New modes of environmental governance: constructing a biological corridor policy in Honduras

The International Journal of

Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies

THESOCIALSCIENCES.COM

70-6.&��

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES www.thesocialsciences.com

First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com

ISSN: ��

© 2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact [email protected].

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion- referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

New Modes of Environmental Governance in Central America: Constructing a Biological

Corridor Policy in Honduras Celia Ruiz de Ona, Proimmse-IIA-National Autonomous University Of Mexico, Mexico Federico Morales, Proimmse-IIA-National Autonomous University Of Mexico, Mexico

Abstract: New modes of governance, such as network governance or public-private partnership have gained ground in environmental policy. While typically associated with long-term, well-established democracies, these interorganizational processes are emerging in countries with weak democracies such as those in Central America. Scholars on environmental governance are pondering if these new modes of environmental governance make decision-making more inclusive, transparent and accountable, while at the same time promoting effective environmental policy performance. We partially address this question by focusing on public and private actors’ articulations of the issue surrounding biological corridors in Honduras. We draw on the institutional analysis framework of policy arrangement developed by Leroy and Ars to provide perspective on the main challenges that network governance confronts in unstable democracies. The case presented here highlights that persistent traditional political forms at the national level hinder network governance. At the same time, emerging collaborative attitudes promoted at local and international level are slowly challenging these traditional forms.

Keywords: Environmental Governance, Central America, Public Policy Networks, Biological Corridors

Introduction: Biological Corridors as Social-ecological Complex Systems for Environmental Governance

iological corridors are one of the most challenging strategies for conservation and natural resource management. Increasing landscape connectivity involves identifying and delineating portions of land according to ecological parameters in order to link patches of

fragmented ecosystems. Preventing species extinction and promoting continuous vegetation cover are the main objectives that lie behind the conventional idea of biological corridors (Crooks and Sanjayan 2006, 2-3).

Social and economical considerations are usually absent in the process of delineating biological corridors, so often conceived under the reductionist angle of a purely biological view (Holling, Gunderson and Ludwig 2002, 8-9). However, and particularly in developing countries, areas designated to act as green corridors could be densely inhabited, mostly by campesino farmers, and to some extent by big landowners, whose patterns of land use are under a productive logic rather than a conservation practice.

This narrow way of understanding biological corridors obscures the complexity inherent in socio-ecological systems, characterised by non-linear dynamics, spontaneous and abrupt change, and multiple equilibriums as the main features of the so-called complex adaptive systems (Boyd and Folke 2012, 3; Plummer and Armitage 2010, 10-11; Karkkainen 2002, 3-4; Pahl-Wostl 2007, 563).

Biological corridors can be seen as highly complex socio-ecological systems. The wide range of habitats comprised within biological corridors are subject to competing land uses and conflicting interest, that are expressed at different ecological scales and at different administrative boundaries (Armitage et al. 2009, 99-100). This poses enormous implications both in terms of conducting effective management and in defining public policies that embrace this complexity (Pahl-Wostl 2007, 568; Plummer and Armitage 2010, 4-5).

B

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies Volume 7, 2013, www.thesocialsciences.com, ISSN �� © Common Ground, Celia Ruiz de Ona, Federico Morales, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

One of the most complex and ambitious efforts to connect fragmented landscapes is the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC), officially conformed in 1997 during the XIX Central American Presidential Summit. The MBC became a regional and transnational conservation initiative integrated by the seven Central American countries and the southernmost states of Mexico (Chiapas, Tabasco, and Yucatan). The aim of the initiative was to achieve the interconnection of the ecosystems integrating the System of Central America Natural Protected Areas in order to conserve biodiversity and to promote the sustainable use of natural resources (CCAD et al. 2005, 6-7). In the long term, individual countries were expected to design an institutional base and programmatic courses of action to develop national sections within the MBC. The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and the German International Aid Agency (GIZ) provided financial assistance. However, the entire initiative was under the umbrella of the Central American Commission for the Environment and Development (CCAD by its acronym in Spanish), a multinational agency and the environmental body of the System of Central America Integration (SICA by its acronym in Spanish). The CCAD was appointed to offer political guidance for Central American countries in order to foster cooperation and synergistic strategic actions along the territories of the MBC (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo 2009, 11).

In Honduras, ten national biological corridors were defined. In 2001, one of them, the Honduras-Caribe Biological Corridor (Hon-Caribe BC) was chosen as a pilot project to strengthen the MBC-Honduras, through the “Programme for the MBC Consolidation” (PPCBM) (CCAD et al. 2005, 9). At present, another important project is operating in this corridor, the PROCORREDOR Project, a European Union (EU) funded project.1

1 Proyecto de Gestión Sostenible de los Recursos Naturales y Cuencas del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano del Atlántico Hondureño, http://www.procorredor.org.

RUIZ DE ONA AND MORALES: NEW MODES OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Table 1: Historical Line of the Project Established by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency, (JICA) through the Japanese-Mexican Partnership Programme (JMPP) Dealing with a Policy-making

Initiative for Biological Corridors in Honduras. The Table Shows the Beginnings of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor at the Level of Central America to the Establishment of Biological Corridors in

Honduras. CREATION OF THE MESOAMERICAN

BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR (from the Central American level to the Honduras-Caribe

biological corridor)

PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED AT EACH STAGE

MAIN INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL

AGENCIES IN CHARGE

1997 GEF-GIZ

MESOAMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR

(MBC) Central American countries +

Mexico southern states

Strategic Project for the MBC

Consolidation

Central American Commission on Environment and

Development (CCAD)

2001 GEF

HONDURAS-MBC 10 National Biological

Corridors

2005-2011 GEF, PNUD, others

Strategic Project for the Honduras-MBC

CCAD, Honduras Ministry of Environment and Natural

Resource Management (SERNA), Institute of Forestry

Commission (ICF), and Honduras Ecology Network for Sustainable Development

(REHDES)

Ecosystems Project; Trifinio Project; Corazon Project

SERNA, ICF, Municipalities, local orgs, and private actors

from different national biological corridors

2009-2012 EU

HONDURAS-CARIBE-MBC

10 protected areas, 500,000 inhabitants

2011-2012 JICA

PROCORREDOR PROJECT

SERNA, ICF, Municipalities, local orgs, and private actors

in the Honduras-Caribe biological corridor

JMPP- Mexican specialists

collaborating with PROCORREDOR

PROJECT

JICA

SERNA-DBIO

ICF-DAPVS

Mexican MCB-MEXICO; Autonomous University of

Mexico (UNAM);

Mexican Centre of Environmental Legislation

(CENDA) Source: Prepared by the Authors


PROCORREDOR is the initial point of a policy-making initiative started in 2011 that seeks to integrate the experiences of this and other projects (see table 1) dealing with biological corridors in Honduras, together with the perspectives of a wide range of actors involved in the management and decision-making process of the lands designated to act as green corridors. The definition of a public policy for biological corridors in Honduras, under the sponsorship of international aid agencies, illustrates how hierarchical and network governance could intersect to produce particular governance forms, mechanisms and outcomes in contexts characterised by instability and conflict.

In this paper, we aim to understand the challenges involved in this collective policy-making initiative in which we (the authors) were also actors and not only observers. Our objective is to unravel key obstacles to the environmental governance processes in non-European countries.

It is worthy to highlight the European origin of the environmental governance concept in the context of political modernization. It is characterized in the literature as the Europeanization of environmental politics (Arts, Leroy and Van Tatenhove 2006, 156). This European perspective has been rapidly expanding all over the globe, channelled and fuelled by multilateral organizations, such as The World Bank, seeking to gain legitimacy through participatory processes (Bäckstrand et al. 2010, 10). The idealistic conception of “good governance” promoted at the international level ignores the historical and social contexts of countries world-wide (Rhodes 1996, 656; Weiss 2000, 801).

The following section makes explicit the conceptual framework and the analytical concepts incorporated to address our case study. We then provide a brief historical and methodological discussion of the environmental governance process in Honduras. The rest of the paper highlights key issues emerging from the still on-going process. We focus on the way actors engage with each other and the resulting implications of such interactions in terms of achieving effectiveness and legitimacy. We cautiously advance some preliminary conclusions of the challenges seen ahead.

Environmental Governance: Uncertain, Interactive, Multi-dimensional and Conflictive

After conducting long-term research in various social-ecological systems, Armitage and colleagues (2009, 96) concluded: “ecological and social uncertainty is acknowledged as inherent to governance, and is best addressed with collaborative processes and recognition that multiple sources and types of knowledge are relevant to problem solving.” Thus, the ability to link social actors in effective arrangements is the key matter to address when building sound environmental governance processes, in which regularized flows of information, share understanding and common problem articulation could result in a process of social learning (Reed et al. 2010).

The concept of governance has many definitions according to the normative theoretical and disciplinary approaches (Rhodes 1996, 653-659; Lemos and Agrawal 2006, 298-299; Treib, Bähr and Falkner 2007, 5-6; Plummer and Armitage 2010, 4-5) . However, and according to Richards and Smith (2002) and Leach and colleagues (2010, 66-70), we choose a broad description of the term governance to highlight the multiple political processes and relationships through which state and non-state actors engage, resulting in a variety of political implications:

Governance is… used to highlight the changing nature of the policy process in recent decades. In particular, it sensitizes us to the variety of terrains and actors involved in the making of public policy. Thus, governance demands that we consider all the actors and locations beyond central government involved in the policymaking process. (Richards and Smith 2002 in Leach et al 2010, 68)


The above description highlights two prevailing common features to “modern governance”; one is that the central government is unable to deal on its own with the highly complex nature of societal issues at stake (Mayntz 2001, 2-3). The present research points to a changing role in the steering style of central governments rather than a substitution of their functions, a shift conceptualized as ”governance without government” (Rhodes 1996, 667). This emerging style has no one single manifestation, neither a “right” one and is strongly dependent on the issues being dealt with and upon the political and institutional context (Voß and Bornemann 2011, 2).

The second feature has to do with the prominence of network participation in a political domain that was previously and exclusively controlled by the State (Klijn and Koppenjan 2006, 154-155).

The foregoing features provide two principal justifications for the promotion of environmental governance. The first one indicates management of complex arrangements, which requires governance systems able to deal with uncertainty and instability (Pahl-Wostl 2007, 563-564; Boyd and Folke 2012, 2-3). According to the so-called diversity hypothesis, governance systems, conforming to a sort of polycentric and hybrid arrangement involving heterogeneous actors operating simultaneously across multiple scales, are better equipped to deal with uncertainty and instability (Duit et al. 2010, 367; Newig and Fritsch 2009, 199-200).

Amongst this diversity, the emergence of new modes of governance, such as network governance or public-private partnerships, are considered to be more flexible and able to adapt to novel and unexpected circumstances (Dedeurwaerdere 2005, 11-12; Duit et al. 2010, 366; Pahl-Wostl 2009, 357). It follows from this that institutional and organizational diversity could be the most effective way to cope with complexity.

The second justification leads to what has been labelled “the promise of environmental governance”. This anticipates higher levels of transparency, accountability and effectiveness in the processes and outcomes of new modes of governance (Bäckstrand et al. 2010, 15; Hahn 2011; Glasbergen 2007, 12).

There is a strong normative component in the previous statement that assumes the deepening and reinforcing of a democratic practice based on a reflexive and deliberative turn (Bäckstrand et al. 2010, 10-11). These last perspectives explicitly acknowledge the plurality of values and views (Smith 2003, 5); knowledge uncertainty, ambivalence of goals, unequal power distribution, and a process of collective learning as inherent components of governance processes (Voss et al. 2007, 194-196; Leach, Scoones and Stirling 2010, 74). All of them need to be taken into account and integrated into the decision-making process.

We address our case study–the environmental governance process in Honduras—from these deliberative and reflexive perspectives on governance. Rather than offer solutions on how practitioners ought to deal with complex governance problems, we portray how actors actually behave and cope with these problems (Voß and Bornemann 2011). Deliberative and reflexive approaches embrace conditions of radical uncertainty, interdependencies in action, and the significance of the actors’ everyday practices, embedded and intertwined in particular political context (Leach, Scoones and Stirling 2010, 95).

To analytically capture the above dynamics, we frame our case study as a policy arrangement. This is an institutional concept that analyses institutional patterns of change and stability in a particular policy domain at a certain policy level or over several policy levels (Arts, Leroy and Van Tatenhove 2006, 159-160). A temporary stabilization of these patterns is usually referred to as institutionalization, and can be identified through four interrelated analytical dimensions: 1) the identification of actors and their coalitions taking part in policymaking along with the definition of the issue at stake; 2) the resources divided between them leading to differences in power and influence; 3) the formal and informal rules of the game, and 4) the policy discourses that frame problems (Liefferink 2006, 45-59).

To tackle the trans-scalar nature of our case study and to contextualize our policy arrangement dimensions, we make use of the heuristic model developed E\�9Rȕ�DQG�%RUQHPDQQ�


(2011) to give account of the politics of reflexive governance. Figure 1 shows what political dimension we address in each level and to what policy arrangement dimension corresponds.

Fig. 1: Analytical Framework Delimiting the Levels of Analysis and the Respective Dimensions for Each Level. Concentric Cycles Represent the Interconnectedness between Levels of Analysis and Dimensions,

Each of Them Informing the Others. Source: Adapted from Voß, Jan-Peter and B. Bornemann 2011.

Finally, our understanding of the evolutionist perspective of institutions is drawn from the field of institutional economy. Based on this view, institutions are defined as systems of established and embedded social rules that govern social interactions. Human agency within these institutions is a selection process through which certain habits and routines are retained, adapted, transformed, or discarded (Hodgson 2006, 18). Learning is central to this process (Hodgson 1998, 175).

By adopting this evolutionist perspective, we detach ourselves from the narrow precepts of rational choice theory on human agency and similarly from the reductionist view of institutions as rules of the game constraining human behaviour. The persistence of institutions depends on individuals, their interactions, and particular shared patterns of thought. Accordingly, history and culture are part of the building blocks of institutions. This perspective points to a need to understand how particular groups of habits may be embedded and self-reinforced by specific social institutions (Hodgson 2006, 7).

Drafting a Public Policy for Biological Corridors by Deliberative Process: The Micro Level

In January 2011, the Honduras Office of The Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) through its Japan-Mexico Partnership Programme (JMPP) started a process of South-South Cooperation with Mexico. Under this programme, Mexican experts were sent to Honduras in order to collaborate with Honduran counterparts. In this case, Mexican experts were asked to work towards the strengthening of a project currently developed in the Honduras-Caribe Biological Corridor, the “Natural Resources and Watershed Sustainable Management of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in the Honduras Atlantic Biological Corridor”, known as PROCORREDOR Project and operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (SERNA) and the Institute of Forestry Conservation (ICF).


The Mexican experience in the development of the Mexican component of MBC is highly regarded by some Central American partners as an exemplary model of an institutionalized strategy for biological corridor management, both in administrative and operational terms.

On their first visit to Honduras, Mexican managers and functionaries conducted a diagnosis with PROCORREDOR managers and government functionaries. Both sides agreed upon the need to provide political support to the highly divergent initiatives taken place in the area of the MBC-Honduras.

Afterwards, the authors of this paper were invited to design and facilitate proceedings that would help to develop an interactive public policy platform and policy definition for MBC-Honduras. This initiative was thought of as a deliberative process, trying to involve all of the actors dealing with MBC-Honduras and specifically those related to Honduras-Caribe-BC. Between July 2011 and March 2012, two sets of workshops took place in the city of La Ceiba, which is the focal point for the actions developed under PROCORREDOR Project. The authors also conducted two rounds of bilateral interviews (see table 3), which were mainly based in the capital town of Tegucigalpa.

An early objective of the workshops was to sensitize participants to the significance of environmental governance processes and the challenges attached to them, such as the difficulties of network management and coordination. A second objective had to do with the construction of a common view regarding the issue of biological corridors in Honduras. This involved a common understanding of biological corridors and discussing the cause-and-effect problems associated with sustainable management. A further objective was to have participants collectively map the actors related to biological corridors in terms of managers, decision-makers, potential beneficiaries and those indifferent to the process, but with potential leverage power. Finally the workshops would inaugurate an independent network of actors to lead and monitor the advances of the process, and to conduct lobby actions at all levels.

After this, the participants were ready to identify and construct the main goal of the future policy proposal, to define principles, sub-objectives, and the strategic actions attached to each. All these elements became the building blocks of the policy proposal (table 2). Afterwards, this first draft would have to be socialized with prominent regional and local actors from the rest of the national biological corridors of Honduras (ten in total).

Our methodology consisted in small group discussions and reflective exercises among heterogeneous actors, with the presence of at least one person from each social and political sector. At the end we conducted a final assessment questionnaire and a short social network analysis to gain a greater understanding of participants’ motivations and expectations. However, we do not explicitly present the results herein.

The number of participants varied around 35 to 50, in each of the workshops conducted. However, social and political sectors were quite unevenly represented. While environmental government agencies from national and regional level had a strong and high profile representation, municipal and local associations had a lesser presence. Afro-Caribbean associations were absent and the formal educational sector was underrepresented. Environmental government agencies from national and regional level had a similar strong and high profile representation. Environmental NGOs dealing with the management of the Caribbean protected areas were also present, but intermittently. Finally, the JICA officers and the director of the PROCORREDOR Project represented the international level.

In spite of the varied degrees of participation from some sectors, the workshop outcomes attained the main objectives of: (1) achieving a common view on how to tackle biological corridors in Honduras; (2) developing an explicit agreement highlighting the need for a policy proposal to support biological corridors management; (3) establishing a horizontal network with an operative structure to act as a deliberative space for collective decision-making (although it was never put into practice); and finally, (4) clearly stating the main principles and guidelines of the agreed upon policy proposal. Participants worked with enthusiasm resulting in an overarching


feeling of achievement amongst the participants, although a certain amount of scepticism was voiced regarding the overall workshop experience.

Table 2: Final Draft of the Policy Proposal for Biological Corridors Management Constructed Amongst Actors Participating in the Workshops

Public Policy proposal for biological corridors in Honduras: Problems, specific objectives and strategic actions

Problem 1: Weak land-use planning

Specific objective 1. To foster a land-use planning that generates opportunities to improve population life standard and biological connectivity

Strategic actions

1.1 Strengthening sustainability of resources located in the biological corridors’ limits by designing and implementing Territorial Land-Use Plans

1.2 To foster an efficient and equitable environmental management

1.3 To develop productive strategies to maintain resource stability of biological corridors

1.4 To develop land-use planning capabilities based on biological corridors management approach, and to implement it at different scales in biological corridors and in adjacent territories

Problem 2: Legal framework limited

Specific objective 2. To revise and adjust the current legislation to be congruent with biological corridors management approach and to support a common agenda

Strategic actions:

2.1 To define participative and scientifically technical standards for the delimitation and management of biological corridors

2.2 To harmonise existing technical standards for natural resource management with the new technical standard defined to manage biological corridors.

2.3 To clearly state institutional roles and competencies, to avoid dispersion of efforts conducted by government

Problem 3: Fragmentation of biological corridors

Specific objective 3. To contribute towards the biological, social and economical connectivity in biological corridors through natural resource sustainability and conservation, valuing ecosystem services and goods

Strategic actions:

3.1 To design and implement multipurpose systems of monitoring effectiveness of legislation, policies, and actions of sustainable development in biological corridors

3.2 To implement observatories for measuring advances in actions being implemented in biological corridors and to disseminate achievements and information


3.3. To foster community forestry in order to achieve an optimal use of natural resource management improving living standards for communities.

3.4. To promote payments for environmental services schemes that contribute towards the financing of sustainable development

3.5. To work towards the unification of the range of incentives and other financing schemes for communities and land owners sustainable management

Problem 4: Poverty

Specific Objective 4. To insist in economical local development processes based on existent experiences, seeking poverty reduction actions.

Strategic actions:

4.1 Share and capitalize successful experiences in local economic development and local markets conducted in Honduras’ biological corridors.

4.2. To facilitate the development of those experiences attuned to the specific view and agenda developed for each biological corridor

Problem 5: Lack of common political agenda

Specific objective 5. To promote a shared view of biological corridors and benefits associated to the governmental level as well as to the civil society, upon which to build a common and inclusive agenda

Strategic actions:

5.1 To strengthen government and local actors’ knowledge on biological corridors

5.2 To design and implement a knowledge management strategy for biological corridors’ problems in order to generates an informed public opinion

5.3 To define common agendas with the Regional Platforms for Development, communal organizations and other stakeholders, with the aim of reaching a common understanding and agreement in dealing with biological corridors.

Problem 6: Institutional weakness and lack of coordination

Specific objective 6. To establish specific institutional mechanisms in order to harmonize intersectoral policies and to generate an efficient and effective institutional collective action

Strategic actions

6.1. To lobby at social consultation forums (Council of Ministries, Regional Councils for Development, Consultative Councils, CREDIA and others at regional level) for policy coordination in biological corridors management

6.2. To create a national programme for biological corridors in order to channel human and financial resources


6.3. To create an inter-institutional committee for coordinating different strategies implemented on biological corridors and according to the national programme on biological corridors

6.4. To promote land owners and organized communities integration on networks of action and management in order to obtain access to sustainable management incentives on biological corridors

6.5. To strength consensus and deliberative arenas between SERNA and ICF in order to achieve a focused strategic action at national, regional, and local level

6.6. To create a technical body at the National and Regional levels, with capacity to give momentum to biological corridors management and to monitor advances on these

Source: Elaborated by Participants at the Workshop “Environmental Governance and Territorial Policies”, 12-15 of December, 2011.

As a result to the compromises agreed upon during the workshops, from February 2012 to April 2012, a national consultant, employed by the JICA and the Biodiversity Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (SERNA), implemented socialization processes to make the policy proposal known. Eight rounds of workshops were planned to discuss and enrich the proposal objectives taking into account the regional actors working in the main biological corridors within Honduras. Only four of eight proposed workshops took place, due to financial cutbacks and lack of administrative support to organize workshops effectively (Sergio Midence, JICA´s external consultant, pers. comm. 15th of March, 2012).

During the same period, a team of Mexican lawyers was appointed to compare Mexican and Honduran environmental legislation in order to assess the legislative support for biological corridor management. Their assessment is still in progress but preliminary results show that Honduran legislation has basic provisions in its law that include the concept of biological corridors, whereas the concept is not even mentioned in the Mexican Legislation (Anaid Velasco, Centre of Environmental Legislation, pers. comm. March 2012).

Apparently, this fact provoked an adjustment regarding the objectives previously held. SERNA officers were afraid of not reaching an agreement on the final public policy document and argued that the whole process needed to be transferred to the capital of the country in order to achieve political relevance. They also decided that it was better to focus on legislative issues that allow the possibility to legally certify the demarcation of biological corridors (meeting held at JICA´s headquarters in Tegucigalpa between the SERNA-DBIO director, the JICA officer in charge of the project and the authors, 15th of March, 2011). The policy process was reduced to a minor legislative change, disregarding the results and recommendations of the participatory process. This legislative turn involves the readjustment and development of the legal provision on biological corridors, scheduled to be accomplished between July 2012 and September 2012. (See table 3 for a complete overview of the JMPP phases). The rest of the paper offers insights into why this happened and the factors that could have influenced the shift.


Table 3: Japan Mexico Partnership Programme (JMPP): “Mexican Specialists Supporting PROCORREDOR PROJECT”. Steps towards the Definition of a Policy Proposal Dealing with Biological Corridors in

Honduras

JAPAN-MEXICO PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME (JMPP): PHASES, ACTIVITIES AND MAIN ACTORS

STAGES AND ACTIVITIES

MAIN ACTORS IN CHARGE MAIN OUTCOMES REACHED

1. Diagnostic ofHonduras-Caribe biological corridor management

Mexican Mesoamerican Biological Corridor managers; PROCORREDOR managers and Honduras environmental governmental agencies

Identified a need to standardize biological corridors management based on public policy

2. Workshops tofoster a Participatory process of policy-making strategy

National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM)

Harmonization of actors´ interests, views and strategies on biological corridors management. Definition of main lines and strategies for a public policy proposal

3. Analysis to compare Mexico-Honduras Environmental Law

Mexican Centre of Environmental Legislation (CENDA)

Identified the possibility to readjust biological corridor provision in Honduran Law by a technical standard and without entering in a complex and long-lasting process of legislation change

Rounds of interviews (August and December, 2011, March, 2012)

UNAM, CENDA, Honduran specialist appointed by JICA

To communicate workshops results to Chancellors of Honduras environmental management ministries, SERNA and ICF To inform and involve actors identified as key players during workshops: AMONH: National association of Honduras Municipalities COHEP: Honduran National Business Council SEPLAN: Ministry of National Planning Other projects and experts

4. Socializationof draft proposal in the other biological corridors

Honduran specialist in environmental management appointed by SERNA and JICA

Four national biological corridors explored


5. Interactive process to adjust and develop provision in law regarding biological corridors

Honduran lawyer appointed by JICA and SERNA

IN PROCESS

6. Systematization

UNAM-PROIMMSE IN PROCESS

Source: Prepared by Authors.

The Competing Nature of the Institutions for Environmental Management in Honduras: Macro and Meso Factors Influencing the Micro Level

The workshops’ intentions were to foster a reflection process amongst the participants that could develop varied problem-solving frames, anticipate and help to resolve difficulties within coordinating actions, and effectively advancing biological corridor management. A more subtle yet ambitious intention was to ease well-established prejudices due to the recent political unrest. This unrest stems from the 2009 coup d’état and is rooted in Honduras’ political history, embodying a source of traditional distrust (Membreño-Cedillo 2008, 16-18).

The coup d´état made clear that persistent non-democratic practices survive encapsulated in a formal democracy that has embraced the rhetoric of social participation in their political discourse (Pérez, Argueta and Seligson 2010, 117-118). The highly controversial deposition of President Zelaya points to existing obstacles in the consolidation of the formal democratic regime into a real democracy 2 (Meza et al. 2010, 14-20), a precondition for environmental governance according to the literature on the topic (Robertson and Choi 2010, 92).

According to Honduras historian and political analyst Membreño-Cedillo (2010, 28), Honduran politics and its political regime can be depicted by five main structural factors, all of them inherited from the Colonial times: 1) An extremely presidential political system with a highly centralized public sector, that concentrates decision-making and favors the political elites in power. 2) Political messianism or “caudillismo” that involves a strong cult of personality and revolves around political clientelism and corruption. 3) Bipartisanship that favors status quo by excluding other political options. 4) Electioneering, that reduces the exercise of voting to a mere formality, leading to abstention and lack of political trust. 5) Authoritarianism, that imposes ideas and ways to govern, which deepens exclusion and unaccountability.

Following Membreño-Cedillo’s study on the corruption in Honduras, most of the current political habits are part of a historical legacy and of a political culture characterized by fragmentation, wars, lack of solidarity, indolence and disregard of law, therefore preventing the exercise of an inclusive political participation (Membreño-Cedillo 2008, 17). These political culture traits could provide insights into a certain attitude could roughly impinge upon the whole initiative of the JMPP and affect its final result.

2According to the Latin American Opinion Project (LAPOP) an NGO specialized in public opinion surveys on political perspectives from Latin America “regarding the political crisis of 2009, our study found that a large majority of Hondurans did not support the political plans of former President Zelaya, but also did not support the manner in which he was removed from office” in Pérez, Orlando J., Jose Rene Argueta, and Mitchel A Seligson. 2010. Cultura Política De La Democracia En Honduras, 2010.Consolidación Democrática En Las Américas En Tiempos Difíciles. LAPOP, FORPIDEH, page xxvi.


At the micro level, however, agreement on how to conceive and approach the issue of the biological corridors was easily achieved amongst the different actors attending the workshops. We had expected controversies regarding the courses of action to take with the management of biological corridors taking into account the political climate in the country. However, actors´ understanding of biological corridors as social, economic, and ecological spaces was so dominant, and narrow conservation views were absent or at least not politically correct to defend. This first observation points to the existence of potential spaces for dialogue, regarding the issues of biological corridors.

Along the same lines, the key problems unanimously highlighted by participants confirmed the works of Membreño-Cedillo with respect to institutional flaws and uncoordinated efforts by the governmental sector. It is quite remarkable that the policy proposal develops strategies mainly to deal with institutional design and innovation, and with knowledge management, rather than with ecological or more technical strategies (see table 2). The nature of conflicts surrounding biological corridors, as conceived by actors during the workshops, belongs to institutional and political character rather than that of ecological nature. This constitutes the corner stone of the policy proposal and points to meso-level factors as the leading obstacle towards an efficient management of the Honduras-MBC.

The common origin of the MBC shared by Central American countries could have contributed to a unified perspective of the concept of biological corridors. However, the stakeholder country took different routes towards its development and achieved different levels of institutionalization (Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo 2009, 26).

In Honduras, this route was marked by the competition between the two governmental agencies originally appointed to deal with the MBC-Honduras: namely SERNA and ICF-DAPVS (the Division of Protected Areas and Wild Life of the Institute of Forestry Conservation).

This competition stems from ambiguity in the two laws that govern these entities, that is the General Law on the Environment (República de Honduras and Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente 1993), ruling SERNA and the Law on Forestry, Protected Areas, and Wild Life Management (Poder Legislativo and Congreso Nacional 2007), ruling ICF. These two legislative acts create constitutional conflicts because both provide jurisdiction over the same areas, the natural protected areas and the conservation spaces, such as biological corridors. This overregulation results in ambiguity and, in some cases, redundancy of competencies and faculties between SERNA and ICF (Anaid Velasco, Centre of Environmental Legislation, pers. comm. March, 2012).

To further complicate this institutional framework, a recently established governmental agency for sustainable development planning, The Secretariat for Land Planning and External Cooperation—SEPLAN—is now concentrating human and financial resources and developing new standards for sustainable management. They are holding new public forums to involve rural communities in territorial planning and creating new databases for environmental knowledge management (pers. comm. with senior officials in SEPLAN head office, March 2012). However, SEPLAN is working independently of SERNA and ICF efforts and without an official strategy to coordinate initiatives and scales of information. As a result of this further overlapping and uncoordinated action, the ability to conduct basic environmental management and conservation efforts gets additionally compromised. At the same time, competition over scarce public financial resources exacerbates the situation3.

The NGOs in charge of natural protected areas management are caught up amidst this legislative conflict. In Honduras, the operation of environmental protection rests mainly on NGOs, which are appointed by SERNA or ICF. The association between government and NGOs for environmental protection in Honduras was originally conceived as a cooperative strategy in

3SERNA has a budget equivalent to the 1.1 % of the total national budget, whereas ICF receives only the 0.21% of the national budget. Whereas social and environmental protection sector accounts for the 5% of the total budget, the Executive Power absorbs up to 96% of the national budget (http://www.sefin.gob.hn, accessed March 2012).


order to share decision-making power and knowledge over ecosystem management. However, it has devolved into a system in which governmental agencies dictate courses of action and delegate operative tasks to NGOs in rather ambiguous terms, since they are not clearly stated in any formal agreement. Furthermore, the resources to effectively deal with the environmental management tasks assumed by NGOs are often lacking (pers. comm. with senior officials in ICF head office, March 2012). As a result of this institutional structure, the fight over scarce resources for environmental protection extends from the public to the private arena.

Final Remarks

The JMPP process has proven to be useful to catalyse political action for biological corridors in a rather innovative framework, which facilitates the knowledge exchange between Mexico and Honduras. Both countries confront similar problems regarding biological corridors and are promoting local, regional and national coordination in their respective environmental management strategies.

The JMPP framework is also valuable because of the reflexive and deliberative process initiated, which allowed putting on the table the need to tackle the institutional competitiveness between governmental agencies. Furthermore, the interaction amongst all actors provided a foundation for the practice of more horizontal decision-making based on agreement and consultation.

At the same time, the JMPP project offers an example of the difficulties involved in participatory processes that can challenge well-established hierarchical political forms. The initial objective of defining a policy proposal by joining public and private actors was finally restricted to a normative dimension involving the readjustment of the legislation for biological corridors. This is an important and necessary step in order to clarify legal competencies over biological corridors and can be the departing point for new institutional relations. However, the inclusive and deliberative nature of the project was reduced to a minimum mainly restricting interaction to the two major national governmental agencies dealing with conservation and environmental management.

This paper has argued that meso and macro level factors emerging from the Honduras policy and polity domains are the main source of this outcome. Uncontrolled variables, such as political interest at the high levels of decision-making and the fear of losing control over scarce resources, prevent from delegating political power to regional and local agencies.

As a consequence of this, relations amongst actors at the national level are characterized by competition over political pre-eminence and resources. The resulting competitive atmosphere affects local environmental agencies, managerial tasks and is counterproductive to the coordination of all of the actors dealing with biological corridors in Honduras. Therefore, agreement achieved at the micro level was not supported by central authorities and was even dismissed.

The current institutional design does not favour cooperation at the national level. It is a source of contradiction with more inclusive decision-making promoted by environmental governance experiences, such as the JMPP project, developed mainly at the micro level, in the politics domain and as a focal intervention.

Despite the fact that institutional strengthening projects are increasingly being promoted by international cooperation agencies in weak democracies of third world countries, their capacity to foster and sustain institutional change is not clear (Daubón, 2009, 7; Bandeira, 2009, 10, 21). Institutional evolution, involving substitution of traditional routines by innovative ones, requires that meso and macro factors at the policy and polity domains be modified. Additionally, these are normally out of reach of the international cooperation agencies (Bandeira, 2009, 11) and long-term strategies, rather than focal interventions in the medium and short term, are required.


Legitimacy of these types of projects emerges out of the participatory nature of the process, but instability and uncertainty of such processes prevents prediction of anticipated results. International cooperation agencies themselves are under pressure to get results that justify project expenses and their presence in the country (Bandeira, 2009, 16). Achieving results at any price due to this pressure can undermine the legitimization that this kind of project tries to build up, a consequence occurred in the case presented here.

Environmental governance processes take place in conflicting arenas, where traditional political forms coexist with new expressions of governance at the same time. Approaching these processes from this idea can help towards a deeper understanding of how institutional designs that are reluctant to delegate and share power could evolve towards more collaborative structures.


REFERENCES

Armitage, Derek R, Ryan Plummer, Fikret Berkes, Robert I Arthur, Anthony T Charles, Iain J Davidson-Hunt, Alan P Diduck, et al. 2009. "Adaptive Co-management for Social–ecological Complexity." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (2): 95-102.

Arts, Bas, Pieter Leroy, and Jan Van Tatenhove. 2006. "Political Modernisation and Policy Arrangements: A Framework for Understanding Environmental Policy Change." Public Organization Review 6 (2): 93-106.

Bäckstrand, Karin, Jamil Khan, Annica Kronsell, and Eva Lövbrand. 2010."The Promise of New Modes of Environmental Governance." In Environmental Politics and Deliberative Democracy: Examining the Promise of New Modes of Governance, edited by Karin Bäckstrand, Jamil Khan, Annica Kronsell, and Eva Lövbrand, 3-27. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2010.

Bandeira, Pablo. 2009. El Desarrollo Institucional En El Contexto De La Ineficacia De La Ayuda Oficial, Valoración Crítica Y Propuestas De Acción. Madrid: CEU.

Boyd, Emily, and Carl Folke. 2012. "Adapting Institution, Adaptive Governance and Complexity: An Introduction." In Adapting Institutions: Governance, Complexity and Social-Ecological Resilience, 1 ed. edited by Emily Boyd, and Carl Folke, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

CCAD, GEF, GTZ, and PNUD. 2005. Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano: Instrumentos Para Su Consolidación. Managua (Nicaragua): Proyecto Establecimiento de un Programa para la consolidación del Corredor biológico Mesoamericano (PCCBM).

Comisión Centroamericana de Ambiente y Desarrollo. 2009. Plan Ambiental De La Region Centroamericana (PARCA) 2010-2014. El Salvador, San Salvador: AECID, EU, SICA.

Crooks, Kevin, and M. Sanjayan. 2006. "Connectivity Conservation: Maintaining Connections for Nature." In Connectivity Conservation, edited by Kevin K. R. Crooks, and M Sanjayan, 1-20. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Daubón, Ramón Enrique. 2009. El Fortalecimiento Institucional De La Sociedad Civil : Principal Desafío De La Cooperación Internacional. Madrid: Fundación Universitaria San Pablo-CEU.

Dedeurwaerdere, T. 2005. "The Contribution of Network Governance to Sustainable Development." Les Séminaires De L’IDDRI, no. 13:15.

Duit, Andreas, Victor Galaz, Katarina Eckerberg, and Jonas Ebbesson. 2010. "Governance, Complexity, and Resilience." Global Environmental Change 20 (3): 363-368.

Glasbergen, Pieter. 2007. "Setting the Scene: The Partnership Paradigm in the Making." In Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable Development: Reflections on Theory and Practice, edited by Pieter Glasbergen, Frank Biermann, and Arthur A. P. Mol, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hahn, T. 2011. "Self-Organized Governance Networks for Ecosystem Management: Who Is Accountable?" Ecology and Society 16 (2): 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art18/. Accessed 15th of March, 2012.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 1998. "The Approach of Institutional Economics." Journal of Economic Literature XXXVI (March): 166-192.

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. 2006. "What Are Institutions?" Journal of Economic Issues XL (1): 1-25. Holling, Crawford S, Lance L. H. Gunderson, and Donald Ludwig. 2002. "In Quest of a Theory

of Adaptive Change." In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, edited by Crawford C. S. Holling, and Lance L. H. Gunderson, 3-24. Washington: Island Press. 2002.

Karkkainen, Bradley C. 2002. "Collaborative Ecosystem Governance: Scale, Complexity, and Dynamism." Va. Envtl. LJ 21:189.


Klijn, E H and J F M Koppenjan. 2006. "Public Management and Policy Networks." Public Management An International Journal of Research and Theory 2 (2): 135–158.

Leach, Melissa, Ian Scoones, and Andy Stirling. 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social Justice. London ; Washington, DC: Earthscan.

Lemos, Maria Carmen and Arun Agrawal. 2006. "Environmental Governance." Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31:297-325.

Liefferink, Duncan. 2006. "The Dynamics of Policy Arrangements: Turning Round the Tetrahedron." In Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance, edited by Bas Arts, and P. Leroy, 45-68. Springer. 2006.

Mayntz, R. 2001. "El Estado Y La Sociedad Civil En La Gobernanza Moderna." Revista Del CLAD Reforma Y Democracia 21:1-8.

Membreño-Cedillo, Mario A. 2008. Honduras: Sistema Político, Valores Y Ética. Tegucigalpa: Consejo Nacional Anticorrupción. ASDI. Publigráficas.

Meza, Víctor, Ramón Romero, Lucila Funes, Manuel Gamero, Leticia Salomón, and Antonio Murga. 2010. Golpe De Estado: Partidos, Instituciones Y Cultura Política. Tegucigalpa: Centro de Documentación de Honduras (CEDOH). Lithopress Industrial.

Newig, Jens and Oliver Fritsch. 2009. "Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multi-level and Effective?" Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (3): 197-214.

Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. "The Implications of Complexity for Integrated Resources Management." Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (5): 561-569.

Pahl-Wostl, Claudia. 2009. "A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Adaptive Capacity and Multi-level Learning Processes in Resource Governance Regimes." Global Environmental Change 19 (3): 354-365.

Pérez, Orlando J, Jose Rene Argueta, and Mitchel A Seligson. 2010. Cultura Política De La Democracia En Honduras, 2010.Consolidación Democrática En Las Américas En Tiempos Difíciles. LAPOP, FORPIDEH, Hagamos Democracia, Vanderbilt University.

Plummer, Ryan, and Derek Armitage. 2007. "Integrating Perspectives on Adapative Capacity and Environmental Governance." In Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance, 1 ed. edited by Derek Armitage, and Ryan Plummer, 1-22. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.

Poder Legislativo and Congreso Nacional. 2007. Ley Forestal, Áreas Protegidas Y Vida Silvestre. Decreto No. 156-2007. Congreso Nacional de Honduras.

Reed, Mark S, Anna C Evely, Georgina Cundill, Ioan Fazey, Jayne Glass, Adele Laing, Jens Newig, et al. 2010. "What Is Social Learning?" Ecology & Society 15 (4). [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/. Accessed 15th of March, 2012.

República de Honduras and Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. 1993. Ley General Del Ambiente. Decreto No. 104-93. Congreso Nacional de Honduras.

Rhodes, R A W. 1996. "The New Governance: Governing Without Government." Political Studies 44 (4): 652-667.

Robertson, Peter J and Taehyon Choi. 2010. "Ecological Governance: Organizing Principles for An Emerging Era. Part I, 2020: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Public Administration Review december (Special Issue): 89-99.

Smith, G. 2003. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. Psychology Press. Treib, O, H Bähr, and G Falkner. 2007. "Modes of Governance: Towards a Conceptual

Clarification." Journal of European Public Policy 14 (1): 1-20. Voss, Jan-Peter, Jens Newig, Britta Kastens, Joschen Monstadt, and Benjamin Nölting. 2007.

"Steering for Sustainable Development: A Typology of Problems and Strategies with Respect to Ambivalence, Uncertainty and Distributed Power." Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 9 (3-4): 193-212.

Voß, Jan-Peter and Basil Bornemann. 2011. "The Politics of Reflexive Governance: Challenges for Designing Adaptive Management and Transition Management." Ecology and


Society 16 (2): 9. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art9/. Accessed 15th of March, 2012.

Weiss, Thomas G. 2000. "Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance: Conceptual and Actual Challenges." Third World Quarterly 21 (5): 795-814.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Celia Ruiz de Ona: PhD Celia Ruiz de Oña is a full-time researcher at the Interdisciplinary Research Programme for Mesoamerica and the South-East of Mexico, a programme ascribed to the Institute of Anthropological Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (PROIMMSE-IIA-UNAM). She has a degree in Ecological Sciences, esp. Conservation and Ecological Management from Edinburgh University and a PhD in Sustainable Development and Ecology, from El Colegio de La Frontera Sur, Chiapas, Mexico. She has worked in several regions of Chiapas and Central America in different projects dealing with conservation and ecological management and with environmental policy networks.

Dr. Federico Morales: Dr. Federico Morales is a full-time researcher in el Programa de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias sobre Mesoamerica y el Sudeste at the Institute of Anthropological Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico.

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies is one of eight thematically focused journals in the of journals that support the Interdisciplinary Social Sciences knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community.

The journal offers social science based interpretations and interdisciplinary explorations of the connections between human and natural environments.

As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites case studies that take the form of presentations of practice—including documentation of socially-engaged practices and exegeses analyzing the effects of those practices.

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN

New modes of environmental governance: constructing a biological corridor policy in Honduras

Documents

Transcript of New modes of environmental governance: constructing a biological corridor policy in Honduras