[雙語翻譯]環(huán)境治理外文翻譯--環(huán)境治理——從公共到私人？

1、7400 英文單詞， 英文單詞，4 萬英文字符，中文 萬英文字符，中文 1.3 萬字 萬字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Vatn A. Environmental governance–from public to private?[J]. Ecological economics, 2018, 148: 170-177.Environmental Governance – From Public to Private?Arild VatnAb

2、stract This paper analyzes the expanded role of private actors and markets in environmental governance. The public goods dimension of environmental services renders privatization and trading challenging. To illustrate th

3、e key issues involved, a series of privatization efforts and market creations are reviewed. Despite the focus on privatization, the empirical material shows that the role of the state is still very pronounced. It defines

4、 the commodities and property rights, and plays a key role in setting up and regulating the markets. In the case of payments for ecosystem services, public authorities even appear as the dominant ‘trader’. Privatization

5、and markets may reduce costs of delivering the service, while this is not universally true. Moreover, the service delivered often is transformed to make trade possible. Finally, high transaction costs may prohibit the cr

6、eation of markets. The conflict between public goods delivery and private profit motive makes public control both important and difficult. Finally, several distributional issues following this neo-liberal development are

7、 high- lighted.Keywords: Environmental Governance；Privatization；Market Creation；Public Goods；Motivation；Transaction Costs1. IntroductionEnvironmental governance is moving towards an expanded role for private actors and m

8、arkets. This neo-liberal trend includes e.g., privatization of environmental resources, programs like payments of eco- system services as well as carbon markets. Moreover, private rule- making have become increasingly im

9、portant – e.g., certification.This development represents a change in the institutional basis for the management of many environmental resources. Originally, environmental policy was dominated by public regulations based

10、 on legal and economic instruments. Over time, there seems to be a shift towards more ‘private regulation’. It is argued that this will enhance efficiency – e.g., Pagiola and Platais (2007). The development is also thoug

11、ht to lessen the burden on public budgets. At the same time, privatization and markets face limitations in a sphere like the environment. The aim of this paper is to study the new trend to see what the institutional land

12、scape looks like and to what extent expectations have been met.The paper is divided in six parts. First, I give a brief overview of what characterizes environmental resources from a socio-political and natural science pe

13、rspective. Second, I explain the conceptual framework used in the analysis. The analysis is divided in three parts focused at a selected set of cases regarding a) changes in property rights towards increased private owne

14、rship of resources; b) the creation of markets in environmental services; and c) the development of self-regulation i.e., the move from state law to private rule making. Finally, I conclude by discussing and summarizing

15、the findings and offering explanations for the patterns observed.2. Characterizing Environmental ResourcesNature is of great economic, social and cultural importance. First, we all live off nature and how access to these

16、 resources is distributed is crucial. For the poor, it may even influence the (Williamson, 1985). Finally, different actors and institutional contexts are characterized by specific types of motivations (Hodgson, 2007; Va

17、tn, 2009, 2015a). Motives may be based on what is best for the individual actor – like profits or individual utility. They may, however, also be based on what is best for the group or even for ‘the other’ – what is seen

18、as appropriate behavior (March and Olsen, 1995). The type of motivation involved is moreover expected to influence how easy it is to facilitate coordination among actors. Taken together, these observations imply that cho

19、ice of governance structures for handling environmental issues – like establishing markets – may exercise considerable influence on outcomes.The above concepts and perspectives are used to organize the study. I will look

20、 at implied changes in rights, transaction costs and motivational structures and ask to what extent the changes imply increased efficiency. In doing so, I will also look at how complexity and the related challenges regar

21、ding commodification have been handled. I will finally look at what the development has implied for the role of the state. I have chosen to study a set of example areas, capturing key dynamics as well as variations acros

22、s the field. In each case, I will emphasize the most important dimensions and issues. Hence, there will be some variation in focus across sub-sections.4. PrivatizationPrivatization is typically understood as shifting pro

23、perty/use rights from state/public or communities to private entities. Privatization is observed in a large number of sectors. To illustrate key dynamics, I have chosen to emphasize two – land and water services.4.1. Lan

24、dLand is an example of an environmental resource that is among the easier to privatize. Bromley (1991) emphasizes, however, that in some cases land is not productive enough to carry the extra costs of privatization. More

25、over, attaching property rights to land is often mainly nominal w.r.t. demarcating all the processes involved linking land, water and air.Privatization of land is certainly not a new process. Nevertheless more than 80% o

26、f forests are publicly owned (Agrawal, 2007) and large tracts of pasturelands are under common property arrangements. Here I will focus at a rather recent development of great significance recognized as ‘large land deals

27、’ or ‘land grabbing’ implying acquisition in the form of purchase or long term lease of large areas of land in low income countries – typically by foreign investors (Cotula, 2012; White et al., 2012). This development se

28、ems to have peaked after the steep increase in food prices in 2007–08. According to Anseeuw et al. (2012), about 200 million ha were traded between 2001 and 2010. This is over eight times the size of the UK. About 2/3 of

29、 the deals were in Africa, while there are agreements of this kind made on all continents except North America and Western Europe. Agribusiness and financial investors as well as foreign states are key actors. Hence, man

30、y of the deals are not examples of privatization, rather trade between states. Some buyers are coming from the North, but actors from countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are important (Deininger and Byerl

31、ee, 2011; Anseeuw et al., 2012; Cotula, 2012). Opportunity for profit making and international food security issues explain the trend. Some investments are purely ‘speculative’, expecting future gains from increased land

32、 prices linked to prospects regarding biofuel, carbon projects and the like.Deininger and Byerlee (2011) emphasize that this form of land deals has the capacity to reduce poverty by increasing rural activities. While hav