Disputa del territorio, marcos internacionales de desarrollo y política pública para la emancipación territorial
El caso del programa Altépetl en la Ciudad de México
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35416/2025.10938Palabras clave:
Desarrollo Sostenible, Pagos por Servicios Ambientales , Territorios emancipadoresResumen
Este artículo analiza la vinculación entre normativa internacional y política pública sobre el desarrollo sostenible, la resiliencia, los Pagos por Servicios Ambientales (PSA) y sus impactos en la gestión urbana ante la disputa entre un aparato teórico de políticas neoliberales y la capacidad de preservación de los patrimonios sociales y naturales. Desde un enfoque de la sociología crítica, se hace una revisión de la literatura sobre la normativa globalizante de estos conceptos en sus vertientes neoliberales. El análisis de una experiencia de política pública en la Ciudad de México -el programa Altépetl- abre pistas de investigación y acción en las que la capacidad emancipadora del territorio se desprende y depende de nuevas gramáticas relacionales entre actores y conceptos en disputa. Se concluye resaltando los hallazgos de este caso y de los análisis que permiten afinar la capacidad emancipadora del territorio reforzada por esta política pública frente a la disputa teórico-práctica que la atraviesa.
Descargas
Referencias
AGRIPPINAH, N. At the expense of democracy, Payment for Ecosystem Services in Hoima district, Uganda. Responsive Forest Governance Initiative, Working Paper n.14, 2018.
ALIX-GARCIA, J. M., SHAPIRO, E. N.; SIMS, K. R. Forest conservation and slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s national payments for ecosystem services program. Land Economics, v.88, p.613–38, 2012. Disponible en: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23272663. Consultado el 12 nov. 2021.
ALIX-GARCIA, J.M.; MCINTOSH, C.; SIMS, K.R.; WELCH, J.R. The ecological footprint of poverty alleviation: evidence from Mexico's Oportunidades program. Review of Economics and Statistics, v. 95, n.2, p.417–35, 2013. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00349. Consultado el 15 dic. 2021.
ALIX-GARCIA, J.M.; ARENSON, G.; RADELOFF, V.; RAMIREZ-REYES, C.; SHAPIRO, E., SIMS K.R.; YANEZ-PAGANS, P. Impacts of Mexico’s payments for ecosystem services programme. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3iE), New Delih: Grantee final report, 2014. Disponible en: https://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/ie20-mexico-pes.pdf. Consultado el 23 nov. 2021.
ALIX-GARCIA, J.M.; SIMS K.R.; YANEZ-PAGANS, P. (2015) Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico's Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, v.7, 4, pp.1-40, 2015. DOI: 10.1257/pol.20130139. Disponible en: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20130139. Consultado el 4 nov. 2021.
ARRIAGADA, P.; FERRARO, P.J.; SILLS, E.O.; PATTANAYAK, S.K.; CORDERO-SANCHO, S. Do payments for environmental services reduce deforestation? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics, v.88, n.2, p.382–99, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/le.88.2.382. Disponible en: https://le.uwpress.org/content/88/2/382. Consultado el 17 dic.2021.
BÄCKSTRAND, K. Stakeholder Democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development. European Journal of International Relations, v.12, n.4, 467-498, 2006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066106069321. Disponible en: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354066106069321. Consultado el 25 nov. 2021.
BARSIMANTOV, J. KENDALL, J. (2012) Community forestry, common property, and deforestation in eight Mexican states. Journal of Environment & Development, v.21, n.4, p.414–37, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496512447249. Disponible en: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1070496512447249. Consultado el 2 dic. 2021.
BEE, B.A.; BASNETT, S. Engendering social and environmental safeguards in REDD+: Lessons from feminist and development research. Third World Quarterly, p.1-18, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1191342. Disponible en: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2016.1191342. Consultado 2 de dic. 2021.
BENKO, G.; LIPIETZ, Alain (Eds.). La richesse des régions : la nouvelle géographie socio-économique. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), 2000.
BLACKMAN, A.; ALBERS, H. J.; AVALOS-SARTORIO, B.; CROOKS, L. Land cover in a managed forest ecosystem: Mexican shade coffee. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, v.90, n.1, p.216–31, 2008. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30139501. Disponible en: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30139501. Consultado el 21 nov. 2021.
BLACKMAN, A.; AVALOS-SARTORIO, B.; CHOW, J. Land cover change in agroforestry: Shade coffee in El Salvador. Land Economics, v.88, n.1, p. 75–101, 2012. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41307681. Disponible en: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41307681. Consultado el 5 dic. 2021.
BOYER, R. El Estado social a la luz de las investigaciones regulacionistas recientes. En: COLOQUIO INTERNACIONAL ESTADO Y REGULACIONES SOCIALES ¿COMO PENSAR MLA COHERENCIA DE LA INTERVENCION PUBLICA?, Université Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne, 2006. p.139-156 (trad. N. Collomb, 2007).
BREMER, L. L.; FARLEY, K.A.; LOPEZ-CARR, D. What factors influence participation in payment for ecosystem services programs? An evaluation of Ecuador’s Socio Páramo program. Land Use Policy, v. 36, p.122– 133, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.002. Disponible en: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026483771300149X. Consultado 6 de dic. 2021.
BUSCH, J.; FERRETTI-GALLON, K. What Drives Deforestation and What Stops It? A Meta-Analysis. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, v.11, n.1, p.3–23, 2017. DOI:10.1093/reep/rew013. Consultado el 6 dic. 2021.
CASTEL, R. El ascenso de las incertidumbres: trabajo, empleo, individuo. Buenos Aires: Paidos, 2009.
CHANDLER, D.; REID, J. (2018) Being in being’: contesting the Ontopolitics of indigeneity. The European Legacy, 2018. DOI: 10.1080/10848770.2017.1420284. Disponible en: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10848770.2017.1420284. Consultado el 5 dic. 2021.
COSTEDOAT, S. et al. How effective are biodiversity conservation payments in Mexico? PloS one, 10 (3), 2015.
CIUDAD DE MEXICO. [Constitución (2017). Constitución Política de la Ciudad de México. Ciudad de México: Asamblea Constituyente de la Ciudad de México, 2017. Disponible en https://data.consejeria.cdmx.gob.mx/images/leyes/estatutos/CONSTITUCION_POLITICA_DE_LA_CDMX_14.pdf . Consultado el 10 dic. 2023.
BANERJEE, S.B. Whose land is it anyway? National interest, Indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourses: The case of Jabiluka Uranium mine. Organization and Environment, v.13, n.1, p.3-38, 2000. Consultado el 17 dic. 2021.
COOPER, M.; WALKER, J. Genealogies of resilience: from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, v.42, n.2, p. 143-160, 2011.
DEFRIES, R. S., T.; RUDEL, T.; URIARTE, M.; HANSEN M. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience, v.3, n.3, p.178–81, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo756. Consultado el 14 dic. 2021.
DEFRA. Payments for Ecosystems Services: A Best Practice Guide. London: 2013.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200920/pb13932-pes-bestpractice-20130522.pdf Consultado el 10 de noviembre de 2023.
DEININGER, K. W.; MINTEN, B. Poverty, policies, and deforestation: The case of Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change, v.47, n.2, p.313–44, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/452403. Consultado el 5 dic. 2021.
ELLIS, E. A.; PORTER-BOLLAND, L. Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas? A comparison of land use/landcover change in two neighboring study areas of the central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management, v.256, n.11, p.1971–83, 2008. Consultado el 17 dic. 2021.
ANGEL, S.; PAGIOLA, S.; WUNDER, S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, v. 65, p.663–675, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011. Consultado el 6 dic. 2021.
EU-LAC FONDATION. La ville durable moteur de transformation sociale ? Regards croisés entre l’Europe, l’Amérique Latine et les Caraïbes. Paris : Institut des Amériques - AFD - Foundation EU-LAC, 2019.
EVANS, B.; REID, J. Dangerously exposed: the life and death of the resilient subject; International policies, practices and discourses, v.1, n.2, p.83-98, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2013.770703. Consultado el 23 nov. 2021.
FELDMAN, I. R.; BLAUSSTEIN, R. J. Ecosystems services as a framework for Law and policy. Environmental Law Reporter, n.37, October 2007. Disponible en: https://www.greentrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GT1004_article_Framework-for-Law-and-Policy_v02.pdf. Consultado el 17 dic. 2021.
GAKAZ, V.; BIERMANN, F.; CRONA, B., LOORBACH, D.; FOLKE, C.; OLSSON, P.; NILSSON, M.; PERSSON, Å.; REISCHL, G. Planetary boundaries–exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, .4, p.80-87, 2012. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.006. Consultado el 23 nov. 2021.
HARVEY, D. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Consultado el 28 nov. 2021.
HARVEY, D. Rebel cities: from the right to the city, to the urban revolution. Londres: Verso, 2012.
HONEY-ROSES, J., K.; BAYLIS, K.; RAMIREZ, M.I. A spatially explicit estimate of avoided forest loss. Conservation Biology, v.25, p.1032–1043, 2001. Consultado el 23 nov. 2021.
INEGI. Marco geoestadísitico. Suelo de conservación. Recuperado de: https://datos.cdmx.gob.mx/dataset/suelo-de-conservacion. 2020.
INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR IMPACT EVALUATION. Incentives for the climate mitigation in the land use sector – the effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on environmental and socio-economic outcomes in low and middle-income countries, a mixed-method systematic review. Systematic Review 44, 2019. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwjx7LnmrLDlAhWS2hQKHUrcCKwQFjABegQIAxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.3ieimpact.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2019-08%2FSR44-PES-payment-for-environmental-services_1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3rJsCyluTABNNMo4_BAxmG . Consultado el 18 nov. 2024.
KLEPEIS, P.; VANCE, C. Neoliberal policy and deforestation in southeastern Mexico: An assessment of the PROCAMPO Program. Economic Geography, v.79, n.3, p.221–40, 2003. DOI:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00210.x. Consultado el 5 dic. 2021.
KOSOY, N.; CORBERA, E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecogical Economics, v.69, p.1228–1236, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002. Consultado el 13 nov. 2021.
LE VELLY, G.; SAUQUET, A.; CORTINA-VILLAR, S. PES impact and leakages over several cohorts: the case of the PSA-H in Yucatan, Mexico. Land Economics, v.1, n.93(2), p.230-57, 2017. Disponible en: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44202618. Consultado el 23 nov. 2021.
OBENG, E. A.; AGUILAR, F. X. Value orientation and payment for ecosystem services: Perceived detrimental consequences lead to willingness-to-pay for ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, v.206, p.458-471, 2018. Consultado el 3 nov. 2021.
PEREZ DE ARMINO, K. El concepto y el uso de la seguridad humana: análisis crítico de sus potencialidades y riesgos. Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, n.76, p.59-77, 2207. Disponible en: https://www.cidob.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/76_perez.pdf. Consultado el 3 nov. de 2021.
PEREZ-VERDIN, G.; KIM, Y.-S.; HOSPODARSKY, D.; TECLE, A. Factors driving deforestation in common-pool resources in northern Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management, v.90, n.1, p.331–40, 2009. Consultado el 17 dic. 2021.
PORTER, M. E. Competitive Advantage, Agglomeration Economies, and Regional Policy. International Regional Science Review, v.19, n. 1-2, p.85-94, 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016001769601900208. Consultado el 5 nov. 2021.
RAWLINS, M. A.; WESTBY, L. Community participation in payment for ecosystem services design and implementation: An example from Trinidad. Ecosystem Services, v.6, p.117–121, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.004. Consultado el 5 dic. 2021.
REID, J. Politicizing connectivity: beyond the biopolitics of information technology in international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, v. 22, n. 4, p.607-623, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570903325520. Consultado el 13 dic. 2021.
REID, J. The neoliberal subject: resilience and the art of living dangerously. Revista Pleyade, CAIP, n.10, p.145-165, 2012a. Disponible en: https://biblat.unam.mx/hevila/PleyadeSantiago/2012/no10/8.pdf. Consultado el 19 nov. 2021.
REID, J. The disastrous and politically debased subject of resilience. Development Dialogue, special issue “Intervention as the New Society Order: towards global disaster management”, n.58, p.67-80, 2012b.
REID, J. Interrogating the Neoliberal Biopolitics of the Sustainable-Development-Resilience Nexus. International Political Sociology, v.7, p.353-368, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12028. Consultado el 5 dic. 2021.
REID, J. Reclaiming possession: a critique of the discourse of dispossession in indigenous studies. On culture: the open journal for the study of culture, n.5, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22029/oc.2018.1145. Consultado el 19 nov. 2021.
REID, J. ‘We the resilient’: colonizing indigeneity in the era of trump. International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 2019.
ROCKSTRÖM, J., STEFFEN, W.; NOONE, K., PERSSON, Å.; CHAPIN, F.S.; LAMBIN, E.; LENTON, TM.; SCHEFFER, M.; FOLKE, C.; SCHELLNHUBER, H.J.; NYKVIST, B.; DE WIT, C. A.; HUGHES, T.; VAN DER LEEUW, S.; RODHE, H.; SÖRLIN, S.; SNYDER, P.K.; COSTANZA, R.; SVEDIN, U.; FALKENMARK, M.; KARLBERG, L.. CORELL, R.W.; FABRY, V.J.; HANSEN, J.; WALKER, B.; LIVERMAN, D.; RICHARDSON, K.; CRUTZEN, P.; FOLEY, J. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, v. 14, 2009. Disponible en: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32. Consultado el 19 nov. 2021.
ROJAS, J. Payment for Environmental Services as an alternative for the sustainable use of peatland ecosystem services. Ambiente y Sustentabilidad , n.1, p. 57-65, 2011.
RUEDA, X. Understanding deforestation in the southern Yucatan: Insights from a sub-regional, multi-temporal analysis. Regional Environmental Change, v.10, n.3, p.175–89, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s10113-010-0115-7. Consultado el 7 dic. 2021.
SASSEN, S. Sociología de la globalización. Buenos Aires: Editoriales Katz, 2009
SEARBROOK, J. In the cities of the south: scenes from a developing world, Londres: Verso, 1996
SEDEMA. Suelo de conservación. Recuperado de: https://datos.cdmx.gob.mx. 2021.
SIMS,, K.R.; ALIX-GARCIA, J.M. Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, n.86, p.8-28, 2017.
SIRE, P-O.; MOLINA, J. (2014), “Civil CSR tools help to redefine business role for sustainable development: critical experiences of Red Puentes”. En: 2da REUNION DE LA RED DE SOLUCIONES PARA EL DESARROLLO SUSTENTABLE (UNSDSN) 2014, Nueva York, 2014.
SLOAN, S. Reforestation amidst deforestation: Simultaneity and succession. Global Environmental Change, v. 18, n.3, p.425–41, 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.009. Consultado el 25 nov. 2021.
STEGER, C.; HIRSCHB, S.; EVERSC, C.; BRANOFFD, B.; PETROVAE, M.; NIELSEN-PINCUSF, M.; WARDROPPERG, C., VAN RIPERH, C. J. Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration. Ecological Economics, v.143, p.153–160, 2018. Consultado el 7 dic. 2021.
SULLIVAN, S. (2015), ‘Policy and critical framings of the “payment for ecosystem services” concept’. PES WORKSHOP, IMPERIAL COLLEGE, 2015. London: 30 April 2015.
SUPIOT, A. La gouvernance par les nombres. Paris : Fayard, coll. Poids et Mesures du Monde, 2015.
SVAMPA, M. Consensos de los commodities y lenguajes devaloración en América Latina, Nueva Sociedad, n. 244, marzo-abril, 2013. Disponible en: https://nuso.org/articulo/consenso-de-los-commodities-y-lenguajes-de-valoracion-en-america-latina/.
TOFFLER, Alvin. The Third Wave. US: Bentham Books, 1979. Consultado el 23 nov. 2021.
VACA, R. A.; GOLICHER, D. J.; CAYUELA, L.; HEWSON J.; STEININGER, M. Evidence of incipient forest transition in southern Mexico. PLoS One, v.7, n.8, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042309. Consultado el 5 dic. 2021.
VAN HECKEN, G.; BASTIAENSEN, J.; HUYBRECHS, F. Hacia un enfoque institucional de los Pagos por Servicios Ambientales: perspectivas sobre la oferta y la demanda de servicios ambientales a partir de dos estudios de caso en la frontera agrícola nicaragüense. Encuentro, n.92, p. 29-52, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5377/encuentro.v0i92.784. Consultado el 17 dic. 2021.
WUNDER, S. Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper 42, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, 2005. Disponible en: https://www.cifor-icraf.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf. Consultado el 5 de dic. de 2021.
ZHAO, H.; UCHIDA E.; DENG X.; ROZELLE, S. Do trees grow with the economy? A spatial analysis of the determinants of forest cover change in Sichuan, China. Environmental and Resource Economics, v.50, p. 61–82, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9462-1. Consultado el 23 de nov. 2021.
