Abstract: This research focuses on a case study of conflict around the most important wetland of the Valle del Cauca region in Colombia called the Sonso Lagoon. At the end of December 2015, the wetland was being destroyed by neighboring wealthy landowners to grow sugarcane with the acquiescence of local authorities, affecting local rural communities of fishermen and community eco-tourism operators who depend of this wetland for their livelihoods. After 1 year of conflict the wetland was designated a Ramsar site, and restoration of the lagoon was implemented by the environmental authority. This paper analyzes how this situation turned around; we reconstruct the steps taken to save the wetland, explaining how wetland activists used resources, defined the problem and mobilized networks, and how these strategies connect to particular characteristics of the political context and environmental governance in the region. We demonstrate the importance of taking into account institutional political arrangements to analyze the ways in which the conflicts are expressed, how the policy agenda is defined, as well as the strategies employed by advocacy groups. We draw upon perspectives on environmental governance that stress the importance of understanding the institutional context in which agencies are embedded and that constrain their responses to public demands. In the same vein, we use the work of Layzer and Rinfret, (2020) to understand how agency missions, standard operating procedures and past interactions with client groups constrain day-to day decision-making around wetland management in the region. Finally, we use the concept of “practical authority” developed by Abers and Keck (2013) to explain the permissive institutional context that allowed extensive damage to the wetland in the first place. We conclude by arguing that pluralism in environmental governance must address social inequities to ensure long-term ecosystem recovery
Processing Request
No Comments.