Abstract
This article describes and proposes the “environmental subsidiarity principle” as a guiding ethical value in forestry governance. Different trends in environmental management such as local participation, decentralization or global governance have emerged in the last two decades at the global, national and local level. This article suggests that the conscious or unconscious application of subsidiarity has been the ruling principle that has allocated the level at which tasks have been assigned to different agents. Based on this hypothesis this paper describes the principle of subsidiarity and its application to environmental policies within forest governance and proposes the “environmental subsidiarity” principle as a critical conceptual tool for sustainable resource management. The paper explains as an example how “environmental subsidiarity” is the key principle that can link payment for ecosystem services (PES) with environmental public policies and applies this principle with all its political consequences to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and enhancing forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+) architecture. It concludes by showing how the adoption of “environmental subsidiarity” as a ethical principle could help to maximize benefits to all stakeholders involved in PES schemes such as REDD+.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agrawal, A. (2001). The regulatory community: Decentralization and the environment in the Van Panchayats (Forest Councils) of Kumaon, India. Mountain Research and Development, 21(3), 208–211.
Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and African cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33, 473–502.
Angelsen, A. (2008). How do we set the reference levels for REDD payments? In: A. Angelsen (Ed.), Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and implications (pp. 53–64). Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
Angelsen, A. (Ed.). (2009). Realizing REDD+: National strategy and policy options. CIFOR. Denmark.
Angelsen, A., Streck, C., Peskett, L., Brown, J., & Luttrell C. 2008. What is the right scale for REDD. Moving ahead with REDD. Options and Implications. CIFOR. Indonesia.
Bermann, G. A. (1994). Taking subsidiarity seriously: Federalism in the European community and the United States. Columbia Law Review, 94, 332–336.
Brandon, K., & Wells, M. 2009. Lessons for REDD+ from protected areas and integrated conservation and development projects. Angelsen, A. (ed.) Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options. pp: 225–235.
Buchy, M., & Hoverman, S. (2000). Understanding public participation in forest planning: A review. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 15–25.
Caldecott, Stratford. (2003). Catholic social teaching. London: A way in CTS.
Carozza, P. (2003). Subsidiarity as a structural principle of international human rights law. American Journal of International Law, 97, 38–79.
Crook, R. C. (2003). Decentralisation and poverty reduction in Africa: The politics of local-central relations. Public Administration and Development, 23, 77–88.
Dubrulle, M. (1994). Subsidiarity is not a mere academic issue. In: Mark. Dubrulle (Ed.), Future European environmental policy and subsidiarity. Brussels: ESED.
Fundaçao Amazonas Sustentabel. 2008. The Juma sustainable development reserve project: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in the state of Amazonas, Brazil. http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/files/juma/PDD_Juma_Reserve_RED_Project_v5_0.pdf.
Fry, B. P. (2011). Community forest monitoring in REDD+: The ‘M’ in MRV? Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 181–187.
Gilmour, D. (2003). Retrospective and prospective view of community. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2(2), 5–7.
Golub, J. (1997). Recasting EU environmental policy: subsidiarity and national sovereignty. In: U. Collier, J. Golub & A. Kreher (Eds.), Subsidiarity and Shared Responsibility: New Challenges for EU Environmental Policy (pp. 35–56). Baden–Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Larson, A. (2003). Decentralization and forest management in Latin America: Towards a working model. Public Administration and Development, 23(3), 211–226.
Manor, J. (2004). User committees: A potentially damaging second wave of decentralization? Institute of development studies. Brighton: University of Sussex.
Martínez de Anguita, P. (2006). Desarrollo rural sostenible. Madrid: McGraw Hill.
Martínez de Anguita, P. (2011). Environmental solidarity: How religions can sustain sustainability. Routledge. NY. In press.
Martínez de Anguita, P., & Flores, P. (2011). Hacia un sistema público-privado de pago por servicios ecosistémicos en España. Spanish Journal of Rural Development, 2(1E), 101–114.
Martínez de Anguita, P., Rivera, S., Beneitez, J. M., Cruz, F., & Espinal, F. (2011). A GIS cost-benefit analysis-based methodology to establish a payment for environmental services system in watersheds: Application to the Calan River in Honduras. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 30(1), 79–110.
McDermott, C. (2011). Trust, legitimacy and power in forest certification: A case study of the FSC in British Columbia. Geoforum,. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071.
Meridian Institute 2009. REDD+ institutional options assessment. Prepared for the Government of Norway, by Streck, C., Gomez-Echeverri, L., Gutman, P., Loisel, C. and Werksman, J. http://www.REDD-OAR.org.
Moeliono, M., Wollenberg, E., & Limberg, G. (2009). The decentralization of forest governance. Politics, economics and the fight for control of forests in indonesian borneo. London: The Earthscan Forest Library.
Orduna, M. G. (2000). La educación para el desarrollo local. Una estrategia para la participación social. Pamplona: EUNSA.
Peskett, L. & Brockhaus, L. (2009). When REDD+ goes national. A review of realities, opportunities and challenges. Moving ahead with REDD. Options and Implications. CIFOR. Indonesia.
Resosudarmo, I. A. P. (2004). Closer to people and trees: Will decentralisation work for the people and the forests of Indonesia? European Journal of Development Research, 16(1), 110–132.
Ribot, J. C. (2003). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutional choice and discretionary power transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development, Special Issue: Decentralization and Local Governance in Africa, 23(1), 53–65.
Skutsch, M. M., van Laake, P. E., Zahabu, E. M., Karky, B. S., & Phartiyal, P. (2009). Community monitoring in REDD+. In A. Angelsen (Ed.), Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options (pp. 101–112). Bogor: CIFOR.
Smith, B. C. (1985). Decentralization: The territorial dimension of the State. London: George Allen.
Topp-Jørgensen, E., Poulsen, M. K., Friis Lund, J., & Massao, J. (2005). Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands of Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation, 14, 2653–2677.
Vatn, A., & Angelsen, A. (2009). Options for a national REDD+ architecture. In moving ahead with REDD. Options and implications. Indonesia: CIFOR.
Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., & Angelsen, A. (2009). Global and national REDD+ architecture: Linking institutions and action. In: Angelsen, A. (Ed.). Realizing REDD+: National strategy and policy options (pp. 13–24). CIFOR.
Wollenberg, E., Moeliono, M. & Godwin Limberg. (2008). Between State and Society:decentralization in Indonesia. In: Moeliono et al. (Eds.), The decentralization of forest governance: Politics, economics and the fight for control of forests in Indonesian Borneo (pp. 3–24). London: Earthscan.
Wunder, S. (2005). Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper 42. Bogor: CIFOR.
Zito, A. (1997). The evolving arena of EU environmental policy: The impact of subsidiarity and shared responsibility. In: U. Collier, J. Golub, & A. Kreher (Eds.), Subsidiarity and Shared Responsibility. New Challenges for EU Environmental Policy. Baden–Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Acknowledgments
This article was written with contributions from Costance Mcdermott. Our deep appreciation to her for helping us developing and clarifying these ideas during the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) Forest Governance Programme among many other good moments at the in Oxford University, as well as for her final review and comments of the text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Martinez de Anguita, P., Martín, M.Á. & Clare, A. Environmental Subsidiarity as a Guiding Principle for Forestry Governance: Application to Payment for Ecosystem Services and REDD+ Architecture. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 617–631 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9481-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9481-8