Governance and Its Role in Community Adaptations to Environmental Stresses Under Decentralization Programs in Southwestern Uruguay
1 like538 views
The document discusses governance and its role in community adaptations to environmental stresses in southwestern Uruguay, highlighting the impacts of climate change and land use change on local agriculture. It analyzes the effectiveness of decentralized governance structures and community empowerment in addressing these environmental challenges through a series of meetings and interviews within four rural communities. Key findings indicate that while community engagement has improved, dependency on external resources from national governments remains a significant barrier to effective local decision-making and resource mobilization.
![Municipios and Communities on Empowerment for Adaptation
Community Number of
times that
meetings to
discuss
environmental
stresses
(among other
problems)
were
identified.
Average
number of
collective
decisions per
meeting.
Average number
of community
negotiations with
government
institutions per
meeting.
Average number of
times that local
resources for
adaptation were
mobilized per
meeting.
Average number
of times external
resources were
mentioned per
mention of
mobilization of
internal resources.
Nueva
Helvecia
47 .55 .51 .53 1.4
Nueva Palmira 45 .97 2.4 2 .76
Cardona 26 .42 .30 .30 4.2
Dolores 28 .21 .25 .75 2
[1] Number of described collective decisions divided by the number of described meetings related to environmental stresses.
[2] Number of times that resources for adaptation were negotiated divided by the number of described meetings.
[3] Number of times that local resources for adaptation were (described as) mobilized divided by the number of the described meetings.
[4] Number of times that external resources for adaptation were mentioned divided by the number of times that local resources were (described as) mobilized.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/governanceanditsroleincommunityadaptationstoenvironmentalstressesunderdecentralizationprogramsinsout-150203114322-conversion-gate01/85/Governance-and-Its-Role-in-Community-Adaptations-to-Environmental-Stresses-Under-Decentralization-Programs-in-Southwestern-Uruguay-18-320.jpg)
Governance and Its Role in Community Adaptations to Environmental Stresses Under Decentralization Programs in Southwestern Uruguay
- 1. “Governance and its Role in Community Adaptations to Environmental Stresses under Decentralization Programs in Southwestern Uruguay.” CDS Conference- July 22nd 2014. Diego Thompson- PhD Candidate- Iowa State University [email protected]
- 2. Outline of the Presentation • Environmental Stresses: Climate Change and Increasing Land use Change and FDI in Uruguayan Agriculture. • Methods • Results • Q&A
- 3. 176 215 sq.km 3. 344. 938 people
- 4. Climate Change in Rural Communities of Southwest Uruguay Relationship between climate variability and agriculture (Bettolli et al. 2010; Caffera et al.1989). Recent droughts (2001-2002, 2006, 2008-2009, 2010-2011). Increasing severe weather events (storms and tornadoes) (IPCC 2007; World Bank 2009).
- 5. Land use Change and Communities Increasing FDI in soybeans (increasing number of GMOs authorized and demand from China) and eucalyptus for paper pulp. Since 2002-2003 - From native pastures to forestry, soybeans, and corn - From pasture-crop rotations to continuous crops
- 6. Land Tenancy Source: Anuario MGAP (2010) www.mgap.gub.uy $448 $3,507 $28 $218 2000 2009 average land price and rent (dollars/hectare) price rent Source: Lopez-Barrera 2011
- 7. Planted area by farm size From Arbeletche et al, 2010; Perez, M. 2011 18 % 57 %
- 8. Agricultural Production (2009- Soybeans became the main export) Source: Anuario MGAP (2010) www.mgap.gub.uy Provided by Perez, M. 2011 Livestock Soybeans and Grains Forestry
- 9. Economic and Political Contexts Economic Policies - Foreign investment in land: “land grabs” in South America - Increasing international prices of commodities - Neoliberal economic policies; “new developmentalism” - Promotion of agricultural development and FDI in raw materials (oilseeds, grains and minerals). - Increasing demand of grains and soybeans from China (2nd destination of Uruguayan exports) Political Decentralization Programs since 2007 Promoted by the UE and the WB - Round Tables of Rural Development (Mesas de Desarrollo Rural (MDRs)-2007 - Municipios (Local Governments)- 2010
- 10. Perceived Environmental Stresses Communities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total Percentage of Respondents Nueva Helvecia .34 .25 .19 .5 .2 .1 .1 .3 .1 .6 .3 96 95% (N23) Nueva Palmira .11 .28 .48 .1 .1 .5 .1 .1 .2 .2 132 100% (N20) Cardona .29 .22 .17 .4 .5 .10 .2 .8 .3 146 95% (N19) Dolores .20 .29 .23 .8 .3 .4 .1 .9 .3 152 90% (N21) 1 Droughts, weather variability, and severe storms 2 Pollution from use or transportation of agrochemicals 3 Deterioration of water and/or air quality 4 Soil erosion 5 Trash from agrochemical users 6 Increasing plagues (foxes, pigeons, and parrots) from monocrops of soybeans and eucalyptus 7 Death of bee hives due to increasing use of agro -chemicals 8 General environmental problems created by land grabs 9 Lack of crop rotations 10 Critical (general) environmental aspects of GMOs (soybeans and corn) 11 Reduction of biodiversity 12 Lack of sew er system 13 Deforestation
- 11. Governance: the structures and processes by which public, civic, and/or private groups of people or organizations (also referred as “institutions, stakeholders, and actors”) participate and make decisions. Environmental Stresses/Risks: negative effects on communities and agroecosystems. Adaptation: resources mobilized (Adger 2003; Wilson 2012).
- 12. Governance on Adaptation Processes of governance: discussions or deliberations through consultancy (involvement and collaboration of different actors) and/or empowerment of local people (IAPP 2007). Empowerment: collective decisions, mobilization of local resources, and external negotiations for resources and their allocation.
- 13. Literature Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change Literature of the Commons Natural Resource Co- Management Community Governance Uruguayan Decentralization and ‘Nueva Ruralidad’ Governance Processes Authors Adger et al. 2009; Ensor and Berger 2009 Armitage 2008; Berkes 2008 Tompkins and Adger 2004 Gates 1999; Head 2007 Piñeiro 2004; Barbieri and Zurbiggen 2011; Zurbriggen 2011; Berdegue et al. 2012 International Association for Public Participation 2007; Cadman 2011 Contributions to Community Adaptation to Environmental Stresses Decentralized “multi-level governance” or “network governance” can facilitate mobilization of resources (community capitals). Decentralized “multi-level governance” or “network governance” can facilitate mobilization of resources (community capitals). Decentralized “multi-level governance” or “network governance” can facilitate mobilization of resources (community capitals). Local actors are important to identify local problems and resources to mobilize. Empowerment of communities in decision making processes. Different types of participation in decision making processes.
- 14. Hypothesis - Decentralized multi-level governance is related to multiple adaptive actions when communities are empowered in decision-making processes. - Empowerment of communities can be limited by their historic dependency on outside resources from national government actors and lack of awareness of those resources that they themselves could mobilize at local level.
- 15. Objectives 1- To explore Municipios and MDRs in four rural communities of Soriano and Colonia 2- To explore the role of community dependency on external resources (like financial, human, political, and built capitals) on governance processes and local capabilities to decide and develop adaptations to environmental changes.
- 16. Methods • Field work from November (2012) to the end of February (2013) • 83 semi-structured interviews. • Participant observation at public meetings, Municipios, and MDRs, and NGOs and commissions. • 71 meeting reports of MDRs (2009-2012), reports and presentations completed by different types NGOs, new laws and regulations from the Ministry of Agriculture, and the departmental governments. Types of Actors Nueva Helvecia Nueva Palmira Cardona Dolores State 5 4 8 5 Market 8 6 4 7 Civic Society 10 10 7 9 TOTAL 23 20 19 21
- 17. Results: Municipios and Deliberation Processes Facilitated local deliberation processes or discussions about environmental stresses (87%) Nueva Helvecia “We do not have a sewer system and water is a delicate issue here, and has not been done because there is no governmental and political will for that, but the creation of Municipio has been very positive (…) Now for these mayor problems we try to communicate everything to the Alcalde.” President of Fuerzas Vivas Nueva Palmira “The State does not require anything to control the environment (…) We accomplished to actively involve people, make them aware (of environmental problems) and people joined and supported us (...) People are no longer disinterested in what happen in the community.” Alcalde Cardona “Those topics (water and air pollution) are not specifically under the jurisdiction of the Municipio, but we talk about those problems with local residents (at the public meetings).” Alcalde Dolores “When the neighbors come and denounce pollution we try to give them a hand in what we can.” Alcalde
- 18. Municipios and Communities on Empowerment for Adaptation Community Number of times that meetings to discuss environmental stresses (among other problems) were identified. Average number of collective decisions per meeting. Average number of community negotiations with government institutions per meeting. Average number of times that local resources for adaptation were mobilized per meeting. Average number of times external resources were mentioned per mention of mobilization of internal resources. Nueva Helvecia 47 .55 .51 .53 1.4 Nueva Palmira 45 .97 2.4 2 .76 Cardona 26 .42 .30 .30 4.2 Dolores 28 .21 .25 .75 2 [1] Number of described collective decisions divided by the number of described meetings related to environmental stresses. [2] Number of times that resources for adaptation were negotiated divided by the number of described meetings. [3] Number of times that local resources for adaptation were (described as) mobilized divided by the number of the described meetings. [4] Number of times that external resources for adaptation were mentioned divided by the number of times that local resources were (described as) mobilized.
- 19. MDRs and Deliberation Processes Facilitated local deliberation processes or discussions about environmental stresses (100%) MDR- NH “We are worried and we discuss the constraints that generate recent transformations in various environmental dimensions.” (#77) MDR- NP “We get together to see and discuss issues such as: land access, problems of climate change, changes in natural resources and farms, water and soil resources, and changes in biodiversity.” (#45) MDR- Cardona “Complains about mismanagement of agrochemicals and the wash of their containers in creeks or rivers are super common (…) These practices are discussed in the MDRs…” (#2) MDR- Dolores “In the MDRs we received and listened everything regarding the application of agrochemicals or problems like pollution or contamination of water.” (#29)
- 20. MDRs and Communities on Empowerment for Adaptation Community Number of times that meetings to discuss environmental stresses (among other problems) were identified. Average number of times that collective decisions happened per meeting. Average number community negotiations with government institutions per meeting. Average number of times that local resources for adaptation were mobilized per meeting. Average number of times external resources were mentioned per mention mobilization of internal resources. Nueva Helvecia 17 .76 .47 .47 .38 Nueva Palmira 4 1 .50 .50 .50 Cardona 8 .12 .37 .37 21 Dolores 13 .92 .69 .53 1.3
- 21. MDRs and Communities on Empowerment for Adaptation Total of 71 Meetings Analyzed (2008-2012) MDRs & Adaptations Collective Decisions, External Negotiations, and Mobilization of Local Resources MDR- NH (17 Meetings) 50% MDR-NP (44 Meetings) 31% MDR-Cardona (4 Meetings) 0 MDR- Dolores (6 Meetings) 33% 4 MDRs- Total 31%
- 22. Dependency and Challenges for Local Adaptations Dependency as a challenge: 86% in Nueva Helvecia, 87% in Nueva Palmira, 80% in Cardona, and 85% in Dolores. Municipio NH “We still lack a lot (of resources) because many of us depend on Intendencias and the national government.” Alcalde (#62), January 17th 2013 MDR-NH “The MDRs want to help small producers but not in a good way (…) we are always waiting resources to continue the agony” Farmer (#70), January 22nd 2013 Municipio NP “From the point of view of our instruments and resources we have nothing, we are fighting with a toothpick (…) It is not clear what are our legal responsibilities and what our powers at the decentralization process, we have a range of issues that we can review but is the Intendencia or the national government who decide. Decentralization without the ability to decide is a pipe dream.” Consejal (#46), December 20th 2012 MDR-NP “All the meeting resolutions were voted (…) The criteria for obtaining and distribute fodder (during droughts) from the MGAP could be internally negotiated.” Staff of MGAP (#43), December 12th 2012 Municipio C “In regard to the environmental problems (water pollution and odors) of the local dairy industry we have to work with the Intendencia, sending them the local complains and demands (…) that was a great problem the community had, but today, the Municipios are still on the air.” Alcalde, November 22nd 2012 MDR-C “We depend on resources often because small producers have no choice (…)What we have done in the MDRs is transferring needs to the MGAP, then they see potential solutions can give us.” Farmer ( #6), November 22nd 2012 Municipio D “At the Municipios local problems are channeled through them (…) but the Alcalde is the executive arm of the Intendencia and still depends on the Intendente.” Staff of Intendencia (#20), November 20th 2012 MDR-D “We participate and process the topics but we depend on them (MGAP) to give us the resources.” Director of Local Cooperative (#26), December 6th 2012
- 23. Municipios and MDRs Described Critical Resources for Adaptation from Outside Communities by Community Capitals Nueva Helvecia 86%1 Municipio Financial Capital: Funding from OPP and Intendencia (F1) 2 (e.g., lack of commitment and resources undermined the local recycling program developed by the Municipio) Political Capital: Decisions made by national governmental institutions (P3) (e.g., lack of sewer system). Human Capital: Technological and/or scientific information, and knowledge (provided by State institutions like OSE, DINAMA, and MGAP) to control water and air quality (this makes local environmental problems difficult to study and/or prove) (H1). Incentives and knowledge for environmental training courses and complaints (“people are afraid to complain”) (H2). MDR Financial Capital: Funding used for climate emergencies like droughts or storms (provided by the Departmental Emergency Committee and/or MGAP) (F2). Funding from the MGAP and Intendencia (F3) Political Capital: Lack of political capability (from the central MGAP) to decide how to work with the community (P2) Nueva Palmira 87% Municipio Financial Capital: F1 Political Capital: Major decisions are made by the Intendente (P1). P3 (e.g., lack of sewer system)) Human Capital: H1 MDR Financial Capital: F2 Human Capital: H1 Cardona 80% Municipio Financial Capital: F1. F2 Political Capital: P1 Human Capital: H1. H2 Built Capital: Machinery used for climate emergencies like droughts or storms (provided by the Departmental Emergency Committee and MGAP) (B1). MDR Financial Capital: F2. F3 Political Capital: P2. Human Capital: H1. H2 Dolores 85% Municipio Financial Capital: F1 (e.g. lack of commitment and resources undermined the local recycling program developed by the Municipio), and F2. Political Capital: P1 Human Capital: H1. H2. Knowledge about the Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial (created by the Intendencia and MTOP). Built Capital:B1 MDR Financial Capital: F2 Political Capital: P2 Human Capital: H1. H2
- 24. Dependency did not Influence Local Participation but Influenced Empowerment of Communities Nueva Helvecia “For the recycling plan made by the community people participated but needed the support (financial, built, and political) of the Intendencia to continue so it could no longer go on.” Local Ecologist (#73), January 22nd 2013 Nueva Palmira “People here participate but development is too centralized for decision making and for the collection (of revenues) and investment (…) decisions are made in Montevideo but here there is a total absence of the State in environmental control” Consejal (#46), December 20th 2012 Cardona “There is participation because people go to the meetings and we discuss problems with neighbors in all neighborhoods, things are included in the budget that goes to the Intendencia, but then it is up to them to allocate resources. We sent them 13 points collected by residents in different neighborhoods but the Intendencia only took two or three of our points.” Consejal (# 4), December 13th 2012 Dolores “People do not understand yet because they want to participate and the Intendencia still has not given us full support because we are totally dependent on the Intendencia, economically not to mention that everything is collected and send to them, and they do what we asked or they want (...) that dilates our problems, and people sometimes do not understand that.” Local Journalist (#27), December 10th 2012
- 25. Conclusions 1- Municipios’ and MDRs’ meetings primarily facilitated consultancy and information exchange about environmental problems (e.g. Departmental Emergency Committees in cases of droughts, severe storms, and/or tornados) 2- Empowerment of communities was usually limited by their historic dependency on resources from national government actors and lack of awareness of those resources that they themselves could mobilize at local level. Local decision making processes were perceived by multiple actors from the four communities as limited by lack of financial, human, built, and political capitals at the community level. 3- In Nueva Palmira, the Municipio and local actors were able to collectively decide, negotiate external resources, and mobilize multiple resources: financial, human, built, political, social, natural, and cultural capitals.
- 27. References Adger, Neil W. 2003. “Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change.” Economic Geography 79 (4):387-404. Adger, Neil W., Irene Lorenzoni, and Karen L. O’Brien. 2009. Adapting to Climate Change. Thresholds, Values, and Governance. Edited by Adger, Neil, Irene Lorenzoni, and Karen L. O’Brien. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Arbeletche, Pedro, Oswaldo Ernst, and Esteban Hoffman. 2011. “La Agricultura en Uruguay y su Evolución”. Pp. 13-27 in Intensificación Agrícola: Oportunidades y Amenazas Para un País Productivo y Natural, edited by Garcia Préchac, Fernando, Oswaldo Ernst, Pedro Arbeletche, Mario Pérez Bidegain, Clara Pritsch, Alejandra Ferenczi, and Mercedes Rivas. 2011. Art.2. Facultad de Agronomía. Montevideo, URU: CSIC. UDELAR. Armitage, Derek. 2008. “Governance and the Commons in a Multi-level World.” International Journal of the Commons, (2): 7-32. Ashwill, Maximillian, Cornelia Flora, and Jan Flora. 2011. Adaptation Coalition Toolkit, Building Community Resilience to the Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Social Development Unit Latin America Caribbean Region. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Bardsley, Douglas K. and Geoffrey P. Rogers. 2011. “Prioritizing Engagement for Sustainable Adaptation to Climate Change: An Example from Natural Resource Management in South Australia.” Society and Natural Resources 24 1-17. Retrieved August 2, 2011 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08941920802287163#preview). Berdegue, Julio A. Anthony Bebbington, Javier Escobal, Arilson Favareto, Ignaicia Fernandez, Pablo Ospina, Helle Munk Ravnborg, Francisco Aguirre, Manuel Chiriboga, IIeana Gomez, Ligia Gomez, Felix Modrego, Susan Paulson, Eduardo Ramirez, Alexander Schetjman, and Carolina Trivelli. 2012. “Territorios en Movimiento: Dinámicas Territoriales Rurales en America Latina.” Documento de Trabajo #11. Programa de Dinámicas Territoriales Rurales. Retrieved August 15th 2012 (http://www.rimisp.org/proyectos/index_portada_noticia.php?id_proyecto=180) Berkes, Fikret. 2008. “Commons in a Multi-level World.” International Journal of the Commons, 1 (2): 1-6. Cadman, Tim. 2011. Quality and Legitimacy of Global Governance: Case Lessons from Forestry. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. De Barbieri, Maria and Zurbriggen, Cristina. 2011. Acción Colectiva, Gobierno y Territorio: experiencias Cono Sur. Mvdeo, Uruguay: FLACSO. Ensor, Jonathan and Rachel Berger, eds. 2009. Understanding Climate Change Adaptation, Lessons from Community Based Approaches. Rugby, United Kingdom: Practical Action Publishing. Flora, Cornelia B. and Jan Flora. 2013. Rural Communities: Legacy and change. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Freedman, Bill. 1995. Environmental Ecology; the Ecological Effects of Pollution, Disturbance, and other Stresses. Second Edition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, INC. Gates, Christopher. 1999. “Community Governance.” Futures 31: 519-25. (http://www.noticiasaliadas.org/objetos/informe/12PE_dossier2_na.pdf). Gimenez, Agustín, Jose P.Castaño, Walter E. Baethgen, and Bruno Lanfranco. 2009. “Cambio Climático en Uruguay, Posibles Impactos y Medidas de Adaptación en el Sector Agropecuario.” Serie Técnica No 178. Unidad de Comunicación y Trasferencia de Tecnología del INIA. Montevideo: Uruguay. Retrieved January 26, 2012 (http://www.inia.org.uy). Head, Brian W. 2007. “Community Engagement: Participation on Whose Terms?” Australian Journal of Political Science 42(3): 441-54. International Association for Public Participation (IAPP). 2007. “IAP2, Public Participation Spectrum.” Retrieved October 14, 2013 (http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf). Pérez Bidegain, Mario, Fernando García Préchac, Mariana Hill, and Carlos Clérici. 2011. “La Erosión de los Suelos en Sistemas Agrícolas.” Pp.67-88 in Intensificación Agrícola: oportunidades y amenazas para un país productivo y natural, edited by García Préchac, Fernando, Oswaldo Ernst, Pedro Arbeletche, Mario Pérez Bidegain, Clara Pritsch, Alejandra Ferenczi, and Mercedes Rivas. 2011. Art.2. Facultad de Agronomía. Montevideo, URU: CSIC. UDELAR. Piñeiro, Diego E. 2004. “Movimientos Sociales, Governanza Ambiental y Desarrollo Territorial Rural.” RIMISP. Agosto de 2004. Retrieved August 12 (http://www.rimisp.org/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/documentos/docs/pdf/0534-005165-pineirodocumento1rimisp.pdf) Presidencia. 2011. Municipios. Retrieved July 15th 2012 (http://www.presidencia.gub.uy/wps/wcm/connect/presidencia/portalpresidencia/intendencias/municipios/municipios- artigas). Rado, Cecilia and Cristina Zurbriggen. 2010. Revisión de Estrategias de Espacios de Interfase entre Actores Locales de la Sociedad y el Govierno.” (Unpublished Manuscript) Taylor, Marilyn. 2007. “Community Participation in the Real World: Opportunities and Pitfalls in New Governance Spaces.” Urban Studies 44 (2): 297-317. Tompkins, Emma. L. and Neil W. Adger. 2004. “Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change?” Ecology and Society 9(2): 10. Retrieved November 15, 2011(http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10). Wilson, Geoff A. 2012. Community Resilience and Environmental Transitions. NY: Routledge. World Bank (WB) 2009. Building Response Strategies to Climate Change in Agricultural Systems in Latin America. Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Agriculture and Rural Development Team. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Retrieved July 20, 2011 (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTLACREGTOPRURDEV/Resources/503766- 1225476272295/PDF_Agricultue_Climate_change.pdf). Zurbriggen, Cristina. 2011. “Gobernanza: una Mirada desde America Latina.” Perfiles Latinoamericanos (38): 39-64.
- 28. Communities Municipios and MDRs Mobilized Local Resources for Adaptation by Community Capitals Nueva Helvecia Municipio Built Capital: Improvement of the local hospital (B3)1 . Improvement of the fire station (B4). New swimming pool (public-private partnership). New roads to avoid heavy transportation in urban areas. Recycling program (MIDES, local ecologists, and Municipio) (B5). Improvement of natural park “El Retiro.” MDR Human Capital: Training courses about new laws of soil management, mitigation of negative consequences from droughts, and agrochemicals (H1). Collective irrigation project for 8,000 hectares. “Plan Estratégico de Desarrollo Rural del Este de Colonia” (Sustainable Rural Development Plan which includes alternative energies, irrigation systems, and environmental education, among other adaptations) for the community. Political Capital: Creation of the MDR-NH Nueva Palmira Municipio Human Capital: Scientific information about water and air quality, labor and environmental conditions at the port, and natural protected areas, etc. Legal information about development projects, sew system, housing projects and the environment, and the jurisdiction of the Municipio in the river. Financial Capital: To support collective initiatives done by the GT. Built Capital: Filters for air quality controls (B2). B3. B4. New routes and gates at the city limits to avoid heavy transportation. New areas for heavy transportation outside the city limits. Political Capital: Strengthened local relationships and more participation of multiple local actors. Collective mobilization to negotiate with governmental institutions. Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial (POT). Cultural Capital: More consciousness of environmental problems. Natural Capital: Inclusion of protected natural area “Arroyo Higuerita” into the POT. Social Capital: Social mobilization organizing protests, public meetings, and negotiations with external governmental institutions. MDR Human Capital: H1. Tracking system for beneficiaries of climate emergency assistant for small farmers provided by the MGAP. Cardona Municipio Financial Capital: Improvement of the fire station to assist local farmers in case of droughts. Human Capital: Training courses about agrochemicals. Training courses about droughts. Political Capital: Collective organization and requests (for DINAMA and Intendencia) about water and air pollution controls at the local dairy industry. MDR Human Capital: H1 Built Capital: Construction of collective wells. Recycling of agrochemicals’containers (B1). More public land with natural pastures for small livestock producers (“Los Peques”). Dolores Municipio Built Capital: B1. B2. B5. Machinery for climate emergencies (storms and/or tornadoes). Human Capital: H1 MDR Built Capital: B1 Human Capital: H1
- 29. Governance under Decentralization Programs International Level (IPCC, Regional Agencies, Private Sector, International Organisms for Development, NGOs, etc) National Level States/Departments /Provinces Municipalities Local Communities Knowledge exchange Strengthening coalitions and mobilizing local assets Feedback loops Market Civil Society Public Sector
- 30. Impact of climate change in Uruguay -In Northern Uruguay, the effect of climatic variables on yield explains between 36% and 86% of pasture variability (Bettolli et al. 2010). The sensitivity of pastures to climate variability is a serious problem for Uruguay. Livestock production for both dairy and meat involves 82% of the farms and 50% of the active rural population (MGAP 2002). -Climate variability is the main hazard for farms with pastures, such as dairies or livestock producers, particularly when long-term droughts occur (Cruz et al.2007). -Predictions include warmer temperatures, change of annual means of frosts, and more frequent severe weather events.