- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
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.
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.