Vol. 25 Núm. 3 (2019): Otoño 2019
Artículos Científicos

Salvar al bebé mientras se descarga el agua de la bañera: aplicación del análisis de coherencia de políticas para el desarrollo en el pago por servicios de cuencas hidrográficas

xml xml
  • Harlan Koff,
  • Carmen Maganda
Harlan Koff
University of Luxembourg
Biografía
Carmen Maganda
Instituto de Ecología, A.C.
Biografía
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2019.2531760

Publicado 2019-12-13

Palabras clave

  • Antigua river basin,
  • Mexico,
  • payment for ecosystem services (PES),
  • payment for watershed services (PWS),
  • policy coherence for development (PCD),
  • Veracruz
    • ...Más
    Menos
  • cuenca del río Antigua,
  • México,
  • pago servicios ecosistémicos,
  • pago por servicios de cuenpor cas,
  • coherencia de políticas para el desarrollo,
  • Veracruz
    • ...Más
    Menos

Resumen

Una de las herramientas más debatidas para la implementación del desarrollo sostenible es el "pago por servicios ecosistémicos", de los cuales el "pago por servicios de cuencas hidrográficas" (PWS, por sus siglas en inglés) es uno de los más desarrollados. Autores a favor argumentan que tales pagos proporcionan valor de mercado a los servicios que los ecosistemas brindan para el desarrollo, pero los opositores afirman que este enfoque mercantiliza el ambiente y promueve las desigualdades. Este artículo presenta un análisis de los programas de PWS mediante la aplicación de metodologías basadas en la coherencia de políticas para el desarrollo (PCD), definida como una herramienta de políticas dirigida a eliminar la incoherencia en las estrategias de desarrollo sostenible que socavan su efectividad, así como entre dichas estrategias y otras áreas de políticas, que también se consideran perjudiciales para la sostenibilidad. Al emplear la metodología de PCD, este trabajo apunta a identificar los mecanismos de políticas que socavan los programas de PWS para que las partes interesadas puedan realizar ajustes, asegurando metafóricamente que "el bebé" (PWS) no se vaya por el desagüe junto con el “agua de la bañera" (metáfora de una política incoherente para el desarrollo sostenible).
xml xml

Citas

  1. Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., …, & Wolmer, W. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306(5699), 1146-1149. doi: 10.1126/science.1097920
  2. Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., & Seyfang, G. (2003). Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’analysis of environmental decision
  3. making. Environment and Planning A, 35(6), 1095-1110. doi: 10.1068/a35289
  4. Alix-Garcia, J., De Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2005). A tale of two communities: explaining deforestation in Mexico. World Development, 33(2), 219-235. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.010
  5. Asbjornsen, H., Mayer, A. S., Jones, K. W., Selfa, T., Saenz, L., Kolka, R. K., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2015). Assessing impacts of payments for watershed services on sustainability in coupled human and natural systems. BioScience, 65(6), 579-591. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv051
  6. Benítez, G., Pérez-Vázquez, A., Nava-Tablada, M., Equihua, M., & Álvarez-Palacios, J. L. (2012). Urban expansion and the environmental effects of informal settlements on the outskirts of Xalapa city, Veracruz, Mexico. Environment and Urbanization, 4(1), 149–166. doi: 10.1177%2F0956247812437520
  7. Berry, K., Saito, L. Kauneckis, D. & Berry, K. (2012). Understanding perceptions of successful cooperation on water quality issues. Regions & Cohesion, 2(2), 57-82. doi: 10.3167/reco.2012.020204
  8. Boisvert, V., Méral, P., & Froger, G. (2013). Market-based instruments for ecosystem services: institutional innovation or renovation? Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1122-1136.
  9. Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U.M., & Wunder, S. (2017). The effectiveness of payment for environmental services. World Development, 96, 359-374. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2013.820815
  10. Boyd, J. & Banzhaf, H.S. (2006). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. SSRN papers. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper No. RFF DP 06-02. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002
  11. Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Proyecto Conservación de Cuencas Costeras en el Contexto del Cambio Climático [C6]. (2017). Plan de Acción de Manejo Integral (PAMIC) Cuenca del Río Jamapa, 1ª Edición junio 2017. Interinstitutional Project C6 “Cuencas Costeras”, by SEMARNAT, CONANP, CONAFOR, INECC, FMCN, FMAM & FGM. http://www.c6.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/JAM-PAMIC-web9Jun17baja.pdf (accessed 10 September 2018)
  13. Carbone, M. (2008). Mission Impossible: The European Union and Policy Coherence for Development. Journal of European Integration, 30(3), 323-342. doi: 10.1080/07036330802144992
  14. Carbone, M. & Keijzer, N. (2016). The European Union and policy coherence for development: Reforms, results, resistance. The European Journal of Development Research, 28(1), 30-43. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2015.72
  15. Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano D., DeFries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Miguel Pereira, H., Perrings, C., Reid, W.V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes R.J. & Whyte. A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, PNAS 2009, 106(5), 1305-1312; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0808772106
  16. CEPS. (2006). Policy Coherence for Development in the EU Council: Strategies for the Way Forward. Brussels: CEPS.
  17. Corbera, E., Soberanis C.G. & Brown K. (2009). Institutional dimensions of Payments for
  18. Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological
  19. Economics, 68(3), 743-761. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.008
  20. Costanza, R., Daly, L., Fioramonti, L., Giovannini, E., Kubiszewski, I., Mortensen, L. F. & Wilkinson, R. (2016). Modelling and measuring sustainable wellbeing in connection with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Ecological Economics, 130, 350-355. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.009
  21. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S. & Turner, R. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152-158. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
  22. Cotler H., Garrido, A., Bunge, V. & Cuevas, M.L. (2010). Las cuencas hidrográficas de México: Priorización y toma de decisiones. In Las cuencas hidrográficas de México: diagnóstico y priorización, ed. H. Cotler. pp. 210-215. Instituto Nacional de Ecología-Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte I.A.P. México D.F., México.
  23. Deschamps-Ramírez, P. & Madrid-Zubirán, S. (2018). Subsidios forestales sin rumbo. Apuntes para una política en favor de las comunidades y sus bosques. Consejo Civil Mexicano para la Silvicultura Sostenible, AC. http://www.ccmss.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Subsidios-forestales-sin-rumbo_2010_2017.pdf (accessed 15 December 2018)
  24. European Commission (2007). EU Report on Policy Coherence for Development. Brussels: European Commission COM 545.
  25. European Commission (2010). Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010-2013. Brussels: European Commission, SEC, 2010, 421.
  26. European Commission (2011). EU 2011 Report on Policy Coherence for Development. Brussels: European Commission, SEC, 1627.
  27. European Union (2007). The European Consensus for Development 2006. Joint declaration by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the development policy of the European Union entitled "The European Consensus" [Official Journal C 46 of 24.2.2006]. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:r12544&from=EN (accessed 15 January 2019)
  28. Ferraro, P. & Kiss, A. (2002). Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science, 298, 1718–1719. doi: 10.1126/science.1078104
  29. Fuentes-Pangtay, T. (2009). Análisis de los programas de pago o compensación por servicios ambientales en la cuenca del Pixquiac. Fortalezas y debilidades en el contexto local. México: Sendas A.C.
  30. Fuentes-Pangtay, T. & L. Paré. (2012). El Comité de cuenca del río Pixquiac: ensayos para crear una plataforma social de cogestión y su instrumento de financiamiento. In Al filo del agua: cogestión de la subcuenca del río Pixquiac (pp. 192-218), L. Paré & P. Gerez (Eds.). Mexico D.F.: Juan Pablo Editores.
  31. Garbach, K., Lubell, M., & DeClerck, F.A. (2012). Payment for ecosystem services: the roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 156, 27-36. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.04.017
  32. García Romero, H. (2012). Payments for Environmental Services: Can They Work?
  33. The Case of Mexico. Field Actions Science Reports, Special Issue 6. http://factsreports.revues.org/1711
  34. Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological economics, 69(6), 1209-1218. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.007
  35. Hoebink, P. (1999). Coherence and development policy: the case of the European Union. In: Policy coherence in development co-operation (pp. 323-345), J. Foster & O. Stokke (Eds.). London: Frank Cass.
  36. Jones, K., Avila Foucat, S., Pischke, E., Salconea, J., Torrez, D., Selfa, T., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2019). Exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz State, Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 35, 32-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.11.004
  37. Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environment and planning C: Government and policy, 26(1), 17-33. doi: 10.1068%2Fcav6
  38. Kazcynski, V. & Fluharty, D. (2002). European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements? Marine Policy, 26, 75-93. doi: 10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00039-2
  39. King, C., Stillwell, A., Twomey, K., & Webber, M. (2013). Coherence between water and energy policies. Natural Resources Journal, 53, 117-215.
  40. Koff, H. (2017). Diaspora philanthropy in the context of Policy Coherence for Development:
  41. Implications for the post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda. International Migration, 55 (1), 5–19. doi: 10.1111/imig.12277
  42. Koff, H. (2016). Reconciling competing globalizations through regionalisms? Environmental security in the framework of expanding security norms and narrowing security policies, Globalizations, 13(6), 664-682. doi: 10.1080/14747731.2015.1133044
  43. Koff, H., Equihua-Zamora, M., Maganda, C., & Perez-Maqueo, O. (2016). Ecosystem integrity and policy coherence for development: Tools aimed at achieving balance as the basis for transformative development. Regions & Cohesion, 6(3), 77-92. doi: 10.3167/reco.2016.060304
  44. Koff, H. & Maganda, C. (2016). The EU and the human right to water and sanitation: Normative coherence as the key for transformative change. European Journal for Development Research, 28(1), 90-110. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2015.77
  45. Kosoy, N., Martinez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2007). Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological economics, 61(2), 446-455. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.016
  46. Laakso, L., Kivimäaki, T., & Seppäanen, M. (2007). Evaluation of Co-ordination and Coherence in the application of Article 96 of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.
  47. León, C., Bauche, P., Graf, S., Cortina, S., & Frausto, J. M. (2012). Replicating policy that works: Payment for environmental services in Mexico. Solutions, 3(5), 82-88.
  48. Marks, G. (1993). Structural policy and multi-level governance in the EC. In A. Cafruny & G. Rosenthal (Eds.), The state of the European community: The maastricht debate and beyond (pp. 391–411). Boulder, CO: Longman.
  49. Martens, J. (2015). Benchmarks for a truly universal Post-2015 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Regions & Cohesion, 5(1), 73-94. doi: 10.3167/reco.2015.050105
  50. Matthews, A. (2008). The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy and Developing Countries: The Struggle for Coherence. Journal of European Integration, 30(3), 381-399. doi: 10.1080/07036330802141998
  51. Mayrand K. & Paquin, M. (2004). Payments for environmental services: A survey and assesment of current schemes. Montreal: Unisfera International Centre for the Commission of Environmental Cooperation of North America.
  52. Milder, J., Scherr, S., & Bracer, C. (2010). Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society, 15(2).
  53. Millán, N. (2015). Un análisis de la Agenda Post 2015 desde la perspectiva de la coherencia de políticas. Relaciones Internacionales, 28, 81-104.
  54. Mokondoko, P. & Manson, R. (2010). Valoración de servicios ambientales hidrológicos: Caso río la Antigua. Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para el Desarrollo de México, 3(62), 26 de septiembre.
  55. Mokondoko, P., Manson R., & Pérez-Maqueo, O. (2016). Assessing the service of water quality regulation by quantifying the effects of land use on water quality and public health in central Veracruz, Mexico. Ecosystem Services, 22, 161-173. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.001
  56. Mokondoko, P., Manson, R., Ricketts, T. H., & Geissert, D. (2018). Spatial analysis of ecosystem service relationships to improve targeting of payments for hydrological services. PLOS ONE, 13(2) 1-27. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192560
  57. Muradian, R. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services as incentives for collective action. Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1155-1169.
  58. Nava-López, M., Selfa, T., Cordoba, D., Pischke, E., Torrez, D., Ávila-Foucat, S., Halvorsen, K. E., & Maganda, C. (2018). Decentralizing payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Challenges and implications for long-term sustainability. Society & Natural Resources, 31(12), 1389-1399. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1463420
  59. Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J.E., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., & McGuinn, J. (2012). Understanding Policy Coherence: Analytical Framework and Examples of Sector–Environment Policy Interactions in the EU. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(6), 395–423. doi: 10.1002/eet.1589
  60. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2009). Building Blocks for Policy Coherence for Development. Paris: OECD.
  61. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2012). Meeting summary record. Meeting of the National Focal Points for Policy Coherence for Development. (SG/PCD/M(2012)1). Paris, France: OECD.
  62. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] (2014). Evaluaciones de la OCDE sobre el desempeño ambiental: México 2013, Análisis de los resultados medioambientales. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi.org/10.1787/9789264189188-es
  63. Pagiola, S., Landell-Mills, N., & Bishop, J. (2002). Market-based mechanisms for forest conservation and development. In S. Pagiola, N. Landell-Mills, & J. Bishop (Eds.), Selling forest environmental services. London: Earthscan.
  64. Paré, L. & Gerez, P. (2012). Al filo del agua: cogestión de la subcuenca del río Pixquiac, Veracruz. Mexico, D.F.: UNAM.
  65. Pilke, R. & Stocchetti, M. (2016). Inequality and poverty: The ill-fitting pieces in the EU’s development partnerships. Regions & Cohesion, 6(1), 1-22. doi: 10.3167/reco.2016.060101.
  66. Redford, K. H. & Adams, W.M. (2009). Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 785-787. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01271.x
  67. Rodríguez Camargo, N. R. (2015). Análisis del costo de oportunidad de la tierra en la subcuenca del Ría Pixquiac, Una aproximacíon del valor económico de los servicios ambientales hidrológicos como mecanismos para la conservación. Masters thesis, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico.
  68. Rodríguez de Francisco, J. C., Budds, J., & Boelens, R. (2013). Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in Pimampiro, Ecuador. Society & Natural Resources, 26(10), 1217-1233. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2013.825037
  69. Rolón Sánchez, E. (2009). Situación actual y futura de los pagos por servicios ambientales en México: el caso de hidrológicos. Retrieved form http://www.inecc.gob.mx/descargas/con_eco/2009_sem_ser_amb_pres_03_erolon.pdf
  70. Román-Jiménez, A. R., Mendoza-Briseño, M. A., Velázquez-Martínez, A., Martínez-Ménez, M. R., Torres-Rojo, J. M., & Ramírez-Maldonado, H. (2011). Usos y riesgos del agua en la cuenca La Antigua, Veracruz, México. Madera y Bosques, 17(3), 29-48. doi: 10.21829/myb.2011.1731141
  71. Ruiz-Mallén, I., Corbera, E., Calvo-Boyero, D., & Reyes-García, V. (2015). Participatory scenarios to explore local adaptation to global change in biosphere reserves: experiences from Bolivia and Mexico. Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 398-408. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.027
  72. Sarelin, A. L. (2007). Human rights-based approaches to development cooperation, HIV/AIDS, and food security. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 460-488. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2007.0022
  73. Scullion, J., Thomas, C., Vogt, K., Pérez-Maqueo, O., & Logsdon, M. (2011). Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), 426–434. doi: 10.1017/S037689291100052X
  74. Shapiro-Garza, E. (2013). Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of articulation and hybridization. Geoforum, 46, 5-15. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.11.018
  75. Schomers, S. & Matzdorf, B. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services, 6, 16-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002
  76. Sendas A.C. (2003). Senderos y Encuentros para un Desarrollo Autónomo y Sustentable. Delimitación de zonas prioritarias y evaluación de los mecanismos existentes para el pago de servicios ambientales hidrológicos en la cuenca del río Pixquiac, Veracruz, México. Project Technical Document: NCMA3-08-03.
  77. Siitonen, L. (2016). Theorising politics behind Policy Coherence for Development (PCD). European Journal of Development Research, 28(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2015.76
  78. Thede, N. (2013). Policy coherence for development and securitisation: competing paradigms or stabilising North–South hierarchies? Third World Quarterly, 34(5), 784-799. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.800752
  79. United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld
  80. Vidriales-Chan, G., & Mateos, M. L. L. (2016). Gestión compartida de la subcuenca del río Pixquiac: conexiones desde la montaña. In H. V. Narave-Flores, L. Garibay-Pardo, M. Á. Chamorro-Zárate, L. R. Álvarez-Oseguera, & Y. de la Cruz Elizondo (Eds.). El Cofre de Perote: situación, perspectivas e importancia (pp. 42-48). Veracruz: Universidad Veracruzana.
  81. Wunder, S., Engel, S., & Pagiola, S. (2008). Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics, 65(May), 834–852. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010
  82. Zheng, H., Robinson, B. E., Liang, Y. C., Polasky, S., M. C., Wang, F. C., Ruckelshaus, M., Ouyang, Z. Y., & Daily, G. C. (2013). Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(41), 16681–16686. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312324110