مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد جنبش های جنگلداری اجتماعی و شبکه های علمی-سیاسی – الزویر ۲۰۱۸

In this article I discuss the factors contributing to the drafting and approval of the forestry incentives law (PINPEP) in Guatemala. This is a remarkable law because (a) it is among the few in the country recognizing property rights to land other than private property; (b) it has a stronger focus on subsidies and social benefits than on market mechanisms and; (c) the law is the result of the effort of forestry community organizations. My findings indicate that community organizations can, through their alliances with science-policy networks, participate in law-making and by that, in democratizing environmental governance. My study nuances the role of experts in environmental governance showing that their power and status should be understood as relational and historically contingent. Furthermore, some key and charismatic individuals can act as door openers to link community forestry organizations and science-policy networks. Although the identity of the grassroots organizations that participated in the process of making the law is tied to forestry, these organizations have a long history in the country. This history has been shaped by their experiences in exile and in refugee camps during the civil war as well as by their contact with development assistance organizations.

Introduction

The idea to implement monetary transfers to forest owners or forest dwellers to promote global forest conservation has become popular in national and international policy-making circles. Programs such as “Payments for Ecosystem Services-PES” and “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation-REDD” are good examples of such initiatives. This increased focus on so-called “market-based” mechanisms for nature conservation is in part related to what many have called “the neoliberal turn” in nature conservation, involving also the privatisation and commoditization of nature (Castree, 2004, 2008; McCarthy and Prudham 2004; Mansfield 2004; Bakker 2005; Heynen and Robbins, 2005). Fairhead et al. (2012) observe that there has been an explosion in studies analysing the effects of the neoliberal turn in environmental conservation. They argue that such literature has however tended to adopt a rather uniform position assuming a singular hegemonic project, failing sometimes to analyse the consequences for diverse, differentiated and contingent settings. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of how neoliberal ideas are transformed, re-shaped, negotiated and contested in national and local contexts. This paper offers a detailed analysis of a policy making process to reveal the underlying processes at play that contribute to shape the outcomes of the expansion of neoliberal programs in Central America. Investigating the complex interactions between science and politics allows me to suggest a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which unexpected alliances and policy outcomes emerge. These alliances might not change radically the position of marginalized actors, but contribute to advance their agendas and to improve their political possibilities in the future. In 2010, the Guatemalan congress passed the law on forestry incentives for smallholders (PINPEP law, Decree 51-2010). This is a landmark law for various reasons. First, this is one of the few in the country, acknowledging the existence of communal land tenure regimes and recognizing property rights that are not formalized in the National Property Register. Land tenure is a contested issue in Guatemala, a country featuring enormous inequality in access to land and land distribution, where an estimated five percent of the population controls 80 percent of arable land, complicated by unsecure land tenure for the majority (Gauster and Isakson, 2007). Second, the approval of the law was pushed by community forestry organizations. Many other proposals for laws promoted by peasant organizations or petitions to reform laws have not had the success that one would expect considering the broad mobilizations behind these initiatives. Third, the spirit of the law focuses on providing subsidies to small landholders for conserving or planting trees in their lands.