Conclusion
In this article I have discussed the factors that made the forestry incentives law possible and its remarkableness. Among the remarkable features of the law is the fact that it recognizes other property regimes to the land than private property; second it has a stronger focus on subsidies and social benefits than on markets and forestry production and lastly the law was the result of the effort of community organizations. My research suggests that although in a broader sense the law was approved simply because it did not challenge the status quo regarding structural asymmetries like land distribution and land tenure or, exclusion from governing bodies (i.e. the board of the forestry institute), the process to draft the law, its approval and implementation has benefited a number of poor people in Guatemala. One of the most obvious benefits of the law, apart from its economic impact, is that it contributed to the strengthening of social organization in rural Guatemala. Further, the case study presented here also reminds us that the law can be used to bring about change, albeit limited. The community forestry movement in Guatemala showed high degree of organization, probably because civil society in the country has been strong and organizations have long histories of resistance. Changing donor agendas though influenced the new identities adopted by these organizations after the signing of the Peace Accords. Community forestry organizations also showed the ability to carefully assess their tactics and used contentious politics sparsely and combined with lobbying and dialogue. Even when ideas like Payments for Environmental Services within a market logic, as win-win alternatives to alleviate poverty and conserve forests (Wunder, 2008, Pagiola et al., 2005; McAfee and Shapiro, 2010) seem to be hegemonic at the global level, law-making may provide spaces for resistance and change.
