See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315992166

The Role of Ecological Economics in Latin

American Public Policy: Latin American
Consensus at the ISEE Washington...

Article in Ecological Economics · April 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.041

CITATIONS READS

0 66

13 authors, including:

Bernardo Aguilar Joseph S. Weiss

Fundación Neotrópica-Northern Arizona Uive… University of Brasília
33 PUBLICATIONS 302 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Barkin Peter H. May

Metropolitan Autonomous University Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro
196 PUBLICATIONS 764 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 1,537 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research on the impact of economic instruments in forest legislation View project

POLICYMIX - Assessing the role of economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation
and ecosystem services provision. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph S. Weiss on 06 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Ecological Economics 138 (2017) 238–241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Commentary

The Role of Ecological Economics in Latin American Public Policy: Latin

American Consensus at the ISEE Washington Meeting
Brazilian Society of Ecological Economics (ECOECO)a,
Argentine-Uruguayan Association of Ecological Economics (ASAUEE)b,
Mesoamerican and Caribbean Society of Ecological Economics (SMEE)c,
Andean Society of Ecological Economics (SAEE)d, Joseph S. Weiss e,⁎
a
c/o Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Presidente Vargas, 417 | 9° andar, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 20071-003, Brazil
b
c/o Facultad de Ingenieria y Ciencias Hidricas, Universidad Nacional del Litoral (UNL), Ciudad Universitaria, Piso 3, Paraje El Pozo, 3000 Santa Fe, Argentina
c
c/o Fundación Neotropica, Calle 49, 200 oeste y 25 norte de Cámara de Industrias, San Pedro de Montes de Oca, San José, Costa Rica
d
c/o Universidad del Valle, Ciudad Universitaria Meléndez, Calle 13, 100-00, Edif. 341, Cali, Colombia
e
Universidade de Brasilia, Centro para Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro - Gleba A 70.904-970, Brasilia, DF, Brazil

A R T IC L E IN F O In the last two centuries, technology and industry developed and

human population grew at an accelerated pace, accompanied by severe
Article history: environmental deterioration. The twentieth century transformation
Received 22 March 2017 consisted of expanded productive capacity, increased worker productivity
Accepted 30 March 2017 and income per capita. Meanwhile, income disparities between the
Available online 7 April 2017
richest and the poorest increased, along with cultural transformations
and changes in political and power structures. Latin America continued
Keywords:
Latin America on the periphery of the world system.
Ecological Economics Societies Sustainable development cannot be achieved without including
Ecological Economics three irreplaceable basic concepts: human needs, physical constraints
Public Policy
and moral restraints. Satisfying basic needs requires integral socioeco-
nomic development in places where they are not met, not necessarily
through economic growth.

1. Introduction
This is the consensus reached at the roundtable “Preparing a Latin
American Position Paper” held at the 14th International Society of Eco-
logical Economics (ISEE) in Washington, June 26–29, 2016, hosted by
the College of Agriculture, Urban Sustainability and Environmental Sci-
ences (CAUSES) of the University of the District of Columbia. During that
session, the content and form of this document were discussed seeking
an ecological-economic consensus on public policies in our region.
As a result of the roundtable, after changes made subsequent to the
Washington meeting, the presidents of the four regional societies,
among the authors of this consensus, approved this document, ad refer-
endum of their memberships.1
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses:ecoeco.secretaria@gmail.com, lopezcal@hotmail.com,
presidentesmee@gmail.com, mario.perez@correounivalle.edu.co, josephweissbr@gmail.com.
1
An earlier version was prepared as one of the outcomes of the XI National Meeting of
the Brazilian Society of Ecological Economics (ECOECO) and the VII Ibero-American
Congress of Development and Environment (CISDA), held from 8 to 11 September 2015,
on the Araraquara campus of São Paulo State University – UNESP. It was consistent with
the theme of the Congress: Applications of the ecological economics to Latin American
Public Policies. It was presented at the Ordinary Assembly of ECOECO, with the participa-
tion of the presidents of the four regional societies.
2. Consensus
Based upon a broad analysis of Latin America's situation and the
asymmetries of power in the world economy that limit the prospects
for global governance, we affirm the gravity of that the current situation
at the continental level. We identify the need for a special effort to lead
decision making at all levels to achieve the objectives specified princi-
pally in the following themes summarized below:
1) Well-being indicators appropriate to social and environmental sus-
tainability and a search for a better and more inclusive develop-
ment metric, representing the interests of all those who speak
with Latin American voices, especially the most vulnerable groups;
2) The decoupling of economic growth from the use of energy and
materials as well as from environmental degradation;
3) Technical innovation with reduced environmental impacts, gener-
ation of employment and social benefits, taking into account each
country's contribution to global investment, according to its
possibilities;
4) The universalization of low-carbon agriculture and livestock pro-
duction at all scales;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.041
0921-8009/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 J.S. Weiss / Ecological Economics 138 (2017) 238–241
5) The evaluation and equitable distribution of ecosystem service ben-
efits among all species and peoples in this and future generations;
6) Sustainable management of increasingly scarce natural resources
and of ever more deteriorated ecosystems;
7) Sustainable, fair and creative urbanization, making cities pleasant
places to live and socialize;
8) The empowerment of indigenous peoples and local communities to
exercise their right to governance and direct participation in the
political decisions affecting their territories, including the
questioning of the need for large projects;
9) Ecocentric ethics and consciousness raising of social actors regarding
the onset of planetary ecosystem resilience thresholds and the
inevitable consequences of the expansion of a consumer society; and
10) A better distribution of power and organization of global system
governance, adapting human activity to the world's biophysical
limits and seeking environmental justice.
3. Problem Summary and Proposed Solutions
1) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not the appropriate indicator to
measure well-being. It's almost exclusive use in economic policy
for this purpose induces unsustainable economic growth and
does not promote the equitable distribution of wealth generated
in the process. Growth in the scale of the economy brings costs
that, at the margin, outweigh their benefits. Per capita income
does not measure well-being and certainly does not reflect happi-
ness. We propose:
✓ Adopt a more inclusive indicator of progress than GDP, while ap-
plying new macro-social models that put the well-being of the
needy population first.
✓ Macroeconomic policies compatible with sustainability and in-
come redistribution.
✓ Promote equitable and universal improvement of well-being
while simultaneously allocating resources efficiently for eco-
nomic and environmental benefit.
✓ Environmental stress metrics, such as per capita pollution, eco-
logical footprint, virtual water and net primary production,
should be considered in addressing the measurement of sustain-
able development objectives.
✓ Multidimensional progress indicators defined in the Sustainable
Development Objectives, are needed, with efforts to strengthen
national data banks.
✓ Define more realistic and improve monitoring capabilities of the
proposed indicators.
✓ In addition to family income and housing, peoples' well-being
needs to be measured by the quality of public health services, ac-
cess to drinking water, education, sanitation, transportation,
public safety, etc.
2) The traditional process of economic growth in Latin America is
associated with intensive materials and energy use, as well as
the continuously increasing pressures on the environment. This
neoextractivism is aggravated given that the region is a net
exporter of primary commodities. In addition to directly or indi-
rectly exploiting large areas, it uses them in a predatory and inef-
ficient manner, along with inequitable distribution of the gains. It
appears to be increasingly difficult to reduce materials and ener-
gy use concurrent with growth in the economy. We propose:
✓ Recognize there are different paths to sustainable development
of developed, emerging and developing countries.
✓ The evaluation of these paths should focus on ways to promote
equity in the distribution of wealth and, at the same time, reduce
its metabolic intensity.
✓ Achieve this by readjusting national economies, to focus on
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and increasing productiv-
ity, while considering rebound effects.
239
✓ Strengthen and integrate national plans for water and solid
waste management, climate change mitigation and adaptation,
and energy efficiency programs.
✓ Link them to plans to eliminate poverty and inequality, in accor-
dance with the decoupling proposal disseminated by the United
Nations Environment Program.
✓ Rethink and question the mainstream notion that hydropower
generation is clean and sustainable.
✓ Advance in the generation of electricity from other renewable
sources, thus assuaging social and environmental conflicts over
river use and pressure on water resources.
3) Technological innovations are not neutral. They need to be
qualified. On one hand, there are technological eco-innovations,
generated mainly in the advanced countries, which reduce envi-
ronmental impact and increase production efficiency. They de-
serve to be transferred to developing countries in the form of
foreign aid. On the other hand, there are innovations consisting
of expensive capital-intensive production activities leading to so-
cial and environmental conflicts, not suitable for the nations of
the continent. These are the opposite of so-called “social technol-
ogies,” aimed at low-cost creative solutions for low-income pop-
ulations. We propose:
✓ Focus innovation and dissemination on social technologies, by
strengthening endogenous capabilities, benefitting low-income
groups and affected local communities.
✓ Introduce other innovations that help maintain ecosystem func-
tions and services. For example, processing equipment for prod-
ucts of social and biological diversity chains (Brazil nuts, rubber,
and renewable plant biomass fuels), solar energy for isolated
communities, low cost, community-manufactured cisterns, etc.
4) Universalize Low-Carbon Agriculture. Agriculture and livestock, a
key sector in Latin America, is firmly integrated in the global mar-
ket. Together with the resulting forest conversion, it is the
continent's main source of greenhouse gas emissions. This con-
tinues despite existing policies to promote good mitigation prac-
tices and dissemination of innovations that help one adapt to
climate change. The sector still is heavily dependent on chemical
inputs that affect human health and ecosystems, as well as inef-
ficient water use, soil fertility loss and erosion. Landed property
concentration continues, while the sector continues to be a way
of life for thousands of impoverished peasants. Most agro-
ecological farmers and extractivists, whose products are free of
toxic inputs, have limited market access and are restricted in geo-
graphical coverage. We propose:
✓ Low-carbon agriculture and livestock husbandry, integrated with
forestry, must be adopted by all, together with the wide dissem-
ination of integrated pest management, while preventing im-
pacts on human health and ecosystems;
✓ Increased productivity and avoided deforestation are anticipated
with such practices;
✓ Improved and expanded public policies that favor agro-ecology,
sustainable forest product extraction, stronger protected area
systems and management of the public forest estate;
✓ Economic instruments should be combined with regulatory land
use policies to reduce harmful human activities;
✓ The territorial rights of indigenous peoples must be respected;
✓ Support for family farming and land reform for landless peasants
should be adapted and expanded;
✓ Expanded public policies leading to improved terms of trade for
family farming and agro-extractivist agriculture with respect to
their reduced environmental degradation effects; and
✓ Guaranteed access to land for rural social movements for subsis-
tence and improved quality of life.
5) Despite modest progress in estimating and compensating for
environmental, ecosystem, social and cultural services, public
policies generally ignore the rights of local communities and
240 J.S. Weiss / Ecological Economics 138 (2017) 238–241
indigenous peoples, the intangible assets of nature and their local
and global benefits. We propose:
✓ Respect and quantify environmental services, provided especial-
ly by low-income groups, to ensure that water producers and
other natural resource protectors be compensated for the ser-
vices they provide in an equitable fashion.
✓ Legally recognize ecosystem service providers to permit that
benefits are fairly and directly distributed by beneficiaries.
✓ Strengthen public capacity to implement compensation systems
for these services at all levels.
6) Natural resources. There is internal and external pressure to ap-
propriate and use natural resources, especially water, and to de-
grade biomes. Once considered relatively abundant, they now
have to be seen as increasingly scarce and critical natural capital.
There are few efforts to create protected areas, and indeed in
some nations, such areas have been reduced. Therefore, their
preservation is urgent, since they are absolutely essential for
life and cannot be replaced. We propose:
✓ Sustainable management of natural resources, beginning with
the basic premise that they have measurable economic value
and represent ecosystem services provided by nature.
✓ Integrated and holistic ecosystem management, determining
quantity (provision services) and quality (control services).
✓ Sufficient resources to adopt “green infrastructure”, with adequate
budgetary allocation, including permanent forest protection, ap-
propriate watershed, spring and riverbank management, equitable
criteria for primary and treated water use charges, asserting the
right to water, as well as proper soil use and management.
7) Urbanization. This intense process of the second half of the 20th
century is giving rise today to several regional megalopolises in
the LAC region, by allowing real estate speculation, irregular land
occupation and inappropriate housing for low-income
population. These pose public policy challenges to a dignified and
sustainable life with strengthened human capacities. We propose:
✓ Recovering the long-term sustainable urban planning ap-
proach is a sine qua non to face the challenge that Latin Amer-
ican cities become more pleasant places for life and human
sociability.
✓ Urban plans and projects and their effective implementation
must require sustainable and fair land use, environment and
cultural heritage protection, housing, health, sustainable mo-
bility, universal access to basic sanitation services, public safe-
ty, adequate urban waste disposal and green living spaces.
✓ These actions as well as others should lead to the collective
good, the development of human capabilities, rural-urban in-
tegration and a dignified life.
8) Indigenous peoples' rights are not respected as defined in Res-
olution 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and
the subsequent United Nations declaration of indigenous peo-
ples' rights, extended to other traditional peoples and local
communities. They often question the need for large projects.
The social and environmental problems associated with in-
vestment in large-scale projects such as roads, railways,
ports, airports, mining and hydroelectric power remain unre-
solved. This is attested to by the numerous conflicts that have
arisen involving affected peoples and environmental issues
leading to a significant increase in legal proceedings motivat-
ed by unfulfilled claims of their rights. It appears that, in gen-
eral, environmental licenses for these types of works are
granted without regard to compliance with contractual condi-
tions and environmental regulations. We propose:
✓ The empowerment of indigenous, afro descendent and tradi-
tional peoples as well as local communities and compliance
with their social, political and governance rights.
✓ As far as large-scale projects are concerned, establish a perma-
nent dialogue between civil society, the entrepreneur and
government, on the respect for their rights and on key social
and environmental issues, from their initial planning stages.
✓ Therefore, give priority to the fair distribution of benefits or
compensation to affected populations.
✓ Consider and study investment alternatives with less environ-
mental impact, including other modes of transport such as
waterways, management systems and energy demand reduc-
tion policies.
✓ These should be evaluated with the effective participation of
the affected stakeholders, considering the projects' direct
and indirect social and environmental impacts.
✓ Project evaluation should integrate private values with social,
cultural and environmental values of affected public assets,
through tools such as socio-environmental cost-benefit analy-
sis, social multi-criteria and strategic environmental assess-
ment at an aggregated scale.
✓ Use predefined thresholds applicable to both private and pub-
lic projects, as well as changes in institutional and regulatory
frameworks.
✓ Thus, licensing procedures should be improved, with specific
guidelines similar to those proposed by the World Commission
on Dams, especially its rights approach (World Commission on
Dams, 2000).
✓ These solutions can increase rather than reduce project profit-
ability indicators, but should above all generate community
well-being.
9) The environment is still predominantly seen as an obstacle to
production rather than an opportunity to adopt eco-innovations
and achieve sustainable production. The anthropocentric pre-
vails over the ecocentric ethic, with a consciousness that ignores
the importance of reducing the impact of socio-economic activi-
ties on the environment and climate change. The planet cannot
support reproducing the consumption patterns of the rich coun-
tries' middle and upper classes, even though consumers desire
them, encouraged by corporations and the several communica-
tions media. We propose:
✓ Spread the idea that it is possible to implement a new model that
reconciles development with sustainability, with changes in con-
sumption habits and production technologies.
✓ Teach society the economic advantage of effective change, recon-
ciled with the goals of human and ecosystem health.
✓ Improve strategies for greater public awareness and better public
policies to bring these changes about, with an emphasis on public
and private communication and on universal education, regard-
ing sustainable development at all levels.
✓ Disseminate the many local examples of success such as Bhutan's
national experience, as well as that of others.
10) The concentration of power limits decision-making on human
activity becoming consistent with planetary limits and social
and environmental challenges. It also constrains the organization
of governance at global, national and local levels, leading to the
lack of institutions and processes needed for social and environ-
mental change. Decision-making systems are needed at all levels,
which translate into the respect for planetary boundaries and the
observance of decisions taken. We propose:
✓ Adjust anthropogenic activities to ecological limits through
changes in the power structure and the design and implementa-
tion of policies and projects, based on lessons learned.
✓ Adopt democratic management and implementation of social and
environmental policies at the global, national and local levels, with
cooperation between governments, the private sector and society.
✓ Adjust the capacity of the United Nations, as well as of nation-
states and local governments.
✓ Include this issue on the agenda of international forums.
✓ Build civil society organizations' effective participation in decision
making.
 J.S. Weiss / Ecological Economics 138 (2017) 238–241
✓ Adopt a new South–South model for partnership and cooperation
among countries, with the support of the UN and global organiza-
tions.
✓ Formulate policies, implement projects and programs, with the
participation of endogenous national experts.
✓ Improve positive models of existing North–South cooperation
agreements.
Contributors
The following ISEE members contributed with significant text
changes: Bernardo Aguilar González, SMEE President, Fundación
Neotrópica, Costa Rica; Sofia Avila-Calero, Universidad Autónoma de
Barcelona, Spain; Aleida Azamar Alonso and David Barkin, Universidad
Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico; Alberto López Calderón, ASAUEE
President, Universidad Nacional del Litoral (UNL), Argentina; Clóvis
Cavalcanti ISEE President-Elect and ECOECO Honorary President,
Fundação Joaquim Nabuco, Brazil; Maria Amelia Enríquez, Universidade
Federal do Pará, Brazil; Junior Ruiz Garcia, Universidade Federal do
Paraná, Brazil; Claudio Fernandez Macor, UNL, Argentina; Peter H.
View publication stats
241
May, ECOECO President, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil; Claudio Passalía, UNL, Argentina; Mario Alejandro Perez Rincon,
SAEE President, Universidad del Valle, Columbia.
Acknowledgements
We wish to express our thanks to Luciana Togeiro and Sabine O′Hara
and their teams for organizing the referred ECOECO and ISEE meetings
which made this consensus possible; and to Zeze Weiss for English
editing.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-
cies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
References
World Commission on Dams, 2000. Dams and Development: A New Framework for Deci-
sion-making. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London and Sterling, VA:p. 356. https://
www.internationalrivers.org/sites/default/files/attached-files/world_commission_on_
dams_final_report.pdf accessed March 17, 2017. (Previously found at www.unep.org/
dams/accessed June 12, 2016. No longer, given change in UNEP platform).