Paying for ecological services in Ecuador: The political economy of structural inequality

Abstract

Paying Indigenous communities to conserve land for carbon sequestration is a controversial way of tackling climate change. Critics argue that paying for ecological services (or 'PES') in the form of carbon offset programmes reduces land and social relations to an economic transaction that devalues Indigenous livelihoods and communities. At the same time, empirical studies have shown that Indigenous communities have accepted and even embraced the idea of being paid to conserve land for climate change mitigation. This paper explores this apparent contradiction by investigating the implementation of Programa Socio Bosque (PSB), a PES carbon sequestration programme in Ecuador. Drawing upon primary fieldwork in the highland province of Chimborazo, it makes the case that PES programmes need to be understood as form of state power that reconfigures and reinforces the ways in which Indigenous peoples engage with the state. Particularly important in this regard is the role of the state in reinforcing the agrarian conditions under which Indigenous communities use and interpret PES payments while at the same time reconfiguring new forms of land conservation. Empirically, the research reveals important complementarities between the goals of carbon sequestration PES programmes and Indigenous land-use practices. Methodologically, it highlights the importance of situating the study of PES programmes in a context of land struggles, community-state relations and agrarian change.

Indigenous knowledge and natural infrastructure resilience to climate change in developing countries: a bibliometric analysis

“…For instance, an Ecuadorian study reveals that PES fundamentally alters traditional resource management and land use practices while aggressively erasing Indigenous cosmovision (McBurney, 2021). Additionally, because PES schemes may promote the adoption of individual land rights, which runs counter to the collective and communal approach to land ownership adopted by many Indigenous communities, Indigenous cosmovision may be compromised (Barnes and Quail, 2011;Knox et al, 2011).…”

“…It is also important to highlight that Indigenous cosmovisionwhich sees nature and Mother earth as a sacred living being, which depends on all other living beings, including stones, water, air, earth and all the creatures that inhabit earth, and must be defended due to Mother earth's right to life (GARN, 2014)-may be at odds with the commodification of nature through PES schemes. For instance, an Ecuadorian study reveals that PES fundamentally alters traditional resource management and land use practices while aggressively erasing Indigenous cosmovision (McBurney, 2021). Additionally, because PES schemes may promote the adoption of individual land rights, which runs counter to the collective and communal approach to land ownership adopted by many Indigenous communities, Indigenous cosmovision may be compromised (Barnes and Quail, 2011;Knox et al, 2011).…”

“…Additionally, because PES schemes may promote the adoption of individual land rights, which runs counter to the collective and communal approach to land ownership adopted by many Indigenous communities, Indigenous cosmovision may be compromised (Barnes and Quail, 2011;Knox et al, 2011). Furthermore, it is argued that PES schemes in Indigenous communities operate within a broader social, political, economic, and cultural context that has historically devalued Indigenous cosmovision and land use (McBurney, 2021). Thus, to ensure that PES achieve its desired goal, it is recommended that PES schemes situate its lens beyond conservation to critically examine the cultural and intrinsic values Indigenous peoples attribute to their land, and how Indigenous communities manage and distribute their local resources among its members (Rodríguez-Robayo et al, 2020).…”