Graduate Programs in Sustainable International Development, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011 Feb;1219:209-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05941.x.
Researchers, policy makers, and practitioners have used various terms to describe instruments that reward the stewardship of ecosystem services that benefit "external" actors. Payments for environmental services, or PES, has been the predominant name. However, critics have challenged both the payments and environmental components of this nomenclature, most commonly proposing markets, compensation, or rewards as alternatives for the former, and ecosystem for the latter. Additional questions arise regarding what to call the agents directly involved in the transaction: sellers and buyers, or stewards and beneficiaries? For some, concerns about this terminology have emerged from so-called "pro-poor PES" debates that ask if actors could and should incorporate poverty alleviation goals into PES instruments. This review of the modulating use of terms and the arguments about which best fit theory and experience points to the key policy and ethical issues at stake as PES programs face critical and timely questions about the direction they will head. The author contends that the choices of terms will influence that direction and proposes a new alternative-rewards for ecosystem service stewardship (RESS)-that better encompasses pro-poor options.
研究人员、政策制定者和实践者已经使用了各种术语来描述奖励有益于“外部”参与者的生态系统服务管理的工具。生态系统服务付费，或简称 PES，是主要的名称。然而，批评者对这个命名法的支付和环境部分提出了质疑，最常见的建议是用市场、补偿或奖励来替代前者，用生态系统来替代后者。关于直接参与交易的代理人应该叫什么，也出现了一些疑问：卖家和买家，还是管理者和受益者？对于一些人来说，对这些术语的担忧是来自所谓的“有利于穷人的 PES”辩论，这些辩论询问行为者是否可以并应该将扶贫目标纳入 PES 工具中。本文对术语的调节使用和哪种术语最适合理论和经验的争论进行了审查，这些术语争论指向了 PES 计划面临的关键政策和道德问题的关键所在。作者认为，术语的选择将影响这一方向，并提出了一个新的替代方案——生态系统服务管理回报（RESS）——更好地包含了有利于穷人的选择。
