Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate

Hecken, Gert Van; Bastiaensen, Johan; Windey, Catherine

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.012

Cited by 113 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, they highlight the fallacy of F & B's implication of an unquestionable hegemonic, central command that is pushing PES "as a global program to spread neoliberalization as a particular rationality and mode of capital accumulation" (p.224). Second, they illustrate our claim that it is by exploring the actions of implicated 'PES actors', not as passive recipients or predictably rational homo economicus, but as complex and intersectional individuals exerting both individual and collective agency to resist, readapt, but also propose divergent PES ontologies, that we offer a way forward for escaping the material effects of neoliberal logics (Larner, 2003;Ferguson, 2009;Gibson-Graham, 2008;Van Hecken et al, 2015a). Third, these cases show how broader neoliberal rationalities of transforming liabilities to assets, rational selfinterest and incentives, or the notion of undervalued goods and services produced from the land failed to perform as theorized.…”

Section: Evidence Of the Monster? Empirical Examples Of The Contestatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As critical scholars examining PES, we welcome this call for a more explicit critical debate on the ideologies and power structures underlying PES (see also Kolinjivadi et al, 2017a,b;Van Hecken et al, 2015a). We also recognize that the framing of mainstream PES as "paradigmatic of a more general neoliberal environmental governance approach writ large" (Fletcher and Büscher, 2017:227) can serve as a heuristic to situate PES, connect it to more structural dynamics, and draw attention to the inequities these initiatives might trigger (Büscher, 2012;Fairhead et al, 2012;McAfee, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Hecken

Kolinjivadi

Windey

et al. 2018

Ecological Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Of the Monster? Empirical Examples Of The Contestatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hecken

Kolinjivadi

Windey

et al. 2018

Ecological Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is a growing recognition of the potential for generating "thicker," contextualized, and power sensitive understandings of how adaptive governance works in practice. This recognition comes both from within the adaptive governance literature (Vink et al 2013, Chaffin et al 2014, Karpouzoglou et al 2016) and from aligned literature encompassing different disciplinary perspectives on environmental governance (Jones and Sok 2015, Van Hecken et al 2015, Vatn 2015, FrickTrzebitzky 2017, Wilson 2018). More broadly, there have been several contributions that deal with the relationship between resilience thinking and social theory (Adger 2000, Cote andNightingale 2012, Brown 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading

Cleaver¹,

Whaley²

2018

E&S

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Adaptive governance continues to attract considerable interest in academic and policy circles. This is with good reason, given its increasing relevance in a globalized and changing world. At the same time, adaptive governance is the subject of a growing body of critical literature concerned with the ways in which it theorizes the social world. In this paper, we respond to these critiques, which we see as broadly concerning the process, power, and meaning dimensions of environmental and natural resource governance. We argue that adaptive governance theory would benefit from engaging constructively with critical institutionalism, a school of thought that, like adaptive governance, has one foot in commons scholarship. Critical institutionalism conceives of institutional change as a process of bricolage, where those involved piece together new arrangements from the resources to hand. This approach highlights the interplay of structure and agency, and illuminates how new governance arrangements form and come to be seen as natural in dynamic relation to the wider social and cultural landscape. We consider how these arrangements tend to reflect dominant power relations, whilst the plural nature of social life also provides scope for adaptation and transformative change.

show abstract

“…However, there is currently no comparative analysis of PES programs to determine how IPs may experience outcomes of PES programs differently from other groups of ES providers. Calls have been made by activists, practitioners, and scholars alike for research to better understand how PES programs interact with diverse socio‐cultural histories, power relations, and the inclusion/exclusion of different social and cultural norms (Kosoy and Corbera ; Kumar et al ; Van Hecken et al ). This paper offers one response to these calls.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous peoples, local communities, and Payments for Ecosystem Services

Smith

Bulkan

Zerriffi

et al. 2019

Canadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs are reshaping the governance of ecosystems and natural resources around the world. These programs often occur in spaces that are unceded, contested, or otherwise not legally recognized as Indigenous homelands, customary areas, and territories. Building on the discourses of Indigenous self‐determination, nationhood, and cultural responsibilities, this paper examines how PES programs produce unique outcomes for Indigenous peoples as ecosystem services providers. Our findings demonstrate and substantiate three themes that impact Indigenous ecosystem services providers uniquely: (1) the internationally recognized right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent for Indigenous peoples; (2) the reinforcement of settler colonial jurisdiction; and (3) mismatches between Indigenous knowledges and PES‐type approaches. The ways that PES programs run the risk of reifying and reducing Indigenous knowledges have not yet been adequately considered within current PES approaches. Our findings enable a conceptualization of PES as a new conservation tool within ongoing histories of land management and dispossession by settler colonial governments. We assess the strengths and challenges of PES programs as a departure from previous conservation modalities.

show abstract

Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate

Cited by 113 publications

References 84 publications

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

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

Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading

Indigenous peoples, local communities, and Payments for Ecosystem Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About