Blockchain Technologies: Potential Use of Cryptographic Protocol in Financing Forests Conservation Stewardship
Abstract
Environmental markets that consider trade-offs of benefits flow and conservation burdens among economic units contributes to the sustainability of natural resource capital. Despite the benefits of environmental markets, the existence of bureaucratic processes in ecosystem financing such as Payment for Environmental Services creates a perverse market structure, which impedes the efforts of internalising environmental costs through distributional effects of conservation rewards and burdens among economic units. Therefore, this paper explores the applicability of using cryptographic protocols in blockchain technologies as a paradigm shift in financing conservation stewardship at the micro-level. Secondary data from documented literature was used as the source of information in this study. Systematic searches on different websites were used to identify relevant scientific papers, journals, abstracts, reports and presentations that resonated with the theme of this study. To gain hands-on information regarding blockchain technologies, the snowballing research design was used to identify individuals with technological know-how on the functionality and blockchain operability. Blockchain technologies can be merited because it portrays a high degree of transparency and trustworthiness among economic units when used in environmental markets. Therefore, designing a robust cryptographic protocol that facilitates efficient trade-offs of conservation rewards and burdens in present environmental market creates incentives for the resource conservation and protection.
Downloads
References
Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. W., Stier, A. C., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological monographs, 81(2), 169-193.
Boucher, P., Nascimento, S. & Kritikos, M. (2017). How blockchain technology could change our lives: In-depth analysis. Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Services
Carius, F. (Eds). (2012). Payment for Environmental Services: Towards an Implementation Strategy Report of the International Expert Workshop 13th -16th December 2010. International Academy for Nature Conservancy Isle of Vilm, Germany.
Cermeño, J. S. (2016). Blockchain in financial services: Regulatory landscape and future challenges for its commercial application. Working Paper No. 16/20. Madrid, Spain: BBVA Research.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological economics, 65(4), 663-674.
Keenan, R. J., Reams, G. A., Achard, F., de Freitas, J. V., Grainger, A., & Lindquist, E. (2015). Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 9-20.
Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Pataki, G., Martín-López, B., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2016). Non-monetary techniques for the valuation of ecosystem services. In: Potschin-Young, M. & Jax, K. (eds), OpenNess Ecosystem Services Reference Book. Operationalisation Of Natural Capital And Ecosystem Services (OpenNESS).
Kerr, J., Vardhan, M., & Jindal, R. (2014). Incentives, conditionality and collective action in payment for environmental services. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 595-616.
Kiptum, A. R., & Sang, C. C. (2017). Determinants of groundwater retention in wells: A case of Keiyo North district, Elgeyo Marakwet County, Kenya. Journal of Water Security, 3, 1-7.
Kiptum, A., & Sang, C. (2018). Ground Water Level Variability and their Cost Implications: A Case of Keiyo North Sub-County, Elgeyo Marakwet County, Kenya. Africa Environmental Review Journal, 2(2), 46-54.
Kiptum, A., Kipkoech, A., Adano, W. R., Osano, O., Biryahwaho, B., & Agasha, A. (2012). Impacts of community activities on environmental resources: the potential for developing payment schemes for environmental services. In Kipkoech, A., Okeyo-Owuor, J. B. & Mogaka, H., Towards Implementation of Payment for Environmental Services (PES): A collection of findings linked to the ASARECA funded research activities (pp. 290-300). VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Germany.
Lloyd-Smith, P. (2018). A Note on the Robustness of Aggregate Ecosystem Service Values. Ecological Economics, 146, 778-780.
Mattila, J., Seppälä, T., Naucler, C., Stahl, R., Tikkanen, M., Bådenlid, A., & Seppälä, J. (2016). Industrial blockchain platforms: An exercise in use case development in the energy industry. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA) Working Papers No. 43. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
McWaters, J. (2016). The future of financial infrastructure: An ambitious look at how blockchain can reshape financial services. World Economic Forum.
Milder, J. C., Scherr, S. J., & Bracer, C. (2010). Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 4-11.
Narayanan, A. (2015) Analysing the 2013 Bitcoin fork: centralised decision-making saved the day. Retrived from Freedom to Thinker, https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/
Oyugi, D. (2015). Main Rivers or other Water Bodies. Nairobi, KE: The Nature Conservancy.
Pagiola, S. (2009). Payments for Environmental Services: An Introduction. Washington, DC Environment Department, World Bank.
Pant, K. P., Rasul, G., Chettri, N., Rai, K. R., & Sharma, E. (2012). Value of forest ecosystem services: a quantitative estimation from the Kangchenjunga landscape in eastern Nepal. ICIMOD Working Paper No. 2012/5. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).
Pullin, A. S., & Stewart, G. B. (2006). Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation biology, 20(6), 1647-1656.
Rideout, A. J., Joshi, N. P., Viergever, K. M., Huxham, M., & Briers, R. A. (2013). Making predictions of mangrove deforestation: a comparison of two methods in Kenya. Global change biology, 19(11), 3493-3501.
Ruhweza, A., Biryahwayo, B. & Kalanzi, C. (2008). Inventory for Payments for Ecosystem Services in Uganda 2008. East and Southern Africa Pes Review Inventory Matrix on PES in Uganda-DRAFT. https://www.forest-trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/2008_Uganda_Inventory.pdf
Shackleton, C. M., Shackleton, S. E., Buiten, E., & Bird, N. (2007). The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest policy and economics, 9(5), 558-577.
Stavins, R. N., Wagner, A. F., & Wagner, G. (2003). Interpreting sustainability in economic terms: dynamic efficiency plus intergenerational equity. Economics Letters, 79(3), 339-343.
Vatn, A., Vedeld, P., Pétursson, J. G., & Stenslie, E. (2009). The REDD direction: the potential for reduced forest carbon emissions, biodiversity protection and enhanced development: a desk study with special focus on Tanzania and Uganda. Noragric Report No 51. Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of life Sciences.
Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and development economics, 279-297.
Copyright (c) 2021 Andrew Rutto Kiptum
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
