Silencing Agency in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) by Essentializing a Neoliberal ‘Monster’ Into Being: A Response to Fletcher & Büscher's ‘PES Conceit’

Abstract

A B S T R A C TIn this commentary we respond to Fletcher and Büscher's (2017) recent article in this journal on Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) as neoliberal 'conceit'. The authors claim that focusing attention on the micro-politics of PES design and implementation fails to expose an underlying neoliberal governmentality, and therefore only reinforces neoliberal capitalism as both the problem and solution of ecological crises. In response, we argue that a focus on the actions of local actors is key to understanding how and why such governmentality fails or succeeds in performing as theorized. Grand generalizations fixated on a particular hegemonic and neoliberal PES ontology overlook how actors intertwine theory and practice in ways which cannot be explained by a dominant structural theory. Such generalizations risk obscuring the complexity and situational history, practice and scale of the processes involved. Rather than relegating variegated and hybrid forms of what actually emerges from PES interventions as neoliberal conceit, we argue that an actor-oriented, 'weak theory' approach permits PES praxis to inform knowledge generation. This would open up a more inclusive and politically engaging space for thinking about and realizing political change.

Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance

“…Real-world market mechanisms often end up looking very different from how they were originally conceived. REDD+, for example, has largely transformed from what was meant to be a market in forest carbon credits into a more institutional, nation-scale approach (Angelsen et al , 2017), and PES has evolved into more hybrid forms that are not ‘purely’ neoliberal in nature (Van Hecken et al , 2018). These shifts are in essence made by local actors (state, community, civil society), demonstrating variegated ways and degrees to which the PES model has been adapted from its original neoliberal model to fit different contexts, ontologies and purposes (Shapiro-Garza et al , 2019).…”

Payments for ecosystem services and conditional cash transfers in a policy mix: Microlevel interactions in Selva Lacandona, Mexico

“…A second analytical lens—which addresses RQ2—is an actor‐oriented approach that focuses on how participant's use their “microagency” to adapt, resist, and reinterpret the programs in pursuit of multiple livelihood strategies (Van Hecken et al, ; Van Hecken, Bastiaensen, & Windey, ). PES reviews have shown that revenues contribute to the accumulation of different types of financial, human, social and physical assets (Grieg‐Gran, Porras, & Wunder, ; Mahanty, Suich, & Tacconi, ; Tacconi, Mahanty, & Suich, ), and that specific outcomes depend on the interplay between contextual aspects and features of policy design and implementation (Börner et al, ).…”

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)

“…Regarding the ideologies and power structures underlying PES, the debates are still ongoing, with several authors calling for a deeper reflection on the theoretical construction and application of PES schemes (Fletcher and Büscher 2017;Hecken et al 2018).…”