Effectiveness and synergies of policy instruments for land use governance in tropical regions |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Georges Lemaître Centre for Earth and Climate Research, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Place Louis Pasteur 3, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium;2. School of Earth Sciences and Woods Institute, Stanford University, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305, United States;3. F.R.S-FNRS, Belgium;4. School of Management, Universidad de los Andes, Carrera 1 No. 18A-12, Bogotá, Colombia;5. Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, United States;6. Center for Development Research, University of Bonn and Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Walter-Flex-Str. 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany;7. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677, 00100 Nairobi, Kenya;8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011, United States;9. WWF – Netherlands, Driebergseweg 10, 3708JB Zeist, The Netherlands;10. Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, 6476 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T1Z2;11. National Wildlife Federation, National Advocacy Center, 901 E Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20004, United States;12. Global Canopy Programme, 23 Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HU, United Kingdom;13. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Rua do Russel, 450/sala 601 Glória, CEP: 22.210-010 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil;1. Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1476, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA;2. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1499, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA;3. Department of Geography, University of Colorado, Campus Box 260, Boulder, CO 80309, USA;4. Institute of Social Development and Western China Development Studies, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China;5. Department of Anthropology, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1787, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA;1. Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine Ecology (ZMT), Fahrenheitstrasse 6, D-28359 Bremen, Germany;2. Asia Research Center, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia;3. UFZ – Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research, Permoserstrasse 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany;4. University of Leipzig, Germany;1. Dept. of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada;2. Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries & School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada;3. Forestry Study Program, University of Mataram, Mataram, Indonesia;4. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia;1. Department of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA;2. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA;3. Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA;4. Ecolex, Quito, Ecuador;5. Conservation International Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador;1. Department of Applied Economics, Oregon State University, United States;2. Department of Geography, Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Land use is regulated through various mixes of command-and-control interventions that directly affect land use via land use restrictions, and other public interventions that indirectly affect land use via agricultural, forestry, trade or macro-economic policies. More recently, coalitions of public and private actors have designed market-based and/or demand-led policy instruments to influence land use—e.g., eco-certification, geographical indications, commodity roundtables, moratoria, and payments for environmental services. These innovative instruments fall along a continuum of state involvement and interact with traditional public forms of land use regulation, leading to “hybrid” interventions. This article reviews emerging evidence on the effectiveness of the main instruments used to promote sustainable land use, and explores interactions between the new demand-led interventions and formal regulatory public policies. Although there are still insufficient rigorous studies evaluating the effectiveness of hybrid instruments, available evidence suggests some positive direct and indirect benefits. Hybrid instruments combine elements from both private and public regulatory systems, in innovative and effective ways. We propose a typology to characterize potential interactions between instruments that regulate land use. It links various types of interactions—i.e., complementarity, substitution, and antagonism—to the various stages of regulatory processes—i.e., agenda setting, implementation, and monitoring and enforcement. We give examples of governments endorsing certifications or using certification to support their own policies; governments creating enabling conditions for hybrid instruments to mature, allowing for wider adoption; and private instruments reinforcing public regulations or substituting for missing or weak governance. In some cases, governments, NGOs and corporations compete and may hinder each other's actions. With favourable institutional and governance contexts, well-designed hybrid public-private instruments can be effective. More systematic evaluation could boost the effectiveness of instruments and enhance synergistic interaction with traditional public land-use policy instruments to achieve incremental benefits as well as longer-term transformative outcomes in land-use protection. |
| |
| Keywords: | Protected area Certification Commodity roundtables Geographical indication Payment for environmental services Deforestation |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
