Everybody: I'M WITH THE GOOD GUYS
Felipe: Aw, no! We cannot be all goods otherwise it's all for nothing!
Lake Ellesmere has appeared lately in some of the subjects I’m studying and also seems to be taking a good amount of media attention; I’ve run into this lake a couple of times in The Press, it has also been mentioned in a Maori Resource Management paper I’m doing and also in this subject.
I will use this to talk about C(B)EM, Community (Based) Environmental Management. The idea could be briefly summarized as the process of manage environmental issues and resources in a collective and locally based way by mean of voluntary and community actions [R.D. Margerum (2008). "A Typology of Collaboration Efforts in Environmental Management", Environmental Management, 41:487:500.].
At first sight, this looks like a feasible idea, as people living with a problem will be the most interested in solving it, but it makes me wonder about a couple of things. In the first place, the burden transfered to citizens and, secondly and related to that, the role of government in all this: are they enhancing citizen implication or simply avoiding a lot of costs by putting those responsibilities on people’s hands?
Letting the management of environment issues completely into collective action can end in a situation of mistrust towards the government or even the feeling that such a money-sucking institution is not necessary at all. Maybe in some centuries when humankind will evolve towards a utopian society of equity and inclusiveness this will be possible, but right now, a strong government is a need, to face lobbies and to give a sense of unity. I’m not touching now the numerous weak points of the current government system that exist in many countries today, as the list could be long enough to make a new blog, but getting completely rid of those institutions won’t help IEM approaches, for two reasons.
First, the idea of “people’s problem, people’s solution” is a perfect shield to hide behind and let people deal alone with troubles that may be bigger than them and break the concept of broader belonging (“it’s their problem, not mine” mind). Secondly, what would avoid government institutions from moving to this idea in environmental management to social, cultural, education of health issues? Instead of a completely independent and self-raised system of management, the objective should be an active governance where institutions and communities would work together to have the general and specific views of the problem and avoid worsening problems.
Having said this, citizenship involvement is crucial to get things moving and can be well enhanced to seize the huge knowledge and ability of those people, but institutions have to be actively involved in this process or the general view will be that people are doing the job that belongs to them. Back to Lake Ellesmere, there exists the Waihora Ellesmere Trust (you've got a very good report about the trust's activities and working here), as the means to get C(B)EM moving on, but there is also a 12-million NZD agreement among big actors, the Goverment, ECan, Fronterra and Ngai Tahu, to undertake the cleaning of the lake and take care at the same time of the lake, the cultural meaning for the local iwi, the farmers that live and have the area as their way of earning a life, and the environment [infromation from The Press published August 26th]. IEM cannot exist without both community and institutions; money raising, coordination with other areas, contribution with professionals and expertise and care for the big picture are things that should be given by institutions; after all, taxes are supposed to be for these things and people cannot use another whole working day after theirs. But at the same time, no government initiative can succeed without the people digging, cleaning, planting or, simply, acting properly and accomplishing the required standards and actions. Does it mean people should be passive and let government think for them? Definitely no! Just on the contrary, it is people and communities who are the most capable to change their houses, living, gardens, consumption patterns, transport, to create trusts and community centres, to organize plantings, meetings, events, and be the lever point to make things change. Rather than people, it’s the role of government that makes me wonder. Government has the role to enhance these initiatives, coordinate and get everybody involved to make sure they are approached right. People and communities are the base but need a cohesive net to do something big out of a bunch of small things; in this arena, IEM is the ground to grow marvellous synergies for today and tomorrow.
I will use this to talk about C(B)EM, Community (Based) Environmental Management. The idea could be briefly summarized as the process of manage environmental issues and resources in a collective and locally based way by mean of voluntary and community actions [R.D. Margerum (2008). "A Typology of Collaboration Efforts in Environmental Management", Environmental Management, 41:487:500.].
At first sight, this looks like a feasible idea, as people living with a problem will be the most interested in solving it, but it makes me wonder about a couple of things. In the first place, the burden transfered to citizens and, secondly and related to that, the role of government in all this: are they enhancing citizen implication or simply avoiding a lot of costs by putting those responsibilities on people’s hands?
Letting the management of environment issues completely into collective action can end in a situation of mistrust towards the government or even the feeling that such a money-sucking institution is not necessary at all. Maybe in some centuries when humankind will evolve towards a utopian society of equity and inclusiveness this will be possible, but right now, a strong government is a need, to face lobbies and to give a sense of unity. I’m not touching now the numerous weak points of the current government system that exist in many countries today, as the list could be long enough to make a new blog, but getting completely rid of those institutions won’t help IEM approaches, for two reasons.
First, the idea of “people’s problem, people’s solution” is a perfect shield to hide behind and let people deal alone with troubles that may be bigger than them and break the concept of broader belonging (“it’s their problem, not mine” mind). Secondly, what would avoid government institutions from moving to this idea in environmental management to social, cultural, education of health issues? Instead of a completely independent and self-raised system of management, the objective should be an active governance where institutions and communities would work together to have the general and specific views of the problem and avoid worsening problems.
Having said this, citizenship involvement is crucial to get things moving and can be well enhanced to seize the huge knowledge and ability of those people, but institutions have to be actively involved in this process or the general view will be that people are doing the job that belongs to them. Back to Lake Ellesmere, there exists the Waihora Ellesmere Trust (you've got a very good report about the trust's activities and working here), as the means to get C(B)EM moving on, but there is also a 12-million NZD agreement among big actors, the Goverment, ECan, Fronterra and Ngai Tahu, to undertake the cleaning of the lake and take care at the same time of the lake, the cultural meaning for the local iwi, the farmers that live and have the area as their way of earning a life, and the environment [infromation from The Press published August 26th]. IEM cannot exist without both community and institutions; money raising, coordination with other areas, contribution with professionals and expertise and care for the big picture are things that should be given by institutions; after all, taxes are supposed to be for these things and people cannot use another whole working day after theirs. But at the same time, no government initiative can succeed without the people digging, cleaning, planting or, simply, acting properly and accomplishing the required standards and actions. Does it mean people should be passive and let government think for them? Definitely no! Just on the contrary, it is people and communities who are the most capable to change their houses, living, gardens, consumption patterns, transport, to create trusts and community centres, to organize plantings, meetings, events, and be the lever point to make things change. Rather than people, it’s the role of government that makes me wonder. Government has the role to enhance these initiatives, coordinate and get everybody involved to make sure they are approached right. People and communities are the base but need a cohesive net to do something big out of a bunch of small things; in this arena, IEM is the ground to grow marvellous synergies for today and tomorrow.
[Do you want to read more about C(B)EM? Check Elinor
Ostrom’s wide work about community governance in the commons and Rich
Margerum’s IEM approach for the same issue.]
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario