Capítulo 3 Experiencias nacionales
3.2.3 Sur andino: el cluster de camélidos en el Perú
This introduction has outlined the background, central research question and argument, key conceptual framework elements, methodology and structure underpinning the study’s central thesis. Following this, Chapter Two sets the scene for a more focussed discussion of contemporary governance. A brief review of the literature on globalisation establishes the context for changing perspectives on governance. It highlights the shift in focus away from state-based approaches founded on intergovernmentalism to hybrid public-private and civil-society based approaches. The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the evolution of contemporary governance theory and practice, and describe some of the recognised components of ‘good’ governance. Chapter Three focuses on forest governance, which is identified as a policy arena where the shift from ‘old’ governance institutions, exemplified by the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO) and the Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) to ‘new’ governance institutions (such as forest certification schemes) is especially evident. The chapter argues that beyond merely noting the existence of this shift, there is a need for a more elaborate framework for assessing the quality of governance occurring within these ‘new’ institutions. It presents a typology of contemporary global governance, addresses the ‘problem’ of legitimacy by means of a conceptual model, introduces a set of PC&I for the analysis of institutional performance, and situates these within an evaluative framework, against which the case studies in subsequent chapters are assessed.
The next four chapters systematically investigate the governance arrangements of each of the case studies, commencing with FSC, and following with ISO, PEFC and UNFF.26 After a history of the emergence, evolution and significant developments affecting each particular case study, a second section presents an overview of its governance system as a whole, including its typology. This is followed by an evaluation of the institution’s performance and, using the sources of information discussed above, each indicator is critically assessed and provided with a rating. Subsequent to a postcript bringing each case study as up to date as possible, each chapter concludes with a synthesis of the findings and offers some preliminary observations on the particular institution investigated.
Chapter Eight provides a systematic comparison of the governance arrangements of all four case studies across the analytical framework of Chapter Three, highlighting similarities and differences. After a general discussion of the performance of all four case studies, a more detailed thematic investigation of each of the criteria and indicators follows. This section also explores some of the possible reasons underlying the differences and similarities between the performances of each institution and provides some concluding observations on each of the criteria. A final section summarises the performance of each case study and examines each institution in the light of the total quality of its governance system. The chapter concludes by commenting on the relationship between institutional type and performance.
Chapter Nine, the conclusion, summarises the dissertation, highlights its findings, identifies its weaknesses, demonstrates its significance, and points to avenues for further research. The Appendices contain a list of interview subjects, and the background materials associated with each of the interviews.
Endnotes
1 Patricia Birnie, “The UN and the Environment”, in United Nations, Divided World ed. Adam
Roberts and Benedict Kingsbury (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) pp. 327-383 at p. 335.
2
Birnie, “The UN and the Environment”, pp. 336-350.
3
United Nations, Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Statement of Forest Principles (New York: United Nations Publications Department of Public Information, 1993), p. 10. An extract reads:
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities … and the opportunity to participate in decision making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information publicly available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy shall be provided (ibid).
See also United Nations, Agenda 21, pp. 230-235. An extract from this text reads as follows: 27.1 Non-governmental organizations play a vital role in the shaping and implementation of participatory democracy. Their credibility lies in the responsible and constructive role they play in society … independence is a major attribute of non- governmental organizations and is the precondition of real participation…
27.5 Society, Governments and international bodies should develop mechanisms to allow non-governmental organizations to play their partnership role responsibly and affectively in the process of environmentally sound and sustainable development… 29.5 Governments, business and industry should promote the active participation of workers and their trade unions in decisions on the design, implementation, and evaluation of national and international policies and programmes on environment and development (ibid).
4 The thinking in this section has been influenced by David Held, Anthony G. McGrew, David
Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture
(London: Polity Press, 1999) and John G. Ruggie, “Taking Embedded Liberalism Global: The Corporate Connection” in Taming Globalisation: Frontiers of Governance ed. David Held and Matthias Koenig-Archibugi (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003), pp. 93-95. Another informing article, which covers much of the same ground is David Sonnenfeld and Arthur Mol’s “Globalization and the Transformation of Environmental Governance: An Introduction” American Behavioral Scientist, 45(9)(2002) pp. 1318-1339. On the emergence of a global system of universalistic norms and an associated rise of particularism, see James Spickard, “Human Rights, Religious Conflict, and Globalisation: Ultimate Values in a New World Order”, International Journal on Multicultural Societies 1(1) (1999) pp. 2-20. For an interesting analysis of the changes in contemporary perceptions of citizenship see Damian Tambini, “Post-national Citizenship”, Ethnic and Racial Studies 24 (2) (2001) pp. 195-217. On the changing nature of public and private interaction on the environment, see Robert Falkner, “Private Environmental Governance and International Relations: Exploring the Links”, Global Environmental Politics 3(2) (2003) pp. 72-
87. On the developments occurring within civil society in the current era, see Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink in Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics
(New York: Cornell University Press, 1998).
5
David Humphreys, Forest Politics: the Evolution of International Cooperation (London: Earthscan, 1996), pp. 2-15.
6
Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 1. Ostrom made this argument in relation to fisheries, but it is equally relevant to forests.
7
John Dryzek, The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 45; Garrett Hardin “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, 162 (3859) (1968), pp. 1243-8 at p. 1244.
8
Sherry Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” Journal, American Institute of Planners
35(4) (1969) pp. 216-224, at p. 216. Arnstein categorises the extent of participation into non- participation, tokenism and citizen power, and relates it to the level -- or rungs on the ladder -- of participation, described as manipulation, therapy (non-participation), informing, consultation, placation (varying degrees of tokenism), partnership, delegated power and citizen control (varying degrees of power).
9 While analogous to deliberative democracy, discourse theory is more grounded in the work of
sociologist Jürgen Habermas. Although highly relevant to this thesis as a general principle it applies to any situated conversation rather than a given form of political democracy. It “conceives of morality as an authority that crosses boundaries between private and public spheres” and states that “only those action norms are valid in which all possibly affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses” (Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1996) pp. 108- 111 and pp. 458-459; see also Jürgen Habermas, “The Theory of Communicative Action”, A Critique of Functionalist Reason (2) (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987).
10
Iris Marion Young, Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) at pp. 1- 26. See also John Dryzek, Discursive Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and Patrizia Nanz and Jens Steff, “Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation in International Governance: Criteria andResearch Strategies”, Acta Politica,40 (3) (2005), pp. 368– 383, at p. 370.
11
This terms is used with caution, as it is meant to refer to “a new process of governing”, as defined by Rod Rhodes, Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1997), p. 48 (emphasis in original). This study concentrates on the idea that ‘new’ governance represents a range of more innovative approaches, rather than a specific theory of public administration, implemented by public agencies within the nation state, and exemplified by Lester Salomon, “The New Governance and the Tools
of Public Action: An Introduction”, The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance
ed. Lester Saloman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-41.
12
Jon Pierre and B. Guy Peters, Governance, Politics and the State (London: Macmillan Press, 2000) p. 14.
13
See for example Pierre and Peters, Governance, Politics and the State, pp. 34-35 (in describing state-based, pluralist and corporatist notions of governance) or Rhodes, Understanding Governance, p. 145 (in examining EU regional policy networks in the UK before 1988); Jordan et al. point to a move away from command-and-control, to “soft” approaches in new environmental policy instruments generally (Andrew Jordan, Rüdiger K. W. Wurzel and Anthony Zito, “The Rise of ‘New’ Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspectives: Has Governance Eclipsed Government?” Political Studies 53 (2005) pp. 441-469 at p. 481). Glück et al. identify this change of approach in forest governance (Peter Glück, Jeremy Rayner, Benjamin Cashore, Arun Agrawal, Steven Bernstein, Doris Capistrano, Karl Hogl, Bernd-Markus Liss, Connie McDermott, Jagmohan S. Maini, Tapani Oksanen, Pekka Ollonqvist, Helga Pülzl, Rwald Rametsteiner and Werner Pleschberger, “Changes in the Governance of Forest Resources”, in Forests in the Global Balance ed. G. Mery, R. Alfaro, M. Kaninnen, and M. Lobovikov (Helsinki: IUFRO, 2005), pp. 51-74, at p. 51).
14
For a discussion on the interplay between civil society, globalisation, forest management and governance, see Gordon M. Hickey and John L. Innes, “Monitoring Sustainable Forest Management in Different Jurisdictions”, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 108 (2005) pp. 241-260.
15 Glück et al., “Changes in the Governance of Forest Resources”, p. 55. 16
For example, see: Kristina A. Vogt, Bruce C. Larson, John C. Gordon, Daniel J. Vogt and Anna Fanzeres, Forest Certification: Roots, Issues, Challenges and Benefits (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000) and Ruth Nussbaum and Markku Simula Forest Certification Handbook (London: Earthscan, 2005).
17
Erik M. Lammerts van Beuren and Esther M. Blom, Hierarchical Framework For The Formulation Of Sustainable Forest Management Standards (Leiden: The Tropenbos Foundation, 1997), p. 34, citing H. G. Baharuddin and M. Simula, “Timber Certification in Transition. Study on the Development in the Formulation and Implementation of Certification Schemes for all Internationally-Related Timber and Timber Products”, report prepared for the International Tropical Timber Organisation, 1996.
18 Lammerts van Beuren and Blom, Hierarchical Framework, p. 35. 19
Lammerts van Beuren and Blom, Hierarchical Framework, p. 34.
20
Criteria and indicators are used interchangeably for example in Nanzand Steff (“Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation”, p. 373).
21
Radoslav S. Dimitrov, “Hostage to Norms: States, Institutions and Global Forest Politics”,
Global Environmental Politics 5 (4) (2005), pp. 1-24 at p. 20.
22
It could be argued that the approach adopted in this study is partly constructivist in nature, particularly regarding the behaviour of actors within organisational structures, along the lines articulated in Peter Haas, “UN Conferences and Constructivist Governance of the Environment”,
Global Governance 8 (1) (2002), pp. 73-91, at p. 74. Some aspects of the approach adopted here could also be interpreted as being both institutionalist and design-oriented. In all these critical theories there is an interest in organisations, but all are more state-centric, or regime-oriented, in their analysis of the effectiveness of global environmental governance. For a deeper anlysis of these critical theories, see Mathias Koenig-Archibugi, “Introduction: Institutional Diversity in Global Governance”, in New Modes of Governance in the Global System: Exploring Publicness, Delegation and Inclusiveness ed. Mathias Koenig-Archibugi and Michael Zürn (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006)pp. 1-30 at pp. 3-12. This study, examines a wider range of institutional types and systems, and is not confined to any one critical approach, beyond the analytical framework outlined in Chapter 2.
23
This definition of effectiveness follows Christopher Elliott, Forest Certification: A Policy Perspective (Bogor: Center for International Forestry research, 2000)p. 23.
24
See Douglas Ezzy, Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation (Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin, 2002) pp. xii-xiv.
25 Dick Hortensius, “ISO 14000 and Forestry Management: ISO Develops ‘Bridging’ Document”,
ISO 9000-ISO 14000 NEWS 4 (1999), pp. 11-20.
26 Determining in which order to address the systems under investigation has proved something of
a dilemma, and a decision has been made to look at each scheme in approximate chronological order of development. The FSC held its founding assembly in 1993, but was not legally constituted until 1996. Technical Committee 207, responsible for the development of the 14000 series, was established in 1993, but its first standard was not published until 1996. However, given that it is argued below that environmental non-governmental organisations began working on timber certification and labelling initiatives in 1988 and 1989 and that the 14000 series was largely the result of pre and post Earth Summit deliberations (1991-1993), the FSC is examined first. In the case of PEFC, the scheme was first launched in 1999, although it was substantially modified in 2003; nevertheless discussions on its development began, as outlined below, in 1995. UNFF, although a successor of two earlier Earth Summit initiatives, which existed between 1995 and 1999, was not constituted until 2000.