The Vermont Common Assets Trust: An institution for sustainable, just and efficient resource allocation

Farley, Joshua; Costanza, Robert; Flomenhoft, Gary; Kirk, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.016

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These developments reflect the view that "many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them" (Costanza et al 2014). This does not mean that valuation tools are irrelevant, but rather highlights the need for alternative or hybrid institutional arrangements that better account for diverse values (Costanza et al 2014;Farley et al 2015). For example, civil liability cases for environmental harm lever valuation data to enable restoration and to compensate the victims of environmental harm-measures that are being pioneered in Indonesia (see Jones et al 2015).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, civil liability cases for environmental harm lever valuation data to enable restoration and to compensate the victims of environmental harm-measures that are being pioneered in Indonesia (see Jones et al 2015). Other institutional arrangements, such as common assets trusts, also draw on valuation data, but to inform decisions via third sector governance arrangements; these trusts manage parts of the environment as common pool resources, via a board of trustees, on behalf of the beneficiaries (e.g., Vermont Common Assets Trust, Farley et al 2015). Such systems already exist in parts of Indonesia, including Bali's long-standing collective subak (irrigation society) management of rice paddies and their irrigation (Geertz 1972).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutionalizing environmental valuation into policy: Lessons from 7 Indonesian agencies

Phelps

Dermawan

Garmendia

2017

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monetary valuation of the environment is increasingly embedded in policy. Despite broad claims that valuation is policy-relevant, there is widespread frustration that it has not widely improved environmental outcomes, that it obscures many other types of values, and presents unintended consequences. We argue that this is, in part, because of a tendency to overlook the mechanics of how valuation tools and data are embedded into the institutions (regulations, norms, rules, schemes) that mediate decision-making. Discussions of how valuation engages with policy are often anecdotal and rarely systematic. This manuscript responds with a structured analysis of valuation within 7 Indonesian government institutions. By analyzing the legislative provisions that deal with valuation within each agency, we explore the challenges of institutionalizing valuation into policy. We consider the difficulties of: defining what is (and isn't) valuable, specifying methods, and identifying policy objectives. We found broad gaps and inconsistencies in the aims, definitions, methods, and treatment of non-market goods and services. and identify a need for broadened thinking about the role of valuation data within everyday environmental governance, including how it is codified and operationalized. To this end, we provide a framework of the "cascade" relationship between environmental management, ecosystem goods and services, human wellbeing, and their relationship to environmental governance, which uncovers the mechanics of how valuation can inform decision-making via different institutional arrangements. We call for a critical, yet also more pragmatic and fieldbased interrogation, of how and why valuation is conducted by decision-makers, in order to improve our understanding of its social and environmental implications. * The Ministries of Environment and Forest have been merged into a single agency in late 2014, although their governing legislation remains separate. ** Under the WAVES program, BAPPENAS will work alongside BPS.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutionalizing environmental valuation into policy: Lessons from 7 Indonesian agencies

Phelps

Dermawan

Garmendia

2017

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, the Alaska Permanent Fund has a proven record of accumulating the public proceeds from the state's oil production and then annually distributing a portion to all residents as a citizen's dividend (Barnes, 2014;Berman, 2018). Second, UBI could be funded through a so-called common asset trust that imposes a user charge on exploitation of local resources as compensation for appropriation of collectively held assets like groundwater (and potentially applicable to the climate) (Barnes et al, 2008;Farley et al, 2015). Finally, an old idea that has recently been rediscovered calls for a carbon tax that would be partly returned to households as a monthly or annual dividend (Baker et al, 2017;Roberts, 1994).…”

Section: Towards a Post-work Future?mentioning

confidence: 99%

From worktime reduction to a post-work future: Implications for sustainable consumption governance

Cohen¹

2019

A Research Agenda for Sustainable Consumption Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…They also apply to traditional common access to seashores, rivers, forests for gathering and hunting, and other res communis resources. Vermont Senate Bill S.44 in 2008 also included minerals in the calculation of the value of these public trust resources [46].…”

Section: The Public Trust Doctrinementioning

confidence: 99%

Historical and Empirical Basis for Communal Title in Minerals at the National Level: Does Ownership Matter for Human Development?

Flomenhoft

2018

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the impact of mineral ownership on the resource curse as measured by the Human Development Index. We start from the basic assumption that the Earth and its minerals are common pool resources, and the sharing of benefits would improve development outcomes. Communal title to minerals exists at the international level for the deep seabed, outer space objects, and, potentially Antarctica, and at the sub-national level through communal title to land, such as traditional landowners and aboriginal tribes. A comprehensive summary of national mining title laws for 199 countries was completed in order to determine if communal ownership is recognized at the national level. The finding is that this type of ownership is non-existent at the national level. The methods include historiography, extensive compilation of national constitutions and mining laws, and linear regression analysis. Ownership titles were combined into centralized and decentralized categories, and simple regression conducted to determine correlation with the human development index (HDI) for 199 countries. Initial findings are that decentralized mineral ownership titles are statistically correlated with higher HDI outcomes.

show abstract

The Vermont Common Assets Trust: An institution for sustainable, just and efficient resource allocation

Cited by 27 publications

References 47 publications

Institutionalizing environmental valuation into policy: Lessons from 7 Indonesian agencies

Institutionalizing environmental valuation into policy: Lessons from 7 Indonesian agencies

From worktime reduction to a post-work future: Implications for sustainable consumption governance

Historical and Empirical Basis for Communal Title in Minerals at the National Level: Does Ownership Matter for Human Development?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About