Federal Minimum Environmental Standards in Argentina. Comparing the Processes of the Native Forests, Glaciers and Wetlands Acts
In this article we explore the processes of debate, sanction and implementation of three minimum environmental protection standards laws in Argentina, in the context of growing disputes for the conservation of the environment. The constitutional reform of 1994 established a scheme of concurrent powe...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Instituto de Investigación y Formación en Administración Pública (IIFAP-FCS-UNC)
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/APyS/article/view/31044 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | In this article we explore the processes of debate, sanction and implementation of three minimum environmental protection standards laws in Argentina, in the context of growing disputes for the conservation of the environment. The constitutional reform of 1994 established a scheme of concurrent powers in environmental matters between the national government and the provinces, according to which the latter hold the original domain of natural resources, while the Nation enacts norms assuring a common environmental protection for the entire territory. Within this general framework the roles and functions of each level of government are defined on a case-by-case basis. This happens through processes that are at the same time conflictive, negotiated and creative, resulting in each case in different institutional arrangements. At each level of government these processes involve different tensions and conflicts of interest, as the stakeholders acting on different scales are not the same; for the same reason, different discursive constructions of the problems prevail in each setting. Here we propose a comparison between the processes of debate, passing and and implementation of the Native Forests Act (Law Nr. 26.331, of 2007), the Glaciers Act (Law Nr. 26.639, of 2010), and the bills currently under discussion for an act on wetlands. Our analysis is based on the analysis of primary and secondary sources of information. We concentrate on the national level and on certain provinces taken as examples, and we focus on two aspects. First, the normative-institutional dimension; we explain how each norm has distributed functions and powers between the national and provincial levels through the provisions of the normative texts and the structure of enforcement authorities. Second, we compare the conflict scenarios that emerge around the enacting and implementation of the different laws: the actors involved, the interests affected and the discourses mobilized in each case. |
|---|