Between Grassroots Collective Action and State Mandates: The Hybridity of Multi-Level Forest Associations in Mexico

García-López, Gustavo; Antinori, Camille

doi:10.4103/cs.cs_16_115

Cited by 23 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Movements are to a great extent an expression of these principles, that is, of the willingness of communities to fulfill them. Critiques of the external recognition principle have argued that power relations and political contestation influence how and when the state would recognize local governance autonomy or provide support for CBNRM (García-López and Antinori, 2018;Kashwan, 2017). As illustrated in the results section, our analysis suggests that social movements can positively influence state recognition and autonomy of CBNMR regimes via at least four different pathways.…”

Section: Discussion: a Dynamic Political-economic Reading Of The Desmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…FOIN combines its role as a legal and political advocate of the indigenous community in the region, with a diversity of activities oriented to improve rural livelihoods of the communities. Similarly, ACOFOP emerged as an effort by the movement to consolidate community rights and then evolved to integrate also forest management services for the communities (Cronkleton et al, 2008;Paudel, 2010;García-López and Antinori, 2018). In the case of fisheries, the Goenchea Ramponkarsancho Ekvott organization (GRE) was formed to protect the interests of traditional fishing communities in Goa, India, which had been threatened by commercial trawlers; afterwards, aware of the powerful opponents they faced, and the similar threats faced by the millions of traditional fishermen in other parts of coastal India, the GRE promoted the creation of the National Forum for Catamaran and Country Boat Fishermen Rights and Marine Life (Somayaji, 2017).…”

Section: Principle 8: Nestingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social movements have also been analyzed by political ecologists concerned about the vulnerability of commons to neoliberal policies (Goldman, 1998;Peet & Watts, 1996a). Unfortunately, efforts to integrate empirical insights about movements into the theory of the commons have been rather marginal (see Cronkleton et al, 2008;García-López and Antinori, 2018;Kashwan, 2017;Scholtens, 2016 for inspiring exceptions). This, among other factors, has reinforced the dominance of a narrative of commons initiatives and their robustness that emphasizes self-organized cooperation and institutional design from a rather static perspective, and downplays the historical, political and dynamic aspects of said initiatives (Agrawal, 2001;Johnson, 2004;Leach et al, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social movements as key actors in governing the commons: Evidence from community-based resource management cases across the world

Villamayor-Tomás

García-López

2018

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The international research on the benefits of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) regimes for sustainable development has raised concerns about the vulnerability of said regimes to globalization, shortsighted government regulations, marginalization, and other global political economy threats. This paper addresses the question of whether and how social movements contribute to the organization and robustness of CBNRM in the advent of those threats. To accomplish this, we carry out a qualitative meta-analysis of 81 cases worldwide. Our evidence shows that one of the most important effects of movements on CBNRM is the promotion and defense of community use and management rights against certain government decisions or actions by global corporations. We also find that movements can generate positive effects beyond the reaction to specific threats. Those effects include the democratization of communities' collective choice processes, the reinvigoration of identity ties and local ecological knowledge, the promotion of economic development and autonomy, and the creation of nested user organizations. Exploring such potentially longer-term effects is a promising next step towards further connecting the social movement and CBNRM scholarships and better understanding the robustness of local management regimes in the context of global change.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: a Dynamic Political-economic Reading Of The Desmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Principle 8: Nestingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social movements as key actors in governing the commons: Evidence from community-based resource management cases across the world

Villamayor-Tomás

García-López

2018

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fueled by public backlash, in 1997 the law was significantly reformed and set again CFM at the forefront of the Mexican forest policy, but forest services remained private, a situation that continues to this day [40]. These private forest services are provided by a wide range of actors including individual private foresters and for-profit firms, NGOs, and inter-community forest organizations [89,90].…”

Section: Evolving Policy Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Community Forest Management: Evolution and Limitations in Mexican Forest Law, Policy and Practice

Sierra-Huelsz

Fernández

Binnqüist

et al. 2020

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community forest management (CFM) is often a field of encounter between knowledge systems, where a conventional forestry blueprint is frequently applied in contexts rich in traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). This is the case in Mexico, a bioculturally diverse country and a reference of community forestry. Based on a review of laws, policies, literature, and empirical examples, we explore technical, epistemological, political, and contextual dimensions associated with the inclusion and exclusion of TEK in CFM in Mexico. Our analysis is composed of three steps: (1) A diachronic analysis of how TEK and associated practices have been considered by federal forest laws and codes (1960–2018), (2) a diachronic analysis of the scope of conventional forestry and its evolution in time and space, and (3) situated examples illustrating the inclusion and exclusion of TEK in CFM. We argue that: (1) Legal recognition of TEK as a concept does not necessarily entail the legal recognition of all traditional management practices; (2) the inclusion of TEK in CFM is heterogeneous across communities, ecosystems, regions, products and historical trajectories; and (3) different traditional practices are not equally integrated in CFM: traditional practices that contradict the spatial segregation of activities (i.e., land sparing) favored by conventional forestry tend to be less easily accepted or ignored by government institutions.

show abstract

“…Other analyses, although not using the concept of polycentricity explicitly, use similar concepts such as “transnational” or “counterglobal” networks (Sage, on the transition movement, and Chatterton, Featherstone, & Routledge, on the CJM), and “federated” (e.g., Bebbington, Humphreys, Bebbington, & Bury, on peasant water movements in the Andes). These studies document how struggles over the commons often involve multilevel/cross‐scalar processes of mobilization, solidarity and cooperation, which create “translocal spaces and identities” connecting local self‐organized commons efforts to movements and broader structural critiques (Jeffrey, McFarlane, & Vasudevan, , p. 8; also Boelens, Hoogesteger, & Baud, ; Chatterton, Featherstone, & Routledge, ; Featherstone, ; García‐López & Antinori, ; Haluza‐DeLay & Carter, ). Through these movements, marginalized resource‐user groups challenge existing multiscalar arrangements to produce other scales, and they do so by organizing across scales—connecting multiple actors, levels and issues .…”

Section: From Polycentric Governance To Polycentric Strugglesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polycentric struggles: The experience of the global climate justice movement

Tormos-Aponte

García-López

2018

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the relationship between social movements and polycentric governance? The concept of polycentricity has been at the center of recent debates in environmental governance. While most of this work has analyzed polycentric arrangements in relation to collaborative and adaptive governance, some have recently focused on how political conflicts shape these arrangements. In this paper we build on this work through Luther Gerlach's forgotten framework of polycentric social movements to undertake the task of politicizing polycentricity. This task entails expanding the analytical focus of institutional analyses of polycentricity and examining the social group politics of social movements. To this end, we present a case study of the climate justice movement and its relation to climate change governance. We analyze whether and to what extent the movement has embodied polycentric arrangements throughout its history, and to what effects. We show that show that, in seeking to address the multiscalar nature of environmental problems and the limits of existing institutional arrangements, climate justice groups are increasingly organized in a polycentric fashion. Climate justice groups mobilize multiple strands of environmental justice movements from the global North and South, as well as from indigenous and peasant rights movements, and it is organized as a decentralized network of semiautonomous, coordinated units. We find that this strategy generates new opportunities and challenges for the movement, and thus has important implications for its effectiveness in achieving these transformations. Lastly, we find that through these polycentric arrangements, movements such as that for climate justice are able to exert simultaneous influence on multiple sites of environmental governance, from the local to the global, furthering increased polycentricity in formal institutional arrangements.

show abstract

Between Grassroots Collective Action and State Mandates: The Hybridity of Multi-Level Forest Associations in Mexico

Cited by 23 publications

References 38 publications

Social movements as key actors in governing the commons: Evidence from community-based resource management cases across the world

Social movements as key actors in governing the commons: Evidence from community-based resource management cases across the world

Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Community Forest Management: Evolution and Limitations in Mexican Forest Law, Policy and Practice

Polycentric struggles: The experience of the global climate justice movement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About