited by lack of information or information cost, up-front costs and opportunity cost of participation regarding food security. Mahanty et al. suggest that PES revenue can be used for collective benefits provided strong and trusted local institutions exist to manage and disburse collective revenue. They warn that scheme operation needs to avoid shifting transaction costs onto participants to ensure remuneration at or above opportunity costs so as to avoid negative social impacts. Minang and Van Noordwijk (this issue) highlight and discuss emerging design challenges for REDD+ at multiple levels: national, sub-national and local. At the sub-national level, leakage and double-counting are prominent issues. Elsewhere, challenges are about how to best address drivers of deforestation and achieve co-benefits through design of appropriate rewards including payments, compensation and – in the case of common property resources – co-investment strategies. Invoking the Tinbergen principle, they argue that systematic nesting of REDD+ programs, in terms of design, implementation and accounting, is needed across national, sub-national and project scales within a well-defined set of rules. Hoang et al. (this issue) explore the benefit distribution and poverty-reduction implications of a sub-national REDD+ scheme in Vietnam and the challenges involved with reconciling the needs at local, regional and national levels. They stress the need for bundling income from PES with production-based land-uses to provide more sustainable forest protection while improving livelihoods and minimising risk. For a bio-carbon project in Tanzania, Jindal et al. (this issue) provide evidence of a trade-off between program cost effectiveness and participation of poor households because of their generally higher opportunity cost. This suggests that buyers of environmental services may need to be prepared to pay a premium to secure social co-benefits in terms of poverty reduction. Competitive schemes, where auctions to determine participation, can improve efficiency and transparency in contract allocation and generate social pressure on successful bidders to comply with contracts. Front-loading payments may be important in PES programs that require start-up investment by farmers in developing countries. Swallow and Goddard (this issue) compare three bio-carbon projects in Canada, Tanzania and Mozambique using a conceptual framework of actors, functions and incentives in the bio-carbon offset value chain. In all three cases, PES schemes generate social co-benefits from diversification of farm income, better farm information systems and better access to advisory services. Swallow and Goddard find activity-based carbon accounting and effective floor prices make offsets more attractive for land users while multiple private actors tend to reduce transaction costs and increase mechanism resilience. Key success factors include reliable sources of carbon finance and clear institutional frameworks with offsets enhanced by compliance-based mechanisms.
1 REDD+ (REDD-plus) extends REDD by sustainable forest management, conservation of forests and enhancement of carbon sinks. REDD++ extends REDD+ by low-carbon but high biodiversity lands.
R. Greiner / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 1–3
3
The contribution by Lockie (this issue) concludes the themed issue. He broadens the perspective to deal with the question of MBIs in the context of property rights (with specific focus on ‘duty of care’) and benefits distribution (private–social). His conceptualisation helps to more effectively target the choice of MBIs in the context of underlying conditions, in particular interchangeability of supply, scalability, clarity and acceptability of property rights, adequacy of information, institutional capacity and corroboration. Lockie argues that these conditions need to be addressed in political decision-making, moral judgment and social learning as well as design of incentives.
Acknowledgements
Concluding comments
Courtney, P., Mills, J., Gaskell, P., Chaplin, S. Investigating the incidental benefits of Environmental Stewardship schemes in England. Land Use Policy, this issue. Greiner, R., Stanley, O. More than money for conservation: exploring social cobenefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy, this issue. Hahn, R.W., Stavins, R.N., 1991. Incentive-based environmental regulation: a new era from an old idea? Ecology Law Quarterly 18, 1–42. Hoang, M.H., Do, T.H., Pham, M.T., Van Noordwijk, M., Minang. P.A. Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam. Land Use Policy, this issue. Jindal, R., Kerr, J., Ferraro, P.J., Swallow, B.M. Social dimensions of procurement auction for environmental service contracts: evaluating trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and participation by the poor in rural Tanzania. Land Use Policy, this issue. Lockie, S. Market instruments, ecosystem services and property rights: assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy, this issue. Mahanty, S., Suich, H., Tacconi, L. Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy, this issue. Minang, P.A., Van Noordwijk, M. Design challenges for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins. Land Use Policy, this issue. Moon, K. Conditional and resistant non-participation in market-based land management programs in Queensland, Australia. Land Use Policy, this issue. Siebert, H., 1995. Economics of the Environment: Theory and Policy, 4th ed. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Swallow, B.M., Goddard, T.W. Value chains for bio-carbon sequestration services: lessons from contrasting cases in Canada, Kenya and Mozambique. Land Use Policy, this issue. Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 785–792. Zammit, C. Landowners and conservation markets: social benefits from two Australian government programs. Land Use Policy, this issue.
This themed issue of Land Use Policy has succeeded in compiling empirical studies and evidence from across five continents to highlight the social dimensions of market-based instruments, in particular PES, as tools for environmental management. The papers make important conceptual and empirical contributions to the literature. They illustrate the various social perspectives of participation and quantify social implications at the program level. They show that social implications cannot be ignored and ought to be considered in the design of MBIs even if programs do no pursue social objectives, as social dimensions can enhance or affect program effectiveness and efficiency. In combination, the contributions also provide a comprehensive literature review on the subject matter. Finally, the contributions provide a valuable resource for policy makers in guiding considerations regarding whether and how to pursue social co-objectives through environmental programs, and how to conceptualise and minimise unintended social impacts. This themed edition makes a compelling call for more systematic research into the social dimensions of market-based programs (and other environmental policies for that matter) so that (i) the human aspects of participation and interaction with MBI design and implementation can be better understood and (ii) varied social implications of MBI schemes can be better contextualised and appreciated. A true tripe-bottom-line approach would be consistent with the ecological sustainability agenda that MBIs are ultimately conceived to pursue.
On behalf of all contributors, I would like to thank the editor of Land Use Policy, Guy Robinson, for his guidance and patience in the compilation of the themed issue and the reviewers for their constructive engagement with the manuscripts, among them Elinor Ostrom, Stephanie Engel, Sven Wunder, Bruce Campbell, Luca Tacconi, John Rolfe, Paul Ferraro, Darla Hatton-MacDonald and many others. References
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Social dimensions of market-based instruments: Introduction夽 Romy Greiner ∗ Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 April 2012 Received in revised form 27 April 2012 Accepted 27 April 2012 Keywords: Market-based instruments PES REDD Social dimensions Poverty Property rights Multipliers Nested scales
a b s t r a c t This themed issue of Land Use Policy builds on the papers presented at an international symposium entitled Social Dimensions of Market-based Instruments, convened by the Charles Darwin University in Darwin, Australia, in November 2010. The symposium set out to review the extent to which market-based instruments were being employed as social policy tools in various contexts, what challenges achieving relevant social policy objectives posed, what trade-offs arose between environmental, social and economic objectives, and whether and how tensions could be resolved. The contributions to this themed issue provide conceptual-theoretical and empirical takes on the topic. They consider poverty, property rights and equality perspectives of participation and quantify social implications at the program, regional and national levels. They reveal converging messages, e.g. in relation to treatment of poverty, common property rights and nesting across scales. In combination, the papers make a compelling case that social implications of MBIs cannot be ignored and ought to be considered in design and evaluation even if programs do no pursue social objectives, as social dimensions can enhance or affect program effectiveness and efficiency. In doing so, the contributions expand the role that MBIs can play in ensuring sustainable resource use and offer considerations for policy design. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
About this issue The application of market-based instruments (MBIs) in public policy has been proliferating in many countries over the past two decades as tools for achieving environmental objectives, including water and air quality protection, biodiversity conservation, landscape management, forest conservation, and others. The underlying paradigm of MBIs is one of achieving socially efficient use of environmental resources by shifting the cost of negative externalities associated with resource use to users or polluters (e.g. Hahn and Stavins, 1991; Siebert, 1995). More recently, MBIs have seen growing use by also embracing the beneficiary-pays paradigm to encourage and reward positive externalities, specifically through the use of payments for environmental services (PES) for land managers (Van Hecken and Bastiaensen, 2010). The papers in this themed edition focus predominantly on PES-style programs. MBIs tend to be evaluated against economic/financial and environmental criteria. However, because MBIs affect production and consumption behaviour of businesses, households and individuals,
夽 Forthcoming, in a 2012 Themed Issue entitled “Social dimensions of Marketbased Instruments” of Land Use Policy. ∗ Tel.: +61 418 242 156. E-mail address: [email protected] 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.022
they invariably have social consequences, beneficial or detrimental. The treatment of social consequences in the literature to date has been scant. It is this gap which the papers in this themed issue seek to help close. Conceptually, social benefits can arise, for example, by MBIs providing (i) income diversification opportunities for farming households and therefore new livelihoods for primary producers, (ii) new economic opportunities for poor landholders and indigenous communities in return for the provision of environmental services, thereby helping to reduce poverty and dependence on social welfare, and (iii) alternative income sources in rural and remote regions, thereby helping to retain rural populations and diversify rural economies, particularly in areas where there are few other opportunities. Social costs can arise, for example, by MBIs (i) imposing costs on pollution activities of businesses which cannot be off-set or passed on to customers, thereby reducing enterprise viability and possibly forcing lay-off of workers, (ii) exacerbating wealth inequality in regions by excluding landholders with low security of tenure from participation or (iii) the ending of MBI programs leaving participants disadvantaged comparative to nonparticipants. The papers in this themed edition have been assembled to (1) improve the conceptual understanding of the social dimensions of MBIs, (2) consolidate the literature with specific focus on experiences with social dimensions of MBIs, (3) contribute to the body of literature a series of empirical case studies to enhance the
2
R. Greiner / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 1–3
understanding of social consequences – intended or unintended – of MBIs and (4) engender a discussion as to whether and to what extent social implications ought to be considered in the design of MBIs. This themed issue commences with a contribution by Greiner and Stanley (this issue), who articulate a framework for conceptualising social implications of PES. They differentiate three types of benefits (or dis-benefits): ‘Type A’ benefits accrue to the service provider as a direct result of the remuneration received, ‘type B’ benefits are unrelated to remuneration and accrue to the service provider in the process of undertaking the service, and ‘type C’ benefits represent the broader social flow-on effects associated with type A and B benefits. Social co-benefits are illustrated in the context of northern Australia with specific focus on participation of indigenous landowners in PES-style programs. Greiner and Stanley show that PES schemes can be both socially efficient and environmentally effective in the presence of extreme social disadvantage of service providers, where poverty reduction constitutes a necessary condition for environmental service provision. The typology of social co-benefits is helpful also for conceptualising the social dimensions described in the subsequent contributions. Zammit (this issue) provides a policy maker perspective and reviews two PES-style conservation programs in southern Australia. He demonstrates that landholders reap social benefits from program participation through improved knowledge, capacity and understanding of conservation values, and improved property and succession planning. He finds that conservation MBIs can also contribute to building of social capital in rural communities and the transitioning of agriculture towards post-productivist expressions which better fit modern social and cultural values relating to landscapes. Zammit concludes that it is important for PESstyle programs to generate social benefits as they foster long-term change in attitudes, values and practices for biodiversity conservation on private land – thus generating intrinsic motivation, which helps perpetuate on-farm biodiversity conservation beyond program lifespans. Completing the Australian picture, Moon (this issue) reports on empirical research which explores social conditionality of non-participation of farmers in PES-style conservation programs. She finds that conditional non-participants are influenced by external sources of control while internal sources of control such as anti-government attitudes and the politics of land management dominate for resistant non-participants. She concludes that financial incentive schemes may sway conditional nonparticipants provided the programs are ‘practical and credible’, well communicated and preferably administered by non-government organisations. Europe has a particularly long history of PES-style programs for landscape conservation. Courtney et al. (this issue) quantify the broader social co-benefits – which they term ‘incidental’ benefits – of agri-environmental schemes in England. Using a regional-scale input–output model parameterised with data from a survey of program participants, they are able to quantify the indirect and induced regional income and employment effects of different types of PES-schemes. They find that ‘higher level’ schemes which are competitive, have longer contract periods, involve livestock and include capital works achieve significantly larger employment and income multipliers. This suggests a positive relationship between the extent of environmental benefit and social co-benefits in terms of rural development achieved. Courtney et al. warn against geographical targeting of schemes to maximise social co-benefits but suggest that reviews ought to estimate social impacts in addition to scheme effectiveness and efficiency. Several contributions investigate bio-carbon based PES, in particular those based on the Reductions of Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and associated initiatives happening in developing countries.1 Mahanty et al. (this issue) compare seven REDD+ initiatives from Latin America, western Africa and south-east Asia to explore the extent to which land tenure and household wealth affect access to schemes by local resource users and managers. They demonstrate that (i) private land ownership is not a necessary condition for PES schemes to function as long as common property or use rights are formally recognised, (ii) inclusion of common property lands in REDD+ schemes results in notably higher levels of participation of poorer households, but (iii) participation of poor households is limited by lack of information or information cost, up-front costs and opportunity cost of participation regarding food security. Mahanty et al. suggest that PES revenue can be used for collective benefits provided strong and trusted local institutions exist to manage and disburse collective revenue. They warn that scheme operation needs to avoid shifting transaction costs onto participants to ensure remuneration at or above opportunity costs so as to avoid negative social impacts. Minang and Van Noordwijk (this issue) highlight and discuss emerging design challenges for REDD+ at multiple levels: national, sub-national and local. At the sub-national level, leakage and double-counting are prominent issues. Elsewhere, challenges are about how to best address drivers of deforestation and achieve co-benefits through design of appropriate rewards including payments, compensation and – in the case of common property resources – co-investment strategies. Invoking the Tinbergen principle, they argue that systematic nesting of REDD+ programs, in terms of design, implementation and accounting, is needed across national, sub-national and project scales within a well-defined set of rules. Hoang et al. (this issue) explore the benefit distribution and poverty-reduction implications of a sub-national REDD+ scheme in Vietnam and the challenges involved with reconciling the needs at local, regional and national levels. They stress the need for bundling income from PES with production-based land-uses to provide more sustainable forest protection while improving livelihoods and minimising risk. For a bio-carbon project in Tanzania, Jindal et al. (this issue) provide evidence of a trade-off between program cost effectiveness and participation of poor households because of their generally higher opportunity cost. This suggests that buyers of environmental services may need to be prepared to pay a premium to secure social co-benefits in terms of poverty reduction. Competitive schemes, where auctions to determine participation, can improve efficiency and transparency in contract allocation and generate social pressure on successful bidders to comply with contracts. Front-loading payments may be important in PES programs that require start-up investment by farmers in developing countries. Swallow and Goddard (this issue) compare three bio-carbon projects in Canada, Tanzania and Mozambique using a conceptual framework of actors, functions and incentives in the bio-carbon offset value chain. In all three cases, PES schemes generate social co-benefits from diversification of farm income, better farm information systems and better access to advisory services. Swallow and Goddard find activity-based carbon accounting and effective floor prices make offsets more attractive for land users while multiple private actors tend to reduce transaction costs and increase mechanism resilience. Key success factors include reliable sources of carbon finance and clear institutional frameworks with offsets enhanced by compliance-based mechanisms.
1 REDD+ (REDD-plus) extends REDD by sustainable forest management, conservation of forests and enhancement of carbon sinks. REDD++ extends REDD+ by low-carbon but high biodiversity lands.
R. Greiner / Land Use Policy 31 (2013) 1–3
3
The contribution by Lockie (this issue) concludes the themed issue. He broadens the perspective to deal with the question of MBIs in the context of property rights (with specific focus on ‘duty of care’) and benefits distribution (private–social). His conceptualisation helps to more effectively target the choice of MBIs in the context of underlying conditions, in particular interchangeability of supply, scalability, clarity and acceptability of property rights, adequacy of information, institutional capacity and corroboration. Lockie argues that these conditions need to be addressed in political decision-making, moral judgment and social learning as well as design of incentives.
Acknowledgements
Concluding comments
Courtney, P., Mills, J., Gaskell, P., Chaplin, S. Investigating the incidental benefits of Environmental Stewardship schemes in England. Land Use Policy, this issue. Greiner, R., Stanley, O. More than money for conservation: exploring social cobenefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy, this issue. Hahn, R.W., Stavins, R.N., 1991. Incentive-based environmental regulation: a new era from an old idea? Ecology Law Quarterly 18, 1–42. Hoang, M.H., Do, T.H., Pham, M.T., Van Noordwijk, M., Minang. P.A. Benefit distribution across scales to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) in Vietnam. Land Use Policy, this issue. Jindal, R., Kerr, J., Ferraro, P.J., Swallow, B.M. Social dimensions of procurement auction for environmental service contracts: evaluating trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and participation by the poor in rural Tanzania. Land Use Policy, this issue. Lockie, S. Market instruments, ecosystem services and property rights: assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy, this issue. Mahanty, S., Suich, H., Tacconi, L. Access and benefits in payments for environmental services and implications for REDD+: lessons from seven PES schemes. Land Use Policy, this issue. Minang, P.A., Van Noordwijk, M. Design challenges for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation through conservation: leveraging multiple paradigms at the tropical forest margins. Land Use Policy, this issue. Moon, K. Conditional and resistant non-participation in market-based land management programs in Queensland, Australia. Land Use Policy, this issue. Siebert, H., 1995. Economics of the Environment: Theory and Policy, 4th ed. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Swallow, B.M., Goddard, T.W. Value chains for bio-carbon sequestration services: lessons from contrasting cases in Canada, Kenya and Mozambique. Land Use Policy, this issue. Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: justified or not? A political view. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 785–792. Zammit, C. Landowners and conservation markets: social benefits from two Australian government programs. Land Use Policy, this issue.
This themed issue of Land Use Policy has succeeded in compiling empirical studies and evidence from across five continents to highlight the social dimensions of market-based instruments, in particular PES, as tools for environmental management. The papers make important conceptual and empirical contributions to the literature. They illustrate the various social perspectives of participation and quantify social implications at the program level. They show that social implications cannot be ignored and ought to be considered in the design of MBIs even if programs do no pursue social objectives, as social dimensions can enhance or affect program effectiveness and efficiency. In combination, the contributions also provide a comprehensive literature review on the subject matter. Finally, the contributions provide a valuable resource for policy makers in guiding considerations regarding whether and how to pursue social co-objectives through environmental programs, and how to conceptualise and minimise unintended social impacts. This themed edition makes a compelling call for more systematic research into the social dimensions of market-based programs (and other environmental policies for that matter) so that (i) the human aspects of participation and interaction with MBI design and implementation can be better understood and (ii) varied social implications of MBI schemes can be better contextualised and appreciated. A true tripe-bottom-line approach would be consistent with the ecological sustainability agenda that MBIs are ultimately conceived to pursue.
On behalf of all contributors, I would like to thank the editor of Land Use Policy, Guy Robinson, for his guidance and patience in the compilation of the themed issue and the reviewers for their constructive engagement with the manuscripts, among them Elinor Ostrom, Stephanie Engel, Sven Wunder, Bruce Campbell, Luca Tacconi, John Rolfe, Paul Ferraro, Darla Hatton-MacDonald and many others. References