Advertisement

A New Environmental Governance

  • Luisa E. DelgadoEmail author
  • Francisco Zorondo-Rodríguez
  • Pamela Bachmann-Vargas
  • Carmiña Soto
  • Veronique S. Avila Foucat
  • Ricardo A. Gutierrez
  • Andrea Muñoz-Barriga
  • Oscar E. Ferreiro
Chapter

Abstract

At present, there is no unified theoretical framework to deal with environmental governance issues. Consequently, there is a diversity of interpretations of the concept at the public-political arena both nationally and internationally. Recent Latin American efforts have given a step forward conceptualizing environmental governance from the South and systematizing experiences to illustrate a diverse contemporaneous reality. At a regional scale, within the last decades, discursive turns in national policies such as the introduction of the sustainable development concept have triggered an increase in studies and applications of environmental governance (e.g., forest’s governance, climate change, marine coastal zones) including the use of the ecosystem services concept. The instrumentation of public actions in relation to environmental governance derives from the states. However, if analyzed with a beyond-the-States view, governance can be understood as a process involving the participation of governmental and non-governmental actors reaching decisions, for mutual benefits, through negotiation processes. However, there is not, still, within the countries of the region, inclusive and participative governance oriented toward the sustainable use of natural resources. Although there are many challenges, in this chapter we discuss two of them: (1) to build an analytical framework to understand the environmental governance modes currently available in Latin America and (2) to generate a new sociopolitical interdisciplinary framework involving both natural and sociopolitical systems as a contribution to a new analytical framework for environmental governance. In other words, new environmental governance for Latin America.

Keywords

Social-ecological systems Latin America Complexity Environmental governance Public policies Adaptation 

References

  1. Aguilar M (2007) Reseña de “Gobernanza y gestión pública”. Foro Internacional, El Colegio de México, AC 47(2):443–447Google Scholar
  2. Aguiar A, Mastrangelo ME, García Collazo MA et al (2018) ¿Cuál es la situación de la Ley de Bosques en la Región Chaqueña a diez años de su sanción? Revisar su pasado para discutir su futuro. Ecología Austral 28:400–417Google Scholar
  3. Álvarez R, Ther F (2016) Fragmentos de una Cosmovisión Mesriza Asociada al acceso y uso del entorno costero en el Archipielago de Chiloé. Diálogo Andino 49:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnouts R, van der Zouwen M, Arts B (2012) Analysing governance modes and shifts-Governace arragements in Dutch nature policy. Forest Policy Econ 16:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arts B, Van Tatenhove J, Leroy P (2000) Conclusions and research agenda: political modernisation and the dynamics of environmental policy arrangements. In: Tatenhove J, Arts B, Leroy P (eds) Political modernization and the environment. The renewal of environmental Policy Arrangements. Van Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 199–215Google Scholar
  6. Arts B, Leroy P, Van Tatenhove J (2006) Political modernization and policy arrangements: a framework for understanding environmental policy change. Publ Organ Rev 6:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baldwin E, McCord P, Dell’Angelo J et al (2018) Collective action in a polycentric water gobernanza system. Environ Policy Gov 28:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basurto X, Gelcich S, Ostrom E (2013) The social ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Global Environ Change Hum Policy Dimen 23:1366–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D et al (2012) Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Env Resour 37(1):421–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Env Resour 34:253–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brunner R, Steelman T, Coe-Juell L et al (2005) Adaptive governance: integrating science, policy and decision making. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Buciega A, Esparcia J (2013) Desarrollo, Territorio y Capital Social. Un análisis a partir de dinámicas relacionales en el desarrollo rural. Redes 24(1):1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calame P (2009) Hacia una revolución de la gobernanza: reinventar la democracia. LOM Ediciones, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Calix JA (2016) Enfoques de Desarrollo en América Latina-Hacia una transformación Social-Ecológica. Análisis 1:1–36Google Scholar
  15. Carlisle KM, Gruby RL (2018) Why the path to polycentricity matters: evidence from fisheries governance in Palau. Environ Policy Gov 28:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castro F, Hogenboom B, Boud M (eds) (2015) Gobernanza Ambiental en América Latina. Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires. CLACSO, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship. Ecol Soc 19(3):56.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356. Accessed 9 Jun 2019
  18. Contesse M, Van Vliet BJM, Lenhart J (2018) Is urban agriculture urban green space? A comparison of policy arrangements for urban green space and urban agriculture in Santiago de Chile. Land Use Policy 71:566–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Córdova Montúfar M (2018) Gobernanza y políticas públicas. La seguridad ciudadana de Bogotá y Quito. Editorial Universidad del Rosario/FlacsoGoogle Scholar
  20. Cruz-Garcia GS, Sachet E, Blundo-Canto G et al (2017) To what extent have the links between ecosystem services and human well-being been researched in Africa, Asia and Latin America? Ecosyst Serv 25:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Delgado LE, Marin VH, Bachmann P et al (2009) Conceptual models for ecosystem management through the participation of local social actors: the río cruces wetland conflict. Ecol Soc 14(1):50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delgado LE, Tironi A, Vila I et al (2014) El humedal del Río Cruces, Valdivia Chile: una síntesis ecosistémica. Lat Am J Aquat Res 42:937–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Delgado LE, Torres-Gomez M, Tironi A et al (2015) Estrategia de Adaptación Local al cambio Climático para el acceso equitativo al agua en zonas rurales de Chile. Rev Am Latina Hoy 69:113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Delgado LE, Marín VH (2016) Well-being and the use of ecosystem services by rural households of the Río Cruces watershed, southern Chile. Ecosyst Serv 21:81–91Google Scholar
  25. Delgado LE, Tironi-Silva A, Marín VH (2019) Sistemas socioecológicos y servicios ecosistémicos: modelos conceptuales para el humedal del Río Cruces (Valdivia, Chile). In: Cerda C, Silva-Rodriguez E, Briceño C (eds) Naturaleza en sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de ls biodiversidad. Editorial OchoLibros, Santiago, pp 177–205Google Scholar
  26. Díaz, S Demissew S, Carabias J et al (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16Google Scholar
  27. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Duffield M (2001) Las nuevas guerras y el mundo global. La convergencia entre desarrollo y seguridad. Cataratas, MadridGoogle Scholar
  29. Eakin H, Lemos MC (2006) Adaptation and the state: Latin America and the challenge of capacity-building under globalization. Glob Environ Chang 16:7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Figueroa LM, Gutiérrez RA (2018) Enfrentados por el ambiente: incidencia de las coaliciones sociedad-estado en la protección de bosques nativos. In: Gutiérrez RA (ed) Construir el ambiente: sociedad, estado y políticas ambientales en Argentina. Teseo, Buenos Aires, pp 103–166Google Scholar
  31. Garrick D, Heikkila T, Villamayor-Tomas S et al (2018) The lens of polycentricity: Identifying polycentric governance systems illustrated through examples from the field of water governance. Environ Policy Gov 28:236–251Google Scholar
  32. Hogenboom B, Baud M, de Castro F (2012) Gobernanza ambiental en América Latina: hacia agenda de investigación integradora. Revista del Centro Andino de Estudios Internacionales 12:51–71Google Scholar
  33. Kooiman J (2003) Governing as governance. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Kuhn T (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Laterra P, Martín-López B, Mastrangelo M et al (2017) Servicios ecosistémicos en Latinoamérica: de la investigación a la acción. Ecol Austral 27:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Latour B (2005) Re-assembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Env Resour 31:297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leroy P, Arts B (2014) Institutional dynamics in environmental governance. Springer, BerlínGoogle Scholar
  39. Marín VH, Delgado LE, Tironi-Silva A et al (2018) Exploring social-ecological complexities of wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites): the Carlos Anwandter Sanctuary (Valdivia, Chile) as a case study. Wetlands 38:1171–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martínez Alier J (2014) El ecologismo de los pobres. Editorial Quimantú, Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  41. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2):30.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis report. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. MINAGRI (2009) Reglamento general de la ley sobre recuperación del bosque nativo y fomento forestal Nro 20.283. Ministerio de Agricultura, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  44. Nahuelhual L, Donoso P, Lara A et al (2007) Valuing ecosystem services of Chilean temperate rainforests. Environ Dev Sustain 9:481–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Natenzon C, Ríos D (2015) Una revisión sobre catástrofes, riesgo y ciencias sociales. In: Natenzon C, Ríos D (eds) Riesgos, catástrofes y vulnerabilidades: aportes desde la geografía y otras ciencias sociales para casos argentinos. Ediciones Imago Mundi, Buenos Aires, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  46. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  47. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Paavola J (2007) Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecol Econ 63:93–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paredes L (2019) Desarrollo de un modelo conceptual para el manejo de servicios ecosistémicos costeros: Isla Grande de Chiloé. Tesis para optar al cargo de Magíster en Gestión y Planificación Ambiental. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y de la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Universidad de Chile, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Pellet PF, Ugarte E, Osorio E et al (2005) Biodiversity conservation in Chile, legally enough? The need for mapping the law before deciding. Rev Chil Hist Nat 78:125–141Google Scholar
  51. Perevchtchikova M (ed) (2014) Pago por servicios ambientales en México. Un acercamiento para su estudio. El Colegio de México AC, México DFGoogle Scholar
  52. Piccolo JJ (2017) Intrinsic values in nature: objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? J Nat Conserv 37(1):8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pittman J, Armitage D (2019) Network governance of land-sea social-ecological systems in the Lesser Antilles. Ecol Econ 157:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Primmer E, Jokinen P, Blicharska M et al (2015) Governance of ecosystem services: a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv 16:158–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reyes R, Sepulveda C, Astorga L (2014) Gobernanza del Sector Forestal Chileno: Tensiones y Conflictos entre las Fuerzas de Mercado y las Demandas de la Ciudadania. In: González DCM, Lara A (eds) Ecología forestal. Bases para el manejo sustentable y conservación de los bosques nativos de Chile. Ediciones Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, pp 693–720Google Scholar
  56. Sarkki S (2017) Governance services: co-producing human well-being with ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 27:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J et al (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:8349–8356PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schultz L, Folke C, Österblom H et al (2015) Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital: Fig. 1. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:7369–7374Google Scholar
  59. Schöder NJS (2018) The lens of polycentricity: identifying polycentric governance systems illustrated through examples from the field of water governance. Environ Policy Gov 28:236–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swyngedouw E (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Stud 42:1991–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yu Iwama A, Delgado LE (2018) Acción: Participación Comunitaria en Procesos de decisión en la Conservación del territorio. Cuadernos del Pensamiento Crítico Latinoamericano 56:1–3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luisa E. Delgado
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Francisco Zorondo-Rodríguez
    • 3
  • Pamela Bachmann-Vargas
    • 4
  • Carmiña Soto
    • 5
  • Veronique S. Avila Foucat
    • 6
  • Ricardo A. Gutierrez
    • 7
  • Andrea Muñoz-Barriga
    • 8
  • Oscar E. Ferreiro
    • 9
  1. 1.Escuela de Ciencias, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de ChileSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Fundación Centro Transdisciplinario de Estudios FES-SistémicosSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Departamento de Gestión Agraria, Facultad TecnológicaUniversidad de Santiago de ChileSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Environmental Policy GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Dirección General de Postgrado y Relaciones InternacionalesUniversidad Nacional de AsunciónSan LorenzoParaguay
  6. 6.Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCiudad de MéxicoMexico
  7. 7.School of Politics and GovernmentUniversidad Nacional de San Martín and CONICETSan MartínArgentina
  8. 8.Research Group Socio-ecological systems, Faculty of Human SciencesPontificia Universidad Católica del EcuadorQuitoEcuador
  9. 9.Facultad de Ciencias AgrariasUniversidad Nacional de AsunciónSan LorenzoParaguay

Personalised recommendations