What environmental problem are we narrating? The epistemological impoverishment of intergovernmental organizations in contrast to disturbance ecology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2023.e91679Keywords:
Epistemology of Ecology, Ecological Disturbances, Drivers, Analytical Comparison, Ecological Changes, Environmental PoliticsAbstract
Since its emergence, the contemporary environmental problem has become an object of analysis and intervention both for ecology (area of biology) and for different intergovernmental organizations with a global reach. In both fields, a series of conceptual frameworks have been developed aimed at addressing ecological changes, that is, those alterations that affect units that are the object of study of ecology. The aim of this paper is to clarify and contrast the ways in which disturbance ecology (a recent field within ecology) and different intergovernmental organizations conceptualize and approach ecological change. To do this, we make an analytical comparison between the ecological concept of ‘disturbance’ and the notion of ‘driver’ coming from intergovernmental organizations. In the comparison, we observe that these concepts seek to explain similar processes of ecological change under the same causal logic, although they show important differences in the treatment of the initial conditions that allow them to be studied. We conclude that the notion of ‘driver’ leads to an epistemological impoverishment in relation to the concept of ‘disturbance’. Finally, we discuss some implications of this epistemological problem, given that it is the impoverished notion of ‘driver’ that is imposed on the international context when explaining an ecological change, and materialized in guidelines which are recognized by nations around the world. Thus, this impoverishment is transferred to the field of public policy. It is urgent to rethink to what extent we are contributing to the construction and reproduction of an epistemologically impoverished environmental problem.
References
Aristimuño, F.; Aguiar, D.; Magrini, N. 2018. Organismos internacionales de crédito y construcción de la agenda de las políticas públicas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación. El caso del BID en la Argentina durante los noventa. In: F. Aguiar; M. Lugones; J.M. Quiroga; F. Aristimuño (comps.), Políticas de ciencia, tecnología e innovación en la Argentina de la posdictadura, pp. 51-77. Río Negro: Editorial UNRN.
Battisti, C.; Poeta, G.; Fanelli, G. 2016. An Introduction to Disturbance Ecology – A Road Map for Wildlife Management and Conservation. Suiza: Springer.
Beever, E.A.; Prange, I.S.; DellaSala, D.A. 2019. Disturbance Ecology and Biological Diversity: Context, Nature, and Scale. Estados Unidos: CRC Press.
Bowler, P. 1998. Historia fontana de las ciencias ambientales. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Bunge, M. 1961. Causalidad. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.
Bunge, M. 1966. Technology as applied science. Technology and Culture 7(3):329–47.
Bunge, M. 2012. Filosofía de la tecnología y otros ensayos. Perú: Fondo Editorial de la UIGV.
Cifuentes, M.; Kamlah, C.; Thiel, M.; Lenz, M.; Wahl, M. 2007. Effects of temporal variability of disturbance on the succession in marine fouling communities in northern-central Chile. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 352(2):280-294.
Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Descola, P. 2012. Más allá de naturaleza y cultura. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.
DeSiervo, M.H.; Jules, E.S.; Safford, H.D. 2015. Disturbance response across a productivity gradient: postfire vegetation in serpentine and nonserpentine forests. Ecosphere 6(4):1–19.
Diegues, A. 1996. O mito moderno da natureza intocada. Sao Paulo: Editora Hucitec.
di Pasquo, F. 2013. Una historia de las condiciones de aparición de la problemática ambiental y de sus efectos sobre la matriz de la ecología disciplinar. Scientiae Studia 11(3):557–581.
di Pasquo, F.; Busan, T.E.; Klier, G. 2018. El dispositivo problemática ambiental. Ciencia Ergo Sum 25(1):1–16.
di Pasquo, F.M.; del Castillo, D.; Busan, T.E.; Rodríguez, E.H.; Klier, G. 2021. Hegemonía, ecología y problemática ambiental. Política y Sociedad (Madr.) 58(1):1–12.
EEA [European Environment Agency] 2019. The European environment — State and outlook 2020. https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
EEA 2020a. Drivers of change of relevance for Europes Environment and sustainability. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/drivers-of-change. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
EEA 2020b. State of Nature in EU. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu-2020. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
Francese, C. & Folguera, G. 2018. Saberes simplificados, tecnociencia y omisión de riesgos. El caso de los organismos genéticamente modificados. RUNA 39(2):5–28.
Frolov, I.T. 1984. Diccionario de filosofía. Trad. O. Razinkov. Moscú: Progreso.
Gerritsen, J. & Patten, B.C. 1985. System theory formulation of ecological disturbance. Ecological Modelling 29:383–397.
Grime, J.P. 1973. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242:344–347.
Gudynas, E. 2010. Imágenes, ideas y conceptos sobre la naturaleza en América Latina. In: L. Montenegro (ed.), Cultura y Naturaleza, pp. 267-292. Colombia: Jardín Botánico J.C. Mutis.
Harmon, M.E.; Bratton, S.P.; White, P.S. 1984. Disturbance and vegetation response in relation to environmental gradients in the Great Smoky Mountains. Vegetatio 55:129–139.
Hume, D. 1992 [1739]. Tratado de la Naturaleza Humana. Trad. F. Duque. España: Tecnos.
IPBES [Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services] 2016a. The Methodological Assessment Report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://ipbes.net/assessment-reports/scenarios. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
IPBES [Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services] 2018a. The Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. https://ipbes.net/assessment-reports/ldr. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
IPBES 2018b. The Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for the Americas. https://ipbes.net/assessment-reports/americas. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
IPBES 2019. The Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature] 2017. Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 1.1. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/45794. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
IUCN 2020. IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology 2.0. Descriptive profiles for biomes and ecosystem functional groups. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49250. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
IUCN 2021. Nature 2030: One nature, one future. A programme for the Union 2021-2024. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/49292. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
Keddy, P.A. 2007. Plants and Vegetation. Origins, Processes, Consequences. Estados Unidos: Cambridge University Press.
Klier, G. 2018. Tiempos modernos: un análisis sobre los discursos de la Biología de la Conservación. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales.
Lamberti, M. 2021. La relación entre la ecología y los organismos intergubernamentales: un análisis comparado de las nociones de ‘disturbio’ y ‘driver’ desde la epistemología de la ecología. Tesis de Licenciatura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales.
Lavagnino, N.J. & di Pasquo, F. 2021. Aspectos epistémicos de la tecnología de control biológico de especies plaga: simplificaciones y riesgos asociados. In: F. Bernabé (coord.), Filosofía e historia de la ciencia y sociedad en Latinoamérica (vol I). Buenos Aires y São Carlos: AFHIC.
Leff, H. 2006. Aventuras de la Epistemología Ambiental: de la articulación de ciencias al diálogo de saberes. México: Siglo XXI.
MAyDS [Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sustentable] 2020. Causas e impactos de la deforestación de los bosques nativos de Argentina y propuestas de desarrollo alternativas. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/desmontes_y_alternativas-julio27.pdf. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
MEA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Estados Unidos: Island Press.
Monares, A.R. 1999. Modernidad y Crisis Ambiental: En torno al Fundamento de la Relación Naturaleza – Ser Humano en Occidente. Revista Austral de Ciencias Sociales 3:31–42.
Moore, D.R.J. 1998. The Ecological Component of Ecological Risk Assessment: Lessons from a Field Experiment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 4(5):1103–1123.
Mortensen, C. 2020. Change and Inconsistency. En: E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/change/. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
Nagel, E. 2006 [1961]. La estructura de la ciencia. Barcelona: Paidós.
Odum, E.P. & Barrett, G.W. 2006. Fundamentos de Ecología. México: Cengage Learning.
Pickett, S.T.A.; Kolasa, J.; Armesto, J.J.; Collins, S.L. 1989. The Ecological Concept of Disturbance and Its Expression at Various Hierarchical Levels. Oikos 54(2):129–136.
Pickett, S.T.A.; Kolasa, J. & Jones, C.G. 2007. Ecological understanding. Estados Unidos: Elsevier.
Rykiel, E.J. 1985. Towards a definition of ecological disturbance. Australian Journal of Ecology, 10:361–365.
Sartori, G. 2003. La política. Lógica y método en las ciencias sociales. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Sartori, G. & Morlino, L. 1994. La comparación en las ciencias sociales. Madrid: Alianza.
SCBD/UNEP [Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity / United Nations Environment Programme] 2020. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. https://www.cbd.int/gbo5. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
UNEP [United Nations Environment Programme] 2012. GEO-5: Global Environment Outlook. Environment for the future we want. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-5. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
UNEP 2019a. GEO-6: Global Environment Outlook. Healthy planet, Healthy people. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/global-environment-outlook-6. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
UNEP 2019b. Guidelines for Conducting Integrated Assessments. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/guidelines-conducting-integrated-environmental-assessments. Acceso: 22/09/2022.
Vásquez-Grandón, A.; Donoso, P.J.; Gerding, V. 2018. Forest degradation: when is a forest degraded?. Forests 9(11):726.
White, P.S. & Jentsch A. 2001. The Search for Generality in Studies of Disturbance and Ecosystem Dynamics. In: K. Esser et al. (eds.), Progress in Botany. Vol. 62. Alemania: Springer.
White, P.S. & Pickett S.T.A. 1985. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics: an introduction. In: S.T.A. Pickett & P.S. White (eds.), The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics, pp. 3-13. Estados Unidos: Academic Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Matias Lamberti, Guillermo Folguera, Tomás Emilio Busan, Gabriela Klier, Federico di Pasquo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Principia http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/index is licenced under a Creative Commons - Atribuição-Uso Não-Comercial-Não a obras derivadas 3.0 Unported.
Base available in www.periodicos.ufsc.br.
