About this Research Topic
The governance of natural resources has faced many challenges related to collective action. On the one hand, classical economic theories emphasize the role of property rights to avoid the exhaustion of natural resources. In this sense, private property is seen as a solution to the “tragedy of the commons”. Popularized by Garrett Hardin, this concept highlights the potential negative effects deriving from individual rationality versus collective outcomes. In this context, property rights are deemed the best solution to impede overconsumption by enclosing the commons. On the other hand, through collaborative strategies and cooperative solutions, stakeholders can provide better policy options. New approaches in political theories defy the classical dichotomy between “private” and “public”. This is particularly true with (eco) feminism arising in contestation to this division as boundaries between public and private are blurred, as meanings are intersubjective, and power shifts from global to local.
Environmental policies are designed amid a scenario of uncertainty and collective conflicts. Whereas private property has been a common solution in several regions, it may also bring negative externalities as the salmonid industry in Chile illustrates. In this country, the concession of property rights has had a cumulative effect of insalubrious conditions for capital gain, giving rise to an indiscriminate use of antibiotics to tame the forces of nature, putting global health at risk, and degrading the environment. Overall, the governance of the commons underlines the asymmetries between the global center and the periphery as less-developed countries face obstacles to upgrade environmental standards in competition for revenues. The interdependence of the international system calls for multilateral solutions and reveals stalked negotiations.
This proposal focuses on debates regarding conflict and cooperation in environmental governance at a global and local level. Its main goal is to give room to research investigating strategies to conciliate market regulations with environmental goals. There is a need to refresh the debate through inter- and multidisciplinary studies drawing from ecology, philosophy, ethics, sociology, and public health. Moreover, this proposal raises the relevance of incorporating socio-ecological variables into the mainstream of the international political economy. This assumes reconfiguring the system of trade and rules in the Bretton Woods System to be more aligned to the holistic One Health paradigm at the heart of the United Nations. New perspectives could potentially bridge the gap in cognitive dissonance caused by institutional fragmentation on trade and health vis-á-vis bottom-up contestation.
The scope of the topic includes, but it is not limited to, the following debates:
1. Theoretical and critical reflections upon the concept of private, public and common property;
2. The role of civic society and private stakeholders in designing environmental policies;
3. The relationship between trade, environment and food production;
4. Global risks to public health such as the injudicious use of antibiotics in the farmed-salmon industry;
5. Sociological and ecological perspectives in cooperative strategies;
6. New approaches to the governance of the commons through feminism and environmentalism.
Environmental policies are designed amid a scenario of uncertainty and collective conflicts. Whereas private property has been a common solution in several regions, it may also bring negative externalities as the salmonid industry in Chile illustrates. In this country, the concession of property rights has had a cumulative effect of insalubrious conditions for capital gain, giving rise to an indiscriminate use of antibiotics to tame the forces of nature, putting global health at risk, and degrading the environment. Overall, the governance of the commons underlines the asymmetries between the global center and the periphery as less-developed countries face obstacles to upgrade environmental standards in competition for revenues. The interdependence of the international system calls for multilateral solutions and reveals stalked negotiations.
This proposal focuses on debates regarding conflict and cooperation in environmental governance at a global and local level. Its main goal is to give room to research investigating strategies to conciliate market regulations with environmental goals. There is a need to refresh the debate through inter- and multidisciplinary studies drawing from ecology, philosophy, ethics, sociology, and public health. Moreover, this proposal raises the relevance of incorporating socio-ecological variables into the mainstream of the international political economy. This assumes reconfiguring the system of trade and rules in the Bretton Woods System to be more aligned to the holistic One Health paradigm at the heart of the United Nations. New perspectives could potentially bridge the gap in cognitive dissonance caused by institutional fragmentation on trade and health vis-á-vis bottom-up contestation.
The scope of the topic includes, but it is not limited to, the following debates:
1. Theoretical and critical reflections upon the concept of private, public and common property;
2. The role of civic society and private stakeholders in designing environmental policies;
3. The relationship between trade, environment and food production;
4. Global risks to public health such as the injudicious use of antibiotics in the farmed-salmon industry;
5. Sociological and ecological perspectives in cooperative strategies;
6. New approaches to the governance of the commons through feminism and environmentalism.
Keywords: ecology, environmentalism, commons, collective action, governance
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
