Pagamentos por serviços ambientais hídricos na bacia do Miringuava, Brasil: Mediando ou exacerbando conflitos em comuns periurbanos?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/geas.v10i1.18468Palavras-chave:
Gerenciamento de recursos comuns, Robustez institucional, Nova economia institucional, Políticas ambientais, Gerenciamento de bacias hidrográficas.Resumo
Objetivo: Este artigo aborda arranjos institucionais e questões de participação em um estudo de caso de um dilema de comuns na esfera periurbana. Visa avaliar a robustez institucional de acordo com os oito princípios de design de Ostrom em um arranjo de Pagamentos por Serviços Ambientais (PSA) na Bacia do Rio Miringuava, São José dos Pinhais, Brasil.
Metodologia: Utilizando análise documental e entrevistas semi-estruturadas com partes interessadas, analisamos a aplicabilidade dos oito princípios de design de Ostrom.
Relevância: Nossa análise e discussão esclarecem dimensões sociais e institucionais que podem ser insuficientemente consideradas pela administração pública local.
Resultados: Embora nossa análise tenha mostrado que a maioria dos princípios se aplica ao caso, favorecendo a implementação de PSA, existem divergências em termos de monitoramento, resolução de conflitos e sanções, apontando para problemas particulares de gestão de comuns periurbanos. Concluímos que PSA pode se tornar um problema de ação coletiva, representando um mecanismo para aumentar a robustez das instituições periurbanas, permitindo interpretar o Serviço Ambiental como um comum.
Contribuições teóricas: O PSA para conservação de áreas florestais ocorre paralelamente a uma transição para agricultura orgânica desejada pelas organizações ambientais, mas resistida pelos agricultores locais. Embora a conservação seja justificada pela redução dos custos de tratamento de água e pelo aumento da disponibilidade hídrica, as implicações sociais desta escolha revelam-se muito mais complexas.
Contribuições para a gestão: Existe a necessidade de criação de arranjos institucionais que considerem os desequilíbrios de poder e que ampliem as diferentes formas de participação nas arenas de situação-ação criadas para governança e gestão de um bem comum.
Downloads
Referências
Adeoti, O. (2019). Understanding the factors constraining the implementation of watershed management in Nigeria. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 5(4), 2001–2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-019-00353-y
Afroz, S., Cramb, R. & Grunbuhel, C. (2016). Collective Management of Water Resources in Coastal Bangladesh: Formal and Substantive Approaches. Hum Ecol 44, 17–31 https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10745-016-9809-x.pdf
Agência de Notícias do Paraná. (2014, March 3rd). Paraná é o estado mais avançado na política de recursos hídricos. Retrieved on October 1st, 2020, from http://www.aen.pr.gov.br/modules/noticias/article.php?storyid=79568
Agência de Notícias do Paraná. (2018, October 19th). Estudo propõe 100% de orgânicos na merenda escolar. Retrieved on October 1st, 2020 from http://www.aen.pr.gov.br/modules/noticias/article.php?storyid=99232&tit=Estudo-propoe-100-de-organicos-na-merenda-escolar
Agência de Notícias do Paraná. (2020, September 21th). Governo e Fundação Boticário anunciam ação para melhorar a qualidade da água na RMC. Retrieved on October 1st, 2020 from http://www.aen.pr.gov.br/modules/noticias/article.php?storyid=108885
Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and Urbanization, 15(1), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1630/095624703101286402
Alarcon, G. G., de Freitas, L. A. dos S., da Fountoura, G. O., de Macedo, C. X., & Ribeiro, D. C. (2016). The challenges of implementing a legal framework for Payment for Ecosystem Services in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Natureza & Conservação, 4(2), 3–7. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ncon.2016.05.003
Alonso-Fradejas, A. (2018, April 3rd). ‘Authoritarian corpopulism’ supports the rise of sugarcane and oil palm agribusinesses in Guatemala. Open Democracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/authoritarian-corpopulism-supports-rise-of-sugarcane-and-oil-palm-agribusine/
Azzulin, M. B., Centurion, N., Weins, N. W., Gadda, T. M. C., & Garcias, C. M. (2019). A influência de instrumentos de políticas públicas para a conservação. Guaju, 5(2), 3–14. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/guaju.v5i2
Bakker, K. (2009). The “Commons” Versus the “Commodity”: Alter-Globalization, Anti-Privatization and the Human Right to Water in the Global South. Privatization: Property and the Remaking of Nature-Society Relations, 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444306750.ch2
Bardhan, P. (2000). Irrigation and Cooperation: An Empirical Analysis of 48 Irrigation Communities in South India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48(4), 847-865. http://doi.org/10.1086/452480
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de Conteúdo (3rd ed.). São Paulo: Edições 70.
Barton, D. N., Benavides, K., Chacon-Cascante, A., Le Coq, J.-F., Quiros, M. M., Porras, I., … Ring, I. (2017). Payments for Ecosystem Services as a Policy Mix: Demonstrating the institutional analysis and development framework on conservation policy instruments. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(5), 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1769
Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003
Berkes, F. (2006) From community-based resource management to complex systems: the scale issue and marine commons. Ecology and Society 11(1). https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art45/
Bossle, R. C. (2010). Gestão do Uso e Ocupação do Solo: Estudo de Caso da Bacia do Rio Miringuava, São José dos Pinhais, Paraná. [Doctoral thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná]. https://bit.ly/2STVViO.
Cassilha, S. do A., Gadda, T. M. C., Schmidt, A. F. J., & Weins, N. W. (2020). The role of subnational institutions in adhering to the water integration agenda - lessons from metropolitan water governance in Curitiba. CIDADES, Comunidades e Territórios, 40(Jun), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.15847/cct.jun2020.040.art05
Castro, F. (2017). Position Paper The Commons in Latin America. CEDLA Centre for Latin American Research and Documentation LASP Latin American Studies Programme. http://www.cedla.uva.nl/CO_LAB/PDF/Position_Paper-LA%20Commons_Co_Lab.pdf.
Clement, M. T. (2010). Urbanization and the Natural Environment: An Environmental Sociological Review and Synthesis. Organization & Environment, 23(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026610382621
Coleman, E. A., & Steed, B. C. (2009). Monitoring and sanctioning in the commons: An application to forestry. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2106–2113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.006
Companhia de Saneamento do Paraná. (2013). Plano Diretor SAIC: Sistema de Abastecimento de Água Integrado de Curitiba e Região Metropolitana. Curitiba. Retrieved from http://site.sanepar.com.br/arquivos/saicplanodiretor.pdf in December 2018.
Coordenação da Região Metropolitana de Curitiba. (2006). Plano de Desenvolvimento Integrado da Região Metropolitana de Curitiba: propostas de ordenamento territorial e novo arranjo institucional. Curitiba. Retrieved from http://www.comec.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/PDI_2006.pdf in December 2018.
Coordenação da Região Metropolitana de Curitiba. (2017). Região metropolitana de Curitiba. Revista Da Região Metropolitana de Curitiba, 2, 90. Retrieved from http://www.comec.pr.gov.br/arquivos/File/RMC/Revista_fev_2017.pdf in December 2018.
Corbera, E., Kosoy, N., & Martínez Tuna, M. (2007). Equity implications of marketing ecosystem services in protected areas and rural communities: Case studies from Meso-America. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.005
Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Villamayor, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 38. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/
Cruz, E. (2020, September 13th). Curitiba e RMC vão ter rodízio mais duro se reservatórios caírem a 25%. Gazeta do Povo. https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/parana/curitiba-e-rmc-vao-ter-rodizio-mais-duro-se-reservatorios-cairem-a-25/
Drummond, J., & Barros-Platiau, A. F. (2005). Brazilian Environmental Laws and Policies, 1934-2002: A Critical Overview. Law and Policy, 28(1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2005.00218.x
Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005
Escobar, H. (2018, October 19th). Scientists, environmentalists brace for Brazil’s right turn. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.362.6412.273
Fearnside, P. (2018, November 8th). Why Brazil’s New President Poses an Unprecedented Threat to the Amazon. Yale Environment 360 / Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, Nov(8). https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-brazils-new-president-poses-an-unprecedented-threat-to-the-amazon
Ferreira, L. C., Barbi, F. & Barbieri, M. D. (Eds). (2020). Dimensões humanas das mudanças climáticas no Sul Global. Curitiba: Editora CRV. https://doi.org/10.24824/978655578415.2
Garcias, C. M., & Sanches, A. M. (2009). Vulnerabilidades sócioambientais e as disponibilidades hídricas urbanas: levantamento teórico-conceitual e análise aplicada à região metropolitana de Curitiba - PR. Risco: Revista de Pesquisa Em Arquitetura e Urbanismo (Online), 10, 96-111. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1984-4506.v0i10p96-111
Gautam, A. P., & Shivakoti, G. P. (2005). Conditions for Successful Local Collective Action in Forestry: Some Evidence From the Hills of Nepal. Society & Natural Resources, 18(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590894534
Global Forest Watch. (2018). Tree cover loss in São José dos Pinhais. Retrieved on October 10th, 2018 from http://bit.ly/2TiahbS.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Muradian, R. (2015). In markets we trust? Setting the boundaries of Market-Based Instruments in ecosystem services governance. Ecological Economics, 117, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.016
Gutman, P. (2007). Ecosystem services: Foundations for a new rural-urban compact. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.027
Harrel, M. C. & Bradley, M. A. (2009). Data Collection Methods: Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR718.html.
Hausknost, D., Grima, N., & Singh, S. J. (2017). The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway? Ecological Economics, 131, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.024
Jiménez, A., LeDeunff, H., Giné, R., Sjödin, J., Cronk, R., Murad, S., Takane, M., Bartram, J. (2019). The Enabling Environment for Participation in Water and Sanitation: A Conceptual Framework. Water, 11(2), 308. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020308
Kolinjivadi, V., Adamowski, J., & Kosoy, N. (2014). Recasting payments for ecosystem services (PES) in water resource management: A novel institutional approach. Ecosystem Services, 10, 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.008
Kosoy, N., & Corbera, E. (2010). Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002
Krott, M., Bader, A., Schusser, C., Devkota, R., Maryudi, A., Giessen, L., & Aurenhammer, H. (2014). Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012
MacKenzie, A., & Gibbons, P. (2019). Enhancing Biodiversity in Urban Green Space; An Exploration of the IAD Framework Applied to Ecologically Mature Trees. Urban Science, 3(4), 103. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3040103
Macnaghten, P. (2017). Focus groups as anticipatory methodology. In R. S. Barbour & D. L. Morgan (Eds.), A New Era in Focus Group Research: Challenges, Innovation and Practice (pp. 343–363). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58614-8_16
Maia, D. M. J. (2017). Educação e Intervenção Ambiental na Implantação da Barragem do Miringuava - Relato de Experiência. In Anais do XVI EPEA (pp. 1–4). Curitiba: Setor de Educação da UFPR. http://www.epea2017.ufpr.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/524-E6-S2-EDUCAÇÃO-E-INTERVENÇÃO-AMBIENTAL.pdf
McGinnis, M. D.; Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society 19(2): 30. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art30/.
Medeiros, P. C. (2011). Relações de Poder e Resistência na Gestão Territorial das Bacias Hidrográficas no Estado do Paraná. [Doctoral Thesis, Universidade Federal do Paraná]. https://acervodigital.ufpr.br/handle/1884/26710?show=full
Ministério Público do Paraná. (2010). Tabela 3175 - População residente, por cor ou raça. Retrieved in Octber 2018 from https://direito.mppr.mp.br/arquivos/File/20maiores.pdf
Mundoli, S., Manjunath, B. & Nagendra, H. (2015). Effects of Urbanisation on the Use of Lakes as Commons in the Peri-Urban Interface of Bengaluru, India. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development 7(1), 89–108. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19463138.2014.982124
Ostrom, E., & Nagendra, H. (2006). Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(51), 19224–19231. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607962103
Ostrom, E.; Gardner, R. & Walker, J. M. (1994). Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor. MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions (2003rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
Ostrom, E. (1999). Self-governance and forest resources. Occasional Paper, n. 20, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. http://www.cifor.org/library/536/self-governance-and-forest-resources/
Ostrom, E. E., Dietz, T. E., Dolsak, N., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S. E., Weber, E. U., … Weber, E. U. (2002). The Drama of the Commons. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10287
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Public Choice (Vol. 132). Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-007-9157-x
Ostrom, E. (2008). Design Principles of Robust Property-Rights Institutions: What Have We Learned? Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, 1–28. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1304708
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What Makes Community Forest Management Successful: A Meta-Study From Community Forests Throughout the World. Society & Natural Resources, 19(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920500323260
Partelow, S., & Winkler, K. J. (2016). Interlinking ecosystem services and Ostrom’s framework through orientation in sustainability research. Ecology and Society, 21(3), art27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08524-210327
Paudyal, K., Baral, H., & Keenan, R. J. (2016). Local actions for the common good: Can the application of the ecosystem services concept generate improved societal outcomes from natural resource management? Land Use Policy, 56, 327–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.010
São José dos Pinhais. (2018). Atlas de São José dos Pinhais. São José dos Pinhais. Retrieved from http://www.sjp.pr.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Apresentação-do-Atlas-de-São-josé-dos-Pinhais-Completo.pdf in December 2018.
Schomers, S., & Matzdorf, B. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services, 6, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.01.002
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Serna-Chavez, H. M., de Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091
Silva, C. L., Weins, N., & Potinkara, M. (2019). Formalizing the informal? A perspective on informal waste management in the BRICS through the lens of institutional economics. Waste Management, 99, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.08.023
SOS Mata Atlântica. (2018). Atlas dos Remanescentes Florestais da Mata Atlântica - Mapeamento dos Sistemas Costeiros - 2018. Retrieved in October 2018 from http://mapas.sosma.org.br/
Turner, M. D. (1999). Conflict, Environmental Change, and Social Institutions in Dryland Africa: Limitations of the Community Resource Management Approach. Society & Natural Resources, 12(7), 643–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419299279362
Watson, V. (2009). “‘The Planned City Sweeps the Poor Away...’: Urban Planning and 21st Century Urbanisation.” Progress in Planning 72(3):151–93.
Weins, N. W. (2019). Institutional arrangements in payments for ecosystem services: the case of the Miringuava basin in the metropolitan region of Curitiba. [Masters thesis, Federal University of Technology - Paraná]. http://repositorio.utfpr.edu.br/jspui/handle/1/4180
Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016
Zanella, M. A., Schleyer, C., & Speelman, S. (2014). Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil. Ecological Economics, 105, 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.004
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista de Gestão Ambiental e Sustentabilidade
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
