Implementación de pagos por servicios ambientales en la Cuenca del río Cali, Colombia: una mirada desde los sistemas socioecológicos
Implementation of payments for ecosystem services in the Cali river watershed, Colombia: a social-ecological systems perspective
Paola Arias-Arévalo; Nicol Pacheco-Valdés
Resumen
Palabras clave
Resumo
Abstract:: An increase in the implementation of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) is currently expected in Colombia -a biocultural diverse country with deep inequalities. This research identifies factors that influenced the implementation of one of the first PES pilots developed in Colombia during 2009-2014: the Cali river watershed PES program. We used the social-ecological systems approach (SES), which has not yet widely used to analyze PES, as the analytical framework. Fifteen interviews were applied to experts and PES participants and secondary information related to the PES program was also reviewed. Through a content analysis, key factors that positively influenced PES implementation were identified: quality and importance of hydrological services; participation and leadership of non-governmental and community-based organizations; and the program convergence with local pro-environmental worldviews and values. Some of the factors identified that played a negative influence include: conflicts between community actors, national rules associated with land tenure, and the high opportunity costs that small land-holders face. The SSE framework contributes to analyzing multiple emergent results (ecological, social, economic and political) from PES development, which frequently are overlooked in PES designs focused on technical aspects.
Palavras-chave
Referências
Addison, J., & Greiner, R. (2016). Applying the social–ecological systems framework to the evaluation and design of payment for ecosystem service schemes in the Eurasian steppe.
Adhikari, S., & Baral, H. (2018). Governing forest ecosystem services for sustainable environmental governance: A review.
Aguilar-Gómez, C. R., Arteaga-Reyes, T. T., Gómez-Demetrio, W., Ávila-Akerberg, V. D., & Pérez-Campuzano, E. (2020). Differentiated payments for environmental services: a review of the literature.
Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali. (2019).
Alcaldía de Santiago de Cali. (2020).
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective.
Arango, H., & Fandiño, M. C., (2011).
Bennett, D. E., & Gosnell, H. (2015). Integrating multiple perspectives on payments for ecosystem services through a social–ecological systems framework.
Berrio-Giraldo, L., Villegas-Palacio, C., & Arango-Aramburo, S. (2021). Understating complex interactions in socio-ecological systems using system dynamics: a case in the tropical Andes.
Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Honey-Rosés, J., Persson, U. M., & Wunder, S. (2017). The effectiveness of payments for environmental services.
Brown, I., & Everard, M. (2015). A working typology of response options to manage environmental change and their scope for complementarity using an Ecosystem Approach.
Centro para la Investigación en Sistemas Sostenibles de Producción Agropecuaria – CIPAV. (2011).
Chai, Y., Zhang, H., Luo, Y., Wang, Y., & Zeng, Y. (2021). Payments for ecosystem services programs, institutional bricolage, and common pool resource management: Evidence from village collective-managed irrigation systems in China.
Colombia. Departamento Administrativo de Gestión del Medio Ambiente – DAGMA. Universidad del Valle – UNIVALLE. (2007).
Colombia. Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle del Cauca – CVC. Fundación Pachamama. (2011).
Colombia. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de la República de Colombia. (2013, mayo 17). Decreto 953 de 2013. Por el cual se reglamenta el artículo 111 de la Ley 99 de 1993 modificado por el artículo 210 de la Ley 1450 de 2011. Recuperado el 1 de septiembre de 2021, de
Colombia. Corporación Autónoma Regional del Valle del Cauca – CVC. (2016).
Colombia. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social. Departamento Nacional de Planeación – DNP. (2017a).
Colombia. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible de la República de Colombia. (2017b, mayo 25). Decreto 870 de 2017. Por el cual se establece el Pago por Servicios Ambientales y otros incentivos a la conservación. Recuperado el 1 de septiembre de 2021, de
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008).
Davis, A., & Goldman, M. J. (2019). Beyond payments for ecosystem services: considerations of trust, livelihoods and tenure security in community-based conservation projects.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.
Engel, S. (2016). The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services.
Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues.
Fondo Patrimonio Natural. (2014).
Hayes, T., Grillos, T., Bremer, L. L., Murtinho, F., & Shapiro, E. (2019). Collective PES: More than the sum of individual incentives.
Huber-Stearns, H. R., Bennett, D. E., Posner, S., Richards, R. C., Fair, J. B. H., Cousins, S. J. M., & Romulo, C. L. (2017). Social-ecological enabling conditions for payments for ecosystem services.
Izquierdo-Tort, S., Ortiz-Rosas, F., & Vázquez-Cisneros, P. A. (2019). ‘Partial’ participation in payments for environmental services (PES): Land enrolment and forest loss in the Mexican Lacandona Rainforest.
Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation.
Jaramillo-García, A. (2021). La estrategia de uso, ocupación y tenencia en el Parque Nacional Natural Farallones de Cali ¿Una forma de disciplinar la acción política de la comunidad campesina? In T. Porcaro & E. Silva-Sandes (Eds.),
Kemkes, R. J., Farley, J., & Koliba, C. J. (2010). Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision.
Kolinjivadi, V., van Hecken, G., Almeida, D. V., Dupras, J., & Kosoy, N. (2019). Neoliberal performatives and the ‘making’ of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES).
Langle-Flores, A., Aguilar Rodríguez, A., Romero-Uribe, H., Ros-Cuéllar, J., & Von Thaden, J. (2021). Multi-level social-ecological networks in a payments for ecosystem services programme in central Veracruz, Mexico.
Lewison, R. L., An, L., & Chen, X. (2017). Reframing the payments for ecosystem services framework in a coupled human and natural systems context: strengthening the integration between ecological and human dimensions.
Li, Y., Fan, M., & Li, W. (2015). Application of payment for ecosystem services in China’s rangeland conservation initiatives: a social-ecological system perspective.
Lliso, B., Arias-Arévalo, P., Maca-Millán, S., Engel, S., & Pascual, U. (2021a). Motivational crowding effects in payments for ecosystem services: exploring the role of instrumental and relational values.
Lliso, B., Pascual, U., & Engel, S. (2021). On the role of social equity in payments for ecosystem services in Latin America: a practitioner perspective.
Locke, K., Feldman, M., & Golden-Biddle, K. (2020). Coding practices and iterativity: beyond templates for analyzing qualitative data.
Lockie, S. (2013). Market instruments, ecosystem services, and property rights: assumptions and conditions for sustained social and ecological benefits.
Lorenzo, C., & Bueno, M. del P. (2020). La conservación de la naturaleza en las relaciones Norte-Sur: el pago por los servicios ecosistémicos.
Maca-Millán, S., Arias-Arévalo, P., & Restrepo-Plaza, L. (2021). Payment for ecosystem services and motivational crowding: experimental insights regarding the integration of plural values via non-monetary incentives.
Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., & McGuire, S. (2014). Measuring effectiveness, efficiency and equity in an experimental Payments for Ecosystem Services trial.
Martínez-Salgado, C. (2012). El muestreo en investigación cualitativa: principios básicos y algunas controversias.
Martino, S., & Muenzel, D. (2018). The economic value of high nature value farming and the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy in sustaining income: the case study of the Natura 2000 Zarandul de Est (Romania).
McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005).
Miller, R., Nielsen, E., & Huang, C. H. (2017). Ecosystem service valuation through wildfire risk mitigation: Design, governance, and outcomes of the Flagstaff Watershed Protection Project (FWPP).
Calle, M. C. (2020, agosto 21). Colombia: el Parque Farallones de Cali llora la muerte de un nuevo líder ambiental.
Morse, W. C., McLaughlin, W. J., Wulfhorst, J. D., & Harvey, C. (2013). Social ecological complex adaptive systems: a framework for research on payments for ecosystem services.
Motta Gonzáles, N. (2014). Ocupación y poblamiento de la cuenca hidrográfica del río Cali.
Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., & May, P. H. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services.
Oliveira Fiorini, A. C., Mullally, C., Swisher, M., & Putz, F. E. (2020). Forest cover effects of payments for ecosystem services: Evidence from an impact evaluation in Brazil.
Partelow, S. (2018). A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges.
Perevochtchikova, M. (Coord.). (2021).
Pfaff, A., Rodriguez, L. A., & Shapiro-Garza, E. (2019). Collective Local Payments for ecosystem services: New local PES between groups, sanctions, and prior watershed trust in Mexico.
Rakotomahazo, C., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L. A., Randrianandrasaziky, D., Glass, L., Gough, C., Boleslas Todinanahary, G. G., & Gardner, C. J. (2019). Participatory planning of a community-based payments for ecosystem services initiative in Madagascar’s mangroves.
Ramírez-Gómez, C. J., & Rodríguez-Espinosa, H. (2022). Local public-private partnerships to promote innovation in agricultural value chains: the case of cocoa in Colombia.
Rodríguez de Francisco, J. C., & Boelens, R. (2015). Payment for environmental services: mobilising an epistemic community to construct dominant policy.
Rodríguez-Robayo, K. J., & Merino-Perez, L. (2017). Contextualizing context in the analysis of payment for ecosystem services.
Rodríguez-Robayo, K. J., Perevochtchikova, M., Ávila-Foucat, S., & De la Mora De la Mora, G. (2020). Influence of local context variables on the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services. Evidence from San Antonio del Barrio, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Rodríguez-Robayo, K. J., Trujillo-Miranda, A. L., Méndez-López, M. E., Porter-Bolland, L., Monzón-Alvarado, C. M., Llamas-Torres, I., Reyes-Maturano, I., León-Gónzalez, J., Juárez-Téllez, L., del Rocío Ruenes-Morales, M., Velasco, M. R.-D., & Chan-Chuc, N. (2022). Socioecological conflicts in Mexico: Trends and gaps in the regional analysis.
Romero, F. I., Cozano, M. A., Gangas, R. A., & Naulin, P. I. (2014). Riparian zones: protection, restoration and legal context in Chile.
Ruggiero, P. G. C., Metzger, J. P., Reverberi Tambosi, L., & Nichols, E. (2019). Payment for ecosystem services programs in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: effective but not enough.
Sandoval-Herrera, J. (2018).
Thompson, B. S., & Harris, J. L. (2021). Changing environment and development institutions to enable payments for ecosystem services: the role of institutional work.
Urcuquí, A. M. (2011).
van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., & Windey, C. (2015). Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): addressing the gaps in the current debate.
Vatn, A. (2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services.
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research.
Wunder, S. (2005).
Yin, R., & Zhao, M. (2012). Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes-China’s experience as an example.
Young, C. E. F., & de Bakker, L. B. (2014). Payments for ecosystem services from watershed protection: a methodological assessment of the Oasis Project in Brazil.
Zaga-Mendez, A., Bissonnette, J., Kolinjivadi, V., Cleaver, F., & Dupras, J. (2021). Towards collective action in ecosystem services governance: The recognition of social interdependencies in three collective agri-environmental initiatives in Quebec.
Submetido em:
11/09/2021
Aceito em:
17/01/2022
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email