Marta de Sousa (SOCIUS – ISEG/UTL, Portugal)

«Deserted» communities, «Old» Forest Services and «historical» Forested commons -

The «sensitive» case of commons in the «triangular» arrangement of communities, state

experts and territories...(A Case-Study of Baldios in Northern Portugal)

In Portugal, there is still a considerable area under a common property regime, with a strong

presence of state administration, since it has been, from the 1930s onwards, object of forceful

forestation. These commons were once considered the grazing hills, the mining fields, the

timber resources, the recollection lands, and the possible plots for the most dispossessed of

the villagers. Their use was rather individualistic, even when there were some of the cattle

owners had a «vezeira» of goats, taking turns to graze them around. The hills were also not

rigidly bounded, since grazing laws allowed anyone to crossover, having, only, to come back at dawn. There were some mining partnerships among villagers, of different parishes. These were not open access commons, since the commons were lived, dwelled upon and known by all from a single or a group of villages/hamlets. Their hills that commoners thought no longer

valuable, apart from timber, are now subject of wind farms companies' interests. Human and

land desertification gave way to a forested landscape, that is both an important carbon sink,

an environmental «necessity» as it is a "highly fuelled risk". It is in this historical context, of

desertification, that the ethnographic material of the conflict around a village forested

commons, in northern Portugal, shows clearly how history is re-lived, now, by the new state

professionals and experts, by the neighbours and by local political «chiefs». And how the

changing policies of the state, starting from a greater ability to embrace the commons and

communities realities in 1974 (the Revolution period) is increasingly trying to capture a multilayeredlandscape into something similar to the private property legal regime. Also, the

historical process, as it will be portrayed, is a showcase of attempts from the State to control,

organize and manage the «wild» commons and communities. In fact, there are three peaks in

the history and policies regarding common land. The first, from 1940 to 1974, is the process ofconsolidation of the State, assessing, measuring, and building an army of experts and

technicians in the rural mountain areas; from 1974 to 1978, it is the revolutionary period, in

which movements and political parties raised the flag for these territories, changing their legal

frameworks and "freeing" them from the usurper (the State). And, from 1979 to the present,

the ongoing process of bureaucratization, and europeanisation, along with the environmental

principles integration in the political discourses. Nevertheless, the state administration is still

the same, some of them come as far back as 1970s; its experts - again, some of them -

migrated to the local councils, and became political actors, others remained and gained power

in the bureaucratic system. Others joined the movement of regaining back the commons. But

true is that real implementation of policies seemed to be more the by-product of alliances or

compromises between local state experts and local community leaders, than the

implementation of principles drafted at the central level. Nevertheless, each year, it seems,

dwellers dwindle, disappearing silently, leaving behind a landscape bereft of human prints...

albeit ecologically sound, natural and pure, and under state administration...

Gerda R. Wekerle (York University, Canada)

In peri-urban areas of major North American cities, there are pitched battles over land use change between proponents of urban development and environmentalists and rural movements intent on preserving countryside and threatened natural areas. State policy makers at the provincial and municipal levels are called upon to mediate and rsolve these conflicts both discursively and in policy practice. Recent developments in the Toronto region exemplify the complexity of discourses and their formation among diverse actors of the state, market and civil society sectors when continued and inexorable growth is challenged. Social movement actors, the state, land owners and developers have engaged in discursive contestations over a decade that culminated in the passage of recent provincial legislation- a Greenbelt Plan and a Growth Plan. Utilizing local newspaper coverage from 1998-2009, policy reports and forty personal interviews, this paper examines the convergent and divergent uses of planning and environmental frameworks through the construction of three prevailing discourses: growth in the region, good planning and nature preservation. The paper analyzes the storylines that brought together  discourse coalitions. It addresses the role of the mainstream print media in supporting and shaping dominant storylines. By analyzing the legislation that resulted, the paper highlights the discursive strategies that shaped the form and content of the legislation, the ways that discourses of elite groups impacted the formulation and implementation of policy and the institutionalization of policy stories that attempted to blend competing frameworks. 

Carsten Mann (Berlin Institute of Technology) & James Asher (US Forest Service)

Conserving natural and cultural lands have become increasingly important for societal well-being in many western countries. Continuous urbanization, detachment from nature and demographic changes are among the main reasons fostering political discussions about strengthening the social and cultural dimension for sustainable and multifunctional land use. However, planning schemes differ in their ability to sustainably cope with the complexities and subtleties of incorporating (new) conservation objectives, like recreation and nature tourism into existing governmental and societal contexts, particularly on the regional/local level. In this paper, institutional problems that have arisen in conservation areas are explored and an emerging paradigm suggested that might deal with them.

One trend in conserved area planning is to incorporate decision-making that is closer to its point of application and emphasize partnerships, strategic alliances and broader consultation with those who are likely to be responsible for, or experience impacts from, policy decisions. Participative approaches offer flexibility to resource management through adaptive governance, and may provide a dynamic, tailored result that is specific to place and institutional context (cf. Borrini-Feyerabend, 2003; Folke et al., 2005). However, conserved areas are often characterized by large-scale diverse ecosystems, multiple levels of policy implementation, different perceptions of problems, policy objectives, and different preferences for strategies and instruments what makes management difficult.

Two case studies illustrate these problems for outdoor recreation and present governance solutions that integrate user demands and management solutions into their institutional contexts. One case study is from the Black Forest Nature Park, Germany and the other from a national forest in California, USA. In the Black Forest recreation management principles were developed jointly, suggesting shifts in conflict management objectives, participative planning approaches, communication strategies and the assessment of institutional fit of policy decisions. In California recreational uses are addressed as one resource issues within a broad forest plan. People are engaged through public comment on, and reactions to, proposed directions prepared by forest staff. Specific recreation conflict potentials are left to emerge in later, specific programmatic plans. The examples illustrate how the suggested governance principles for conservation areas are addressed in practice and how they might contribute to a better understanding of the social functions of nature.

Permanent communication platforms established by local authorities serve to create partnerships between individuals and between individuals and authorities, allowing local actors interested in the quality of the living environment to participate in a common visioning and consensus building in their region with shared interests (cf. Masschelein & Quaghebeur, 2006). Knowing more about use preferences and conflict perceptions, together with the provision of a platform for mutual exchange and participatory decision making, helps to facilitate the design and management of sustainable future conservation areas (Sievänen et al., 2008). The two case studies suggest a sociologically robust paradigm that balances between a bottom-up approach for conservation areas that must be weighed against the values achieved from the more traditional top-down planning and management systems.

Maryudi Ahmad, Rosan Raj Devkota, and Max Krott (Georg-August-University, Germany)

Numerous countries have recently embarked on policy shifts toward the more participatory approach on forest management by creating legal and policy frameworks for transferring some degree of authorities, from the forest property rights to responsibilities in forest management, to institutions of local people. The arguments for the policy shifts were centered on the knowledge of local people can best fitted to the management of the resources and the involvement of local actors can promote forest sustainability.

However, the devolution policy has in large instance reflected the constructs and the interests of the state, who still insist on maintaining control over the policy designs, decisions and activities, of the forests. The forest authorities employ a variety of power strategies to limit the local institutions from the genuine involvement in the forest management and from meaningfully benefiting from the resources. They create primarily, but not necessarily, indirect strategies such as the requirement on formal management contracts, formation of alliances, manipulation of local organizations and mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation in a timely and efficient manner to their values.

This paper aims to describe the key factors which drive the political process of forest devolution by analyzing forestry actors and their power.  The cases from Indonesia and Nepal clearly reveal the devolution policy on community forestry is to pseudo the state's motives to regain controls over the valuable forest resource and the forest territory that have effectively lost prior to the implementation of the program. In addition, the program is implemented as a means to extend its reach in forest villages, rather than devolving authority to the institutions of local communities which is rhetorically promised in community forestry. State's reluctance to genuinely devolve authority over the forest resources stems from the desire of the forestry authorities to protect the forests and to monopolize the economic gains from the valuable resource. As a result, the local institutions, while assuming more responsibilities to protect and nurture the forests, they continue to enjoy limited benefits from the forest resources.

Severine van Bommel & Marielle van der Zouwen (Wageningen University)