Suchergebnisse

Usando el caso de la trayectoria de la investigación agrícola en Bolivia durante el periodo neoliberal, este artículo argumenta sobre la necesidad de realzar la política en la ciencia, pero diferenciándola entre dos niveles: la política como modo de gobernanza o proyecto político que moldea el proceso científico (macropolítica) y la política como el eterno proceso de contestación y antagonismos en la sociedad (micropolítica). Para apoyar este argumento, nos focalizamos en el caso de la Fundación para la Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos (Proinpa) para mostrar cómo el proyecto 'macropolítico' del neoliberalismo descentralizó y privatizó los servicios de investigación agrícola, redefiniendo las agendas de investigación y la relación entre investigadores y usuarios finales de la tecnología y cómo, a su vez, los investigadores respondieron a este proyecto, adaptándose y contestando el neoliberalismo en sus prácticas cotidianas (micropolítica)

Using the case of agricultural research in Bolivia during the neoliberal period, this paper argues that there is a need to bring politics into science, but differentiates between two levels: politics as a mode of governance or a political project that shapes the scientific process (macro-politics), and politics as an eternal process of contestation in society (micro-politics). To support this argument, we focus on the Foundation for the Promotion and Research of Andean Products (PROINPA) to demonstrate how the "macro-political" project of neoliberalism decentralized and privatized agricultural research services, redefining research agendas, and the relationship between researchers and end-users of technology; and, in turn, how researchers responded to this project, adapting and contesting neoliberalism in their everyday activities (micro-politics). ; Usando el caso de la trayectoria de la investigación agrícola en Bolivia durante el periodo neoliberal, este artículo argumenta sobre la necesidad de realzar la política en la ciencia, pero diferenciándola entre dos niveles: la política como modo de gobernanza o proyecto político que moldea el proceso científico (macropolítica) y la política como el eterno proceso de contestación y antagonismos en la sociedad (micropolítica). Para apoyar este argumento, nos focalizamos en el caso de la Fundación para la Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos (Proinpa) para mostrar cómo el proyecto «macropolítico» del neoliberalismo descentralizó y privatizó los servicios de investigación agrícola, redefiniendo las agendas de investigación y la relación entre investigadores y usuarios finales de la tecnología y cómo, a su vez, los investigadores respondieron a este proyecto, adaptándose y contestando el neoliberalismo en sus prácticas cotidianas (micropolítica).

Using the case of agricultural research in Bolivia during the neoliberal period, this paper argues that there is a need to bring politics into science, but differentiates between two levels: politics as a mode of governance or a political project that shapes the scientific process (macro-politics), and politics as an eternal process of contestation in society (micro-politics). To support this argument, we focus on the Foundation for the Promotion and Research of Andean Products (PROINPA) to demonstrate how the "macro-political" project of neoliberalism decentralized and privatized agricultural research services, redefining research agendas, and the relationship between researchers and end-users of technology; and, in turn, how researchers responded to this project, adapting and contesting neoliberalism in their everyday activities (micro-politics). ; Usando el caso de la trayectoria de la investigación agrícola en Bolivia durante el periodo neoliberal, este artículo argumenta sobre la necesidad de realzar la política en la ciencia, pero diferenciándola entre dos niveles: la política como modo de gobernanza o proyecto político que moldea el proceso científico (macropolítica) y la política como el eterno proceso de contestación y antagonismos en la sociedad (micropolítica). Para apoyar este argumento, nos focalizamos en el caso de la Fundación para la Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos (Proinpa) para mostrar cómo el proyecto «macropolítico» del neoliberalismo descentralizó y privatizó los servicios de investigación agrícola, redefiniendo las agendas de investigación y la relación entre investigadores y usuarios finales de la tecnología y cómo, a su vez, los investigadores respondieron a este proyecto, adaptándose y contestando el neoliberalismo en sus prácticas cotidianas (micropolítica).

A central challenge for effective watershed management is improving the welfare of residents who live in upper catchments while providing adequate environmental goods and services to people and areas downstream. A CPWF project, Sustaining Collective Action Linking Economic and Ecological Scales in Upper Watersheds (SCALES), addressed this challenge in three sites.1 This document is an evaluation of a project activity that intended to enhance collective action in one site: the Coello watershed of Colombia. Collective action can influence how people use and manage natural resources. It is a process by which voluntary institutions (e.g., rules and regulations) are created and maintained, often with the aim of improving human and environmental welfare and, especially for water resources, it typically involves a broad range of stakeholders who control, use and benefit from water. Examples of stakeholders include government, private businesses, landowners, farmers, and city dwellers. The SCALES project researched and fostered collective action. The Conversatorio of Acción Ciudadana (CAC) served as the collective action mechanism to promote civil society participation in public policy decisions. Supported by the Colombian constitution, the legal power of CACs enable communities to discuss policies and reach agreements with government authorities. People in the Coello watershed confront water problems that affect their livelihoods. Contamination and deforestation are two major causes of water resource degradation, in terms of both water quality and flow regulation. Specifically, fertilizer contamination of water supplies and sedimentation of waterways negatively affect downstream communities. The watershed also faces competition for water supplies. Water is extracted from natural waterways for both rural irrigation and urban household consumption. A CAC is more than a large meeting to talk and make decisions. The CAC is a four-phase process that enhances the effectiveness of local participation: (1) awareness-raising, (2) capacity-building and preparation (3) CAC implementation, and (4) review and planning. The CAC mechanism has brought together diverse actors and fostered collective action across spatial and social scales. Many types of actors have participated, including local NGOs, upstream and downstream community representatives, politically important actors (at municipal, provincial and national levels) and scientific experts in research and development (R&D). The objective of this review is to evaluate the impact of the CAC process. Evaluation methods included analysis of SCALES project reports and documentation on impact pathways, interviews and social networks. The intended project outcomes, as identified by the project implementers themselves, served as the starting point for the analysis. These expectations were contrasted with identifiable project outcomes. A social network analysis reviewed contextual conditions, mechanisms of intervention, and processes that led to the project outcomes. The evaluation also analyzed interviews with project participants. Some interviews employed techniques of video data collection, where project participants 2011.04.22.CPWF WP-IAS-08.draftv3 CPWF Working Paper - Impact Assessment Series No. 06 vii interviewed key actors regarding their perceptions and opinions of project outcomes and likely impacts. Results of the project evaluation reveal that the CAC process effectively fosters collective action in watersheds communities. Capacity-building activities of the project contributed to communities participating in meetings with multiple organizations and making collective decisions. In addition, dialogue and networking activities increased organizational and political support for communities and local NGOs. This is an example of higher-level organizations (i.e., subnational, national and international) working with lower-level organizations and communities; in other words, cross-scale collaboration. Key outputs of the CAC process included 27 agreements with government authorities with financial commitments of over US$2 million. These agreements included projects for conservation, resource management, agricultural production systems and potable water systems. The project produced four outcomes: 1. Increased awareness of water issues amongst people in the watershed. Distinct problems and experiences from the upper, middle and lower areas of the watershed were shared. Better understanding of others' perspectives provided incentives for communities to jointly resolve problems and establish agreements. 2. Strengthened links amongst community and environmental organizations. The CAC provided a forum for community-based organizations (CBOs) and nongovernment organizations (NGOs) to communicate and build support for their agendas with both communities and government agencies. Such interactions enabled organizations to establish partnerships and obtain additional public-sector funds. 3. Enhanced local capacities and relationships with authorities. New knowledge helped clarify citizen rights, along with roles and responsibilities of organizations. The CAC generated dialogue and, in turn, commitments of government organizations to work on issues raised by communities. 4. New priorities and commitments for environmentfriendly land uses. The agenda of the CBOs, NGOs and public-sector agencies broadened beyond water to include land uses such as agriculture, power generation and forests. Specific development and conservation practices included organic farming, waste management, forest management and reforestation. Evaluation results show that the CAC process has the potential to become an international public good/method that can (a) facilitate community access to knowledge, technology and skills, and (b) enable them to participate in decision-making processes in managing water and other natural resources. Given the relatively short time frame between project and evaluation, impacts cannot be realistically assessed. Social change processes and associated impact require years to evolve and grow. Nevertheless, the project activities and outputs have laid important groundwork for longer-term economic, social and environmental impacts. Although the CAC process benefits from the support of Colombian constitution, similar effective collective action projects could be achieved in other locations despite not receiving such support. Civic organizations (CBOs or NGOs) can influence government decisions. As lobbying pressures and accountability for actions increase, government agencies themselves will have greater incentive to perform. The CAC process connects the people with authorities, thereby improving decisions and actions.

The question of how to generate development while preserving the environment is central to the history of the Brazilian Amazon. Many decades of top-down state interventions conceived and executed under a developmentalist framework have resulted in a socioenvironmental crisis. In response, the Sustainable Oil Palm Production Program (SPOPP) was launched in 2010. It promised to break with developmentalist visions and articulate environmental and sustainability concerns. This paper uses assemblage thinking to examine how these contrasting, often impossible-to-balance, views manifest within SPOPP implementation. We describe how non-human actors (trees, diseases, previous policies and agroecological zoning technologies) interact with human actors. However, powerful actors, in the state and beyond, continue to garner support for their developmentalist interests and thwart or depoliticize environmental and social concerns, thus limiting change.

ABSTRACTThis article analyses how neoliberal restructuring encouraged the use of participatory methods in agricultural research in Bolivia and how, at a later stage, participatory development initiatives had to be adapted to prevent conflicts with the post‐neoliberal views of farmer organizations. The article contributes to the debate on the normalization of participatory methods in agrarian development. Engaging with Foucault's work on governmentality and neoliberalism, our analysis goes beyond interpretations of participation which conceptualize it exclusively as a technology of power to discipline subjects. Drawing on a distinction between a liberal and a neoliberal moment in the restructuring of agricultural research, we study the case of PROINPA (Foundation for the Promotion and Research of Andean Products), a national NGO that was once part of the state system for agricultural research but was then privatized. Although PROINPA employed participation mainly to enhance managerial effectiveness, it also facilitated moments of participation from below. We argue that participation designed by this type of NGO is not just 'technical' as PROINPA professionals would like to perceive it, nor is it simply 'political' as critical views on participation hold. Instead it is malleable in the sense that each actor is involved in finding a new balance between technical, economic and political considerations.

ABSTRACTScholarship on neo‐extractivism agrees that this 'post‐neoliberal' model of development is founded on an inherent contradiction between the commitment to continue natural resource extraction and the need to legitimize these activities by using their revenues for poverty reduction. Using the cases of the national biofuel policies of the 'post‐neoliberal' governments of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, this article enquires why and how these policies emerged, how they were implemented, and how the resulting national experiences exemplify the inherent contradictions embedded in neo‐extractivist policies. Adopting a strategic‐relational approach to analyse state–society interaction, it is argued that the scope of progressive policies is conditioned to a large extent by pre‐existing social structures, institutions and state–society interactions. The article shows how progressive reforms intersect with the prevailing interests of agribusiness and state actors and are recast and used for different ends as these interact with powerful actors such as the multinational soybean complex and agrarian movements. It is suggested that the prevailing over‐emphasis in the neo‐extractivist literature on the politics of domination and contestation overlooks the multiple and complex rural responses of the different progressive governments. It also obscures the possibilities to explore the ruptures and continuities of these countries' governments with previous models, and therefore fails to recognize state advances.

Sweet cherry production is a newly developed and promising activity in Argentinian South Patagonia. Together with a rapid increase in area (from 176 ha in 1997 to 635 ha in 2009), problems related to productivity and commercialization have threatened its sustainability. To gain a collective understanding of the complexity of the cherry sector, a participatory approach has been proposed for research. The steps followed and the contribution of this participatory methodology to a better under¬standing of the sector and the possible solutions to overcome un-sustainability are described. The methodology (Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis – PIPA) allowed different stakeholders to make explicit their assumptions and hypotheses about how the project will achieve its desired goals and changes. The first step was a problem tree analysis where participants identified the main problems of the sector and suggested main changes and outcomes as well as the vision expected from the project intervention. The most important constraints described by the different stake-holders' group were: (a) inappropriate technology use at packinghouses and at farm level (requiring improvement of technology generation and transfer, and funding), (b) low profitability (less than 50% of the fruit is exportable and labour efficiency is low) and (c) commercialization (low prices, exchange rate, absence of contracts and unreliable brokers). The following step consisted of mapping the sector. Network maps were drawn by four groups of stakeholders: (1) packers and members of growers' organizations, (2) researchers, (3) extension agents and growers and (4) politically important actors. Positive and negative influences and connections between stake¬holders were described. Afterwards, an Outcome Logic Model of the project was constructed showing how project activities and inputs will lead to outputs, which in turn may lead to changes in knowledge, attitudes and skills, which in turn may lead to changes in behavior (outcomes) that over time will have impacts (reduced poverty for example). While implementing the project, reflection spaces were carried out in order to generate a collective process of reflection on the advances of the project (monitoring and evaluation).