Reseñas de libros
Parque, Susan, and Teresa Kramarz, editores. 2019. Global Environmental Governance and the
Accountability Trap. Cambridge, MAMÁ: La prensa del MIT.
Reviewed by Nino David Jordan
University College London
In global environmental governance, accountability tends to be narrowly perceived
in terms of correct behavior within the confines of already-given institutional
choices. What if that’s a trap? What if the environment keeps deteriorating and
we waste our time arguing about how to improve the accountability of actors
embedded in deeply unsustainable institutions?
Are the organizations governing the global environment accountable to the
environment itself? Certainly not, as “the environment” is commonly not per-
ceived to have agency (Gaia theory/beliefs notwithstanding). En cambio, ellos son
accountable to a whole array of different organizations and individuals. El
perceptions of who ought to be accountable to whom, in what way, and in accor-
dance with what procedures vary across different issue areas and actor constella-
ciones. Susan Park and Teresa Kramarz, the editors of Global Environmental
Governance and the Accountability Trap, argue that the preoccupation with account-
ability focuses too often on only the narrow aspects of the implementation and
performance of agreed procedures (“second-tier” accountability) rather than on
the goal orientation and design of institutions (“first-tier” accountability). Given
the ongoing worsening of the environmental crisis, for Kramarz and Park the pre-
occupation with second-tier accountability is insufficient at best and even runs
the danger of distracting from the necessary deeper institutional reform. They la-
ment the lack of feedback loops from second-tier accountability mechanisms and
processes back to goal orientation and institutional design. Idealmente, they contend,
accountability norms and practices should be engaged to open up conversations
and contestation about how to reorient governance institutions toward greater
environmental effectiveness.
The authors advance acute reflections on the challenges and opportunities
that governance in polycentric systems poses for accountability. Cristina Balboa
shows how environmental nongovernmental organizations’ mission to fight
environmental degradation first gets derailed by having to compete with a
multitude of peers for limited resources and then becomes further complicated
by the pressure to be accountable to an amorphous, ambiguous, and potentially
open-ended set of stakeholders with no clear hierarchy for whose concerns
should be prioritized. Lars Gulbrandsen and Graeme Auld locate the contesta-
tion around the accountability of the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSCs)
Global Environmental Politics 21:4, Noviembre 2021
© 2021 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
154
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
4
1
5
8
1
9
7
5
1
2
2
gramo
mi
pag
_
r
_
0
0
6
3
8
pag
d
.
/
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Nino David Jordan
(cid:129) 155
“sustainable” fish certification procedures within a polycentric governance situ-
ation where the MSC interacts with state regulation, environmental activists
whose ardent critique of an unsustainable fishing industry has induced demand
for the MSC label in the first place, and alternative NGO approaches for shaping
consumer demand toward more sustainable directions.
The bracketing introduction and conclusion by the editors are thoughtful
yet difficult and abstract. The chapters by Hamish Van der Ven on “Private Gov-
ernance in Global Value Chains” and by Cristina Balboa on “Participation
Versus Performance: The Crisis of Accountability for Environmental Nongover-
mental Organizations” could easily stand by themselves and would make excel-
lent additions to syllabi concerned with environmental certifications or NGOs,
respectivamente. The chapter by Gulbrandsen and Auld could also serve as a general
introduction to fisheries certification.
There are also empirically rich but dense and narrowly focused chapters on
interstate emissions accountability in climate politics and on hybrid account-
abilities in cooperative initiatives for global climate governance and illegal wild-
life trade governance.
A reflection on the role of polycentricity would have been an interesting
complement to Park and Kramarz’s suggestion that accountability should ideally
inform learning about institutional designs more appropriate for tackling envi-
ronmental challenges. How can we expect assertions and refutations of account-
ability to generate learning and inform institutional design in settings with
multiple and often competing actors? While the authors often focus on “voice,"
what is the role of “exit” (and competition)?
The editors’ suspicion that excessive concern with accountability at the
stage of implementation distracts from the need for more profound reform
and thus institutional design seems warranted. Yet the authors themselves largely
devote their attention to second-tier accountability. Its relationship to first-tier
accountability is only fleetingly spelled out. The problem is already embedded
in the very accountability definition serving as a common thread throughout the
various chapters, which characterizes accountability within agreed, específico
frameworks rather than the situations typical for goal definition and institu-
tional design. The chapters systematically repeat a definition of accountability
by Grant and Keohane—“some actors have the right to hold other actors to a set
of standards, to judge whether they have filled their responsibilities in light of
those standards, and to impose sanctions if they determine that those responsi-
bilities have not been met” (3). Arguably, this definition is likely to fix attention
more on second-tier than on first-tier accountability, since goal definition and
institutional design are political acts where appropriate standards of behavior
still leave considerable discretion before constituents would be entitled to resort
to formal sanctions.
The editors could have made a stronger case for the advantages of their
constructivist framework, which only loosely brackets the various chapters, por
clearly outlining how it helps to understand accountability relations better than
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
4
1
5
8
1
9
7
5
1
2
2
gramo
mi
pag
_
r
_
0
0
6
3
8
pag
d
/
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
156 (cid:129) Reseñas de libros
other theoretical traditions, Por ejemplo, the more rationalist institutionalist
accounts associated with Robert Keohane, coauthor of the accountability defini-
tion that serves as a common thread throughout the various chapters.
This volume has achieved significant steps toward problematizing the
relation between accountability mechanisms and environmental degradation.
The individual contributions stay within the confines of an assessment of
second-tier accountability and how it relates to first-tier accountability, sin embargo.
That feedback loops from second- to first-tier accountability alone do not lead
out of the “accountability trap” is clear. Park and Kramarz argue that account-
ability should be used “as a means of exposing the underlying politics of choice,
learning and reconstituting [global environmental governance] to lead to better
environmental outcomes” (220). Future scholarship should seek to empirically
map the extent to which engagement with existing accountability mechanisms
has indeed given rise to repoliticized institutional learning processes and resulted
in improved environmental outcomes. A promising complementary exercise
could also learn from the collected case studies by charting pathways toward
greater environmental sustainability.
Neville, Kate J. 2021. Fueling Resistance. Nueva York, Nueva York: prensa de la Universidad de Oxford.
Reviewed by Sandra O’Neil
Curry College
In Fueling Resistance, Kate Neville dissects the processes, and political economy
estructura, of resistance to two different alternative fuel projects in two distinct
and disparate locations. The comparison centers on resistance to a biofuel pro-
ject in Kenya and a fracking project in the Yukon territory of Canada. The un-
written premise is that these two energy projects, and the subsequent resistance
to them, may not have obvious similarities given their distinct characteristics
and locations but in fact have several elements in common. Neville outlines
how these cases can be viewed as similar and concludes that understanding
the patterns of resistance to these two fuel projects could help in moving future
fuel projects forward—even within the renewable market. The focus of the book
is not necessarily the outcomes of resistance but the process and the social forces
that shape the process.
Before dissecting the two cases, Neville sets the stage for understanding the
sociopolitical context for the projects. Understanding the time frame is one im-
portant aspect of understanding what might influence communities to be recep-
tivo, or not, to these types of projects. The projects both occurred in the early to
mid-2010s, a time when climate change was certainly in the lexicon, but also a
time when security and the push for domestic energy production and energy
independence were national priorities. The central argument focuses on three
intersecting political economy factors that influence these two cases of resistance:
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
4
1
5
8
1
9
7
5
1
2
2
gramo
mi
pag
_
r
_
0
0
6
3
8
pag
d
/
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Sandra O’Neil
(cid:129) 157
finance, ownership, and trade relations. These three factors and their influence
on the cases in Kenya and Yukon are then described in detail. Although it may
be implied, Neville never specifically notes these three factors are merely a sub-
set of all of the factors that affect resistance. There are certainly others, a few of
which are explored at the conclusion of the text.
The distance between parties who will financially benefit, control, and op-
erate a project and the communities who will live near and with the project
clearly matters, and the book demonstrates how this factor contributes to resis-
tance. In these contexts, ownership and finance of a project can set the stage for
insider and outsider identities that can affect the degree of trust or mistrust com-
munities have for those in charge of a project and therefore the project itself.
Insider/outsider identities can also highlight different land values. In Yukon,
the desire for a safe and healthy environment surfaced, and in Kenya, concerns
about pastoral access and ecosystem disruption were among “insider” concerns.
The book leans heavily on social movement theory to understand the processes
in each of these locations, reviewing opportunities for mobilization as well as
competing frames based on different values, particularly land values. Neville uses
social movement theory to describe the symbols and frames employed to gain
momentum for those on “both sides” of the projects. Por ejemplo, in the biofuel
case in Kenya, the project was linked to food (en)seguridad, land grabs, and biodi-
versity, evoking symbols of water quality, hunger, and colonization. In Yukon,
the fracking project brought values of water protection and extraction versus con-
servation to the forefront and used symbols of rivers, snowcaps, and caribou.
The impact of biofuels on agricultural markets, competing visions of land-
scapes and land uses, distrust of investors, and mixed-to-sour previous experi-
ences with projects all layered on top of a long history of colonialism and land
conflict that strengthened resistance to the project in Kenya. Themes of distrust
of outside investors were paralleled in the fracking case in Yukon. Además de
finance and ownership, trade contributed to resistance in both projects. en par-
particular, the facts that local benefits were limited and that the benefits of the pro-
jects would be felt in distant locations shaped the perspective that outsiders
would benefit at the expense of local land loss. This perspective also speaks
to the scale of projects required for investors to make a profit. Both projects re-
quired nonlocal markets, exporting the benefits out of the local community, a
be economically viable.
Although the book’s focus is on finance, ownership, and trade as the po-
litical variables shared by these projects, Neville also discusses how these cases
shared themes of scientific uncertainty and the importance of land use and com-
peting values and visions of land, though not as independent influencing char-
caracteristicas. Both cases happened during a time of technological developments
and new scientific research regarding the carbon benefits of these technologies
that “undermine(d) the climate justification for these energy developments”
(13). In the biofuels case, there was significant controversy regarding the types
of land that would be used and the effect those choices would have on potential
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
4
1
5
8
1
9
7
5
1
2
2
gramo
mi
pag
_
r
_
0
0
6
3
8
pag
d
/
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
158 (cid:129) Reseñas de libros
carbon reduction—or carbon increase. Similarmente, research was developing
regarding fracking’s “fugitive” emissions that postulated that a full accounting of
fracking would negate its benefits as well. Además, in the Yukon case, allá
was concern that moving forward with this technology would delay the adoption
of or investment in more beneficial renewable technology options. While Neville
does acknowledge both the problem with and the appeal of technological fixes
that do not require changes in the power structure or consumption patterns, este
idea is not a central focus of her research. Además, discussions of power that
underlie the ability to manipulate and manage the dominant frames in a con-
tested project are not fully explored. Power relations are always an important
factor between industry and community in contested projects.
Neville brings forward a “crisis frame” in the conclusion of the book. Este
frame is less integrated into previous sections of the text but is of significance in
understanding the two cases, especially in the broader climate context. The con-
cepts of crisis, climate change, and technology are woven together as a “warn-
ing” of sorts, indicating that we need to pay attention to the zeal we have for
“quick fixes” to complicated problems, even in a time of crisis, such as the one
we now face with climate change. Technology alone, especially technology fixes
that do not address embedded issues of power, cannot solve what will require
massive societal shifts in our economic system. It is not until the conclusion that
Neville begins in earnest to push the concept of procedural justice, the impor-
tance of community participation, and the active engagement of communities
affected by projects, ideas vital to environmental justice discussions.
Finalmente, she discusses more broadly how lessons from these cases could
apply to renewable projects, such as large-scale solar and wind. This could be
the most important takeaway from the text. What was learned here is not just
applicable to the contentious energy projects examined in the book but can be
applied to any project requiring a large land area or vital resource, si una
project is based on fossil fuels or alternative or renewable energy. Communities
and developers will have different land values through which they view a pro-
ject. This text focuses on and illuminates larger political economy characteristics
of finance, ownership, and trade that will likely impact and potentially “fuel”
resistance to future energy projects.
Redford, Kent H., and William M. Adams. 2021. Strange Natures: Conservation in the Era of
Synthetic Biology. nuevo refugio, CT: Prensa de la Universidad de Yale.
Reviewed by Adam Wickberg
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
What is natural and what is artificial in the era of the Anthropocene? Esto es
the core question addressed by Kent Redford and William Adams’ book,
Strange Natures. The book builds on the two authors’ long-standing work in
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
4
1
5
8
1
9
7
5
1
2
2
gramo
mi
pag
_
r
_
0
0
6
3
8
pag
d
.
/
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Adam Wickberg
(cid:129) 159
conservation, in both research and practice, and reads like a well-wrought com-
bination of an assessment report of the status of synthetic biology in conserva-
tion practice today and a powerful deep dive into the changing nature of nature
in the Anthropocene. While the figures and facts about this new geologic era are
not easy to summarize in one sentence (as testified by the numerous and long-
standing debates around the concept), humans have altered the nature of this
planet. With virtually no area untouched by human impact, the distinction
between nature and culture is increasingly hard to uphold. After decades of
debates and discussions, this position has now become commonplace in the
more theoretically oriented humanities and social sciences, backed up by
mounting hard evidence from Earth systems science. For readers less oriented
to the internal debates of conservation research and practice, this book offers
an intriguing hands-on example of what it can mean that distinctions between
human culture and nature are blurred.
Genetic modification for agricultural purposes has been much debated by
environmentalists, who have raised concerns about its impacts on both human
health and ecosystems. The notion of gene editing as a conservation tool faces a
steep uphill road in convincing both the public and conservationists of its use-
fulness. Redford and Adams patiently guide the reader through the many per-
spectives that have permeated the discussions on synthetic biology in the last
decade. During that same time, the technology for gene editing and advances
in synthetic biology have exploded and offer hitherto unimaginable possibili-
corbatas, such as the prospect of bringing extinct species back to life. Mientras que la
ético, moral, and philosophical problem of genetic alteration is now old,
the situation today is new. The speed of technological development is also
matched by the speed of biodiversity loss in our age of mass extinction.
Conservationists need to consider the complex situation in which humans are
driving accelerating global environmental change that threatens to deteriorate
the life conditions of many species, while also possessing the technical capabil-
ities to change the genomes of these species to help them survive this rapid
change that evolution can’t keep up with. If conservation is about saving biodi-
versity from negative human impacts, it would be strange if the technology that
could do that more efficiently than any other technique would be discarded
without serious consideration.
While the balance of the many perspectives on the risks and possibilities
of synthetic biology is generally a strength of the book, it can at times lead to an
almost catalog-like account of potential positions on this complex issue. El
authors’ views are most clearly expressed in the last chapter, which convincingly
makes the case for gene editing. While this delay in making the argument could
be considered a weakness in terms of reader friendliness (particularly for those
looking for quick answers), it also rewards the slow and thoughtful reading
from beginning to end that the subject demands.
In scrutinizing the underlying assumptions of those who oppose the use
of synthetic biology for conservation purposes, Redford and Adams show that,
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
4
1
5
8
1
9
7
5
1
2
2
gramo
mi
pag
_
r
_
0
0
6
3
8
pag
d
/
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
160 (cid:129) Reseñas de libros
in many cases, an outdated and impossible notion of a pure nature safeguarded
from humans has been the guiding principle. The authors are clear that the risks
of using synthetic biology should not be downplayed but that cautious devel-
opment of this technology may be necessary for conservation practice to work
well in the Anthropocene. Uncertainty about technology lies behind the emer-
gence of environmentalism as a global movement in the twentieth century, y
notions of a pure nature have followed human culture ever since the notion of
the garden of Eden. But as scholars of historical ecology have made clear, el
large-scale human alteration of ecosystems like the Amazon go back several
millennia. As Redford and Adams contend, “wilderness is a cultural concept.
Yet despite the overwhelming evidence documenting the depth and extent of
human impact on nature, the notion of a pure and untouched nature waiting
to be protected retains a powerful draw” (199–200).
This book convincingly shows that, instead of the notion of a nature
separate from culture with static environments in need of conservation of an
original pure state, a dynamic concept of a long human–nature relationship
may be both more accurate and also the best way to safeguard a nature with
a tremendously rich biodiversity that is essential to evolution and life on this
planet. It is impressive how the book manages to be so rich in perspectives
on such a complex and controversial phenomenon, yet so cautiously and
open-mindedly written that it invites contemplation and reflection rather than
hasty conclusions. Against this background, the book ends by proposing that,
instead of seeing gene editing as another way of subjecting nature to human
necesidades, it could be better understood in conservationist terms as a way to
support and assist evolution to sustain genetic diversity and enable nonhuman
life to evolve as independently of human influence as possible.
yo
D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d
F
r
oh
metro
h
t
t
pag
:
/
/
d
i
r
mi
C
t
.
metro
i
t
.
yo
/
/
mi
d
tu
gramo
mi
pag
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d
yo
F
/
/
/
/
2
1
4
1
5
8
1
9
7
5
1
2
2
gramo
mi
pag
_
r
_
0
0
6
3
8
pag
d
/
.
yo
F
b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t
t
oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Descargar PDF