Looking for Sustainability: Environmental Coalitions across the State‐Society Divide

Abstract

This paper compares environmental policymaking in two Brazilian cities, Rio de Janeiro and CubataÄ o. It examines the formation of statesociety synergistic interactions in the public policymaking process and their effect on long term sustainability of social mobilization. It concludes that whereas social capital can be constructed in the context of policymaking, it is critically dependent on a concerted effort from both state and society actors to build trust in their daily interactions. The CubataÄ o and Carioca River cases show that state-society synergy had little effect on the ability of the policy coalitions formed for pollution clean up to sustain themselves over time. Instead, there are indications that rather than a constraint, the flexible and informal nature of such coalitions may have been a critical factor in their ability to carry out policy successfully.

Genesis of the CDM: the original policymaking goals of the 1997 Brazilian proposal and their evolution in the Kyoto protocol negotiations into the CDM

“…Advocates conjoined environmental degradation and social justice to reach out to economically and socially excluded sectors of Brazil's population by patterning a discourse wherein poverty and environmental degradations arose from the same causal story (Hochstetler and Keck 2007). This contrasted directly with discourses of the military dictatorship period, which the military imposed from within the realm of the state, largely to avoid inflated demands and the generalisation of populist policies (Lemos and Looye 2003;Santos and Paixão 1989;Schmitter 1971). Instead, pursuit of socioenvironmentalism grew from local efforts to a national movement in the late 1980s, which triggered engagement at the international level, as well, as international NGOs established presences in Brazil in response to Brazil's perceived complacency on deforestation (Hochstetler and Keck 2007).…”

“…The eventual change to democracy was negotiated by the elites, and the resulting bureaucracy comprised a mixture of those elites and new agents of change. In this environment, bureaucratic decisions were initially driven by the agenda of the institutional actors involved in any particular matter (Lemos and Looye 2003). Upon democratisation, agents of change tended to be more successful if they garnered support from public movements-outside the bureaucracy and the state-willing to push for corresponding policy changes (Lemos 1998).…”

Introduction: The Urban Divide in Latin America: Challenges and Strategies for Social Inclusion

“…They conclude that instead of pseudo-participation, planning would be more successful if based on self-production and autonomy. This would create positive synergy and complementarity between state and societal actors, which would empower the community (Lemos and Looye, 2003). This alternative approach would put planners in a position to create tools that would enable individuals to design their own homes.…”

Water Reform across the State/Society Divide: The Case of Ceará, Brazil

“…The failure of Brazil's technocratic model of decision making also fostered among policy makers the recognition of the advantages of forging mutually advantageous relationships with groups outside the state, including in environmental-related fields (Watson, 1995;Lemos & Looye, 2003). Thus, in the view of many policy makers, the partnership with independent societal actors would both increase their clout vis-à-vis other sectors of the state machine opposing their policies (especially development-minded sectors) as well as improve policy outcome.…”

“…Although accounts of policy failure and mistrust still outnumber cases of positive interaction, examples of mutually beneficial partnerships, especially at the local level, accumulate. (For some examples of positive interactions in environment-related policy making, see Watson (1995); Lemos (1998); Lemos & Looye (2003). )…”