Facilitadores institucionales y sociales para la gobernanza local de los riesgos medioambientales. Análisis empírico con municipios chilenos

Abstract

IntroducciónLa transformación de las condiciones medioambientales, la frecuencia de eventos extremos y sus consecuencias negativas en las condiciones de vida de la población justifican el esfuerzo de investigación por entender cómo están respondiendo los gobiernos locales al desafío y por conocer las barreras y los factores que facilitan una mejor adaptación (Panel Intergubernamental del Cambio Climático (IPCC), 2012; 2013).Los riesgos de desastres naturales tienen que ver con factores que afectan el medio ambiente, tales como la contaminación, eventos geofísicos y el estrés producido por el cambio climático. En este estudio, el análisis de la gestión medioambiental y de reducción de riesgos de desastres (GMRRD) se refiere a las decisiones de los gobiernos locales sobre presupuestos, inversiones, y acciones relacionadas que tienen el propósito de proteger el medioambiente, preparar mejor a sus comunas y reducir riesgos de desastres (Betsill, 2001; Carmin, Anguelovski y Roberts, 2012; Etkin, Medalye y Higuchi, 2012; Heltberg, Siegel y Jorgensen, 2009; IPCC, 2012, p. 25-65; Carey et al., 2012, p. 736-737). Usamos la expresión GMRRD como abreviación de esas respuestas municipales.La pregunta que motiva este análisis es por qué algunas municipalidades gestionan mejor el medioambiente, tienen mayor preparación para reducir riesgos de desastres, y aportan más a las capacidades de adaptación en la comuna.En las últimas tres décadas, una creciente literatura ha subrayado la importancia de los factores políticos, los contextos institucionales y sociales para explicar diferencias de la GMRRD en la escala local (por ejemplo, Adger, 2003;Betsill, 2001;Burch, 2010; Carmin, Anguelovski y Roberts, 2012;Ostrom, 1990; Valdivieso y Andersson, 2017).Tomando en consideración esa literatura, este estudio explora la validez de las siguientes proposiciones. Primero, las respuestas de los municipios frente a los riesgos medioambientales se explican por los contextos comunales, factores contextuales e históricos. Segundo, si en contextos similares se observan diferencias en las respuestas de los gobiernos locales, las iniciativas de inversión, los presupuestos y las acciones municipales, entonces existen factores adicionales que explican las decisiones de los gobiernos locales. Tercero, en esas decisiones y acciones influyen factores políticos, arreglos y capacidades institucionales operando como barreras o facilitadores para la http://dx

Typical Challenges of Governance for Sustainable Regional Development in Globalized Latin America: A Multidimensional Literature Review

“…Some works referred to foreign investment in Latin America [105,106], the political economy of armed conflict and crime in Colombian regions [107], and governance and conflict due to environmental depletion [79]. The strongest tie connected the political and the environmental dimensions along the Collective Conservation and Incidence quadrants with eight items including illustrating the management of Amazonian protected areas and indigenous territories [96], the governance of environmental risks at the local scale (Chile) [108], and conservation and climate change in Latin America [109]. This relational analysis confirms and details the strong link between the political and the economic dimensions.…”

What Motivates Local Governments to Invest in Critical Infrastructure? Lessons from Chile

“…The available quantitative evidence from previous research on Chilean municipalities indicates that variables measuring municipal capacities, organization, leadership, and multilevel governance relationships are positively correlated with local government decisions in DRR [26,27,87].…”

“…The evidence from previous research on Chilean municipalities indicates that multilevel governance relationships may affect the behavior of local governments, as well as municipal capacities and organization [20,26,27,70,87]. But it does not adequately explain why such relationships do not always lead to improvements in infrastructures; for example, why municipalities encouraged by proactive national policies for DRR and adaptation do not invest in critical infrastructures, or why municipalities with resources and personnel invest less than others.…”

“…Where local contexts are affected by risks and hazards, municipal organization with regard to accountability mechanisms and routines, internal organization, and transparency may affect decisions that help transform policies into actions and increase the likelihood of positive decisions in critical infrastructure [14,34,50,[53][54][55]57,58]. Supported by expert opinions (public workers, consultants, researchers), one part of the literature draws attention to the accountability of local representative institutions [20,26,27,50,[53][54][55]71,73,87]; for example, in terms of integrity and responsibility of those who exercise positions of power (as opposed to corruption practices), and power equilibrium between the mayor and council [27,54]. Good practices in governance and accountability foster competition and widen the channels through which information on risk conditions flows, so that they have access to local government decision-making processes [1,14,49,73,74].…”

“…Chile is an appropriate case for studying variations of local decisions in DRR regarding critical infrastructures due to its geography and heterogeneity, exposure to risks, hazards, and natural disasters, and having the same institutional structure at the national level [1,26,35,87,89]. This country is of particular interest because all municipalities are part of the same national governance regime, subject to the same national public policies and have access to the same public programs, but there are many subnational variations in DRR, particularly in terms of critical infrastructure investments [26].…”