The political logics of EU-FLEGT in Thailand’s multistakeholder negotiations: Hegemony and resistance

IF 2.3 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Political Ecology Pub Date : 2022-06-19 DOI:10.2458/jpe.2398
S. Lewis, J. Bulkan
{"title":"The political logics of EU-FLEGT in Thailand’s multistakeholder negotiations: Hegemony and resistance","authors":"S. Lewis, J. Bulkan","doi":"10.2458/jpe.2398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The reduction of illegal logging and related trade has been on the international policy agenda since the 1990s. The EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade initiative (EU-FLEGT) seeks to address illegal logging through a scheme that rests on multistakeholder negotiations. However, past initiatives seeking to reform forest governance in the global South have reproduced the uneven outcomes of colonial forest governance by further empowering national government authorities. In the case of Thailand, FLEGT negotiations between November 2013 and April 2021 succeeded in opening a political space for civil society to engage with government actors. However, FLEGT negotiations during this period failed to address the uneven outcomes of forest governance, benefiting elites at the expense of the rural poor due to an 'anti-politics effect. The FLEGT multistakeholder negotiations did not consider the uneven historical relations to land and resource rights nor the intrinsic power dynamics of different actor groups. As such, dominant actors from the government and private sector succeeded in structuring the terrain of the FLEGT negotiations to determine which civil society demands for reforms to tenure and resource rights they would concede, and which they would not.","PeriodicalId":46814,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Political Ecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Political Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The reduction of illegal logging and related trade has been on the international policy agenda since the 1990s. The EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade initiative (EU-FLEGT) seeks to address illegal logging through a scheme that rests on multistakeholder negotiations. However, past initiatives seeking to reform forest governance in the global South have reproduced the uneven outcomes of colonial forest governance by further empowering national government authorities. In the case of Thailand, FLEGT negotiations between November 2013 and April 2021 succeeded in opening a political space for civil society to engage with government actors. However, FLEGT negotiations during this period failed to address the uneven outcomes of forest governance, benefiting elites at the expense of the rural poor due to an 'anti-politics effect. The FLEGT multistakeholder negotiations did not consider the uneven historical relations to land and resource rights nor the intrinsic power dynamics of different actor groups. As such, dominant actors from the government and private sector succeeded in structuring the terrain of the FLEGT negotiations to determine which civil society demands for reforms to tenure and resource rights they would concede, and which they would not.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
泰国多方利益相关者谈判中EU-FLEGT的政治逻辑:霸权与抵抗
自20世纪90年代以来,减少非法采伐和相关贸易一直被提上国际政策议程。欧盟的森林执法、治理和贸易倡议(EU- flegt)寻求通过一个基于多方利益相关者谈判的方案来解决非法采伐问题。然而,过去寻求改革全球南方森林治理的倡议通过进一步赋予国家政府当局权力,再现了殖民森林治理的不平衡结果。以泰国为例,2013年11月至2021年4月期间的FLEGT谈判成功地为民间社会与政府行为体接触开辟了政治空间。然而,在此期间,FLEGT谈判未能解决森林治理的不平衡结果,由于“反政治效应”,精英受益而牺牲了农村贫困人口。FLEGT多利益相关者谈判没有考虑到土地和资源权利的不平衡历史关系,也没有考虑到不同行为体群体的内在权力动态。因此,来自政府和私营部门的主要行为者成功地构建了FLEGT谈判的领域,以确定民间社会对所有权和资源权改革的哪些要求他们会让步,哪些不会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Political Ecology
Journal of Political Ecology ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
17.40%
发文量
47
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Political Ecology is a peer reviewed journal (ISSN: 1073-0451), one of the longest standing, Gold Open Access journals in the social sciences. It began in 1994 and welcomes submissions in English, French and Spanish. We encourage research into the linkages between political economy and human environmental impacts across different locations and academic disciplines. The approach used in the journal is political ecology, not other fields, and authors should state clearly how their work contributes to, or extends, this approach. See, for example, the POLLEN network, or the ENTITLE blog.
期刊最新文献
Environmental racism and environmental injustice: Decolonial inflections and new agendas in Latin America and Brasil Title Pending 5542 Co-opted energy transitions: Coal, wind, and the corporate politics of decarbonization in Colombia Speculative Political Ecologies: (re)imagining urban futures of climate extremes Title Pending 3022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1