EL LEGADO DE «PRIMAVERA SILENCIOSA»

Responses to SES change are formed partly through institutions that shape relations among and between multiple levels of governance (Goldman and Riosmena, 2013). Institutions are core components of environmental governance (Biermann et al., 2010). Institutions are defined by North (1990: 97) as “…humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interactions”, and can be both formal and informal. As described by Helmke and Levitsky (2004: p727), “…formal institutions are openly codified, in the sense that they are established and communicated through channels that are widely accepted as official…informal institutions are socially shared rules, usually unwritten, that are created, communicated, and enforced outside of officially sanctioned channels”. Informal institutions tend to be more persistent than formal rules (North 2005). Although formal organisations (e.g. political parties or unions) may be distinguished from formal institutions, informal rules may be embedded within these organisations. Whilst informal organisations (clans, mafias) may be distinguished from informal institutions, formal institutions will not govern their behaviour, but they are usefully incorporated into informal

44

institutional analysis (Helmke and Livitsky, 2004).Institutions tend to be conservative, reacting incrementally to disturbances through cultural practices and ideological premises (Gupta and Dellapenna, 2009). Despite institutions providing a level of stability and predictability for the development of collective action (Scharpf, 1997), it is important to consider that they emanate from agreements and debates occurring over time and hence carry a bias from these previous negotiations, perceptions and power relations (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2006). This process is referred to as ‘institutionalisation’ (Garud et al., 2007). Subsequently, institutions comprise a degree of resistance to change which can constrain adaptive capacity. But although institutions shape social actions, they can also be re- constituted through these same actions (Giddens, 1984). This has important implications for the environmental justice aspects of the distribution of adaptive capacity as pre-existing inequities due to a lack of recognition of certain groups can be sustained through institutional inertia, leading to those already vulnerable being unduly burdened with the negative effects of SES change.

Governance decisions and actions at multiple levels interact with environmental processes, and are channelled through and influenced by institutions at and across various levels (Cash et al. 2006). Failure to appreciate institutional processes between and within levels can lead to ineffective management decisions with negative social and environmental consequences (Kok and Veldkamp 2011; Poteete 2012). Whilst institutions enable and maintain the involvement of certain actors and practices, they can also exclude or constrain others, demonstrating a clear link to the recognition aspects of environmental justice. Subsequently, the way individuals within a community behave and interact, combined with the policies and processes that are determined by external agents, will influence environmental justice through the distribution of adaptive capacity that shapes how individuals are able to respond to SES change (Berman et al., 2012). In order to ensure sustainable outcomes in the management of SES, it is important to identify and understand the institutional factors that facilitate or restrict adaptive capacity (Brockhaus et al., 2012). The environmental justice literature suggests that participation in the governance procedures for natural resource management can facilitate more equitable distribution of adaptive capacity, but requires actors that are informed, motivated and able to access decision making processes (Poteete and Ribot, 2011).

45

Many of the systems in developing countries from which ecosystem service benefits and livelihoods are derived are regarded as common property (Wallace 2007; Nkhata et al., 2012). Many governments are struggling with the growing gap between the rich and poor and seek to develop and implement policies that seek to ensure fair and equitable sharing of the ecosystem service benefits from these systems (Suneetha and Pisupati 2009). This is because the collective use of common resources makes them susceptible to market, government and property failures, posing significant challenges for their equitable governance (Ostrom 1999). Despite growing acknowledgement of the importance of governance processes for the distribution of ecosystem services, it remains understudied (Nkhata et al., 2012). Ostrom (1990) argues that as awareness of the complexity and interconnectedness of natural resource management challenges increases, the institutions relating to common property will play a vital role in the success of management solutions. This is increasingly salient as rural communities become further integrated into global processes and networks involving state, private sector and civil society actors with differing interests, claims and influence (Mwangi and Wardell, 2012). These actors represent institutions that are relevant to local adaptive capacity (Adger et al., 2008) as they act as a link between levels of governance (Adger et al., 2008), and shape how households and communities are affected by and respond to change (Agrawal, 2008). In order for institutions to generate the necessary levels of adaptive capacity for societies to anticipate and respond to change, they will need to: respond at the same rate at which the magnitude of SES change is likely to occur (Brondizio et al., 2009); allow actors to learn from new insights and experiences in order to flexibly and creatively manage uncertainty; and maintain a degree of identity (Gupta et al., 2010). This will involve the incorporation of new information regarding the changes taking place, and proactive responses through planned management, while also supporting autonomous actions and institutional redesign (Gupta et al., 2010). Little attention has been given to the dynamics of common property institutions and processes in the equitable distribution of ecosystem services, and the implications of this for the environmental justice aspects of adaptive capacity, particularly in the context of developing countries. This research applies an environmental entitlements approach to provide a framework for understanding how institutions and processes at multiple levels of SES governance shape household access and use of SES commons.