Rethinking Forests Governance as Global Commons: Devolution of Quasi-Property Rights to Indigenous Communities

An increasing wave of "green capitalism" (Alper, 1993; Barron, 2005) undermines both environmental sustainability and democratic engagement worldwide: the forestry sector stands as a perfect example. Indeed, "green" policies like REDD+ programmes and protected areas, often curb bottom-up participation and reduce forests' multiple functions to the economic interests of few, contrarily to what the discourse on Sustainability calls for. This paper aims to develop an alternative proposal for a multi-stakeholder model for forest governance that overcomes the public v. private dichotomy (Ostrom, 2010) and constitutes a tool for a broader approach to sustainability. By linking the discourse on the commons (Arnold, 1998; Agrawal & Ostrom, 1999; Hardin, 1968; Dietz, Ostrom and Stern, 2003; Dolsak, Ostrom & McKay, 2003; Ellickinson, 1993; Ostrom, 1990, 1999, 2005, 2010; Ostrom, Gardner and Walker, 1994; Ostrom&Ostrom, 1977) with the discourse on justice (Rawls, 1971; Sen, 1980, 1999, 2009; Anderson, 1999, 2010; Goodin, 1988), I construct an argument for a two-level social contract. Forest-dependent Indigenous communities are entitled with quasi-property rights as part of their capabilities set, so they may become trustees of the global forests. Evidences about the Yanesha peoples in Peru and the Binh Son villagers in Vietnam back up the argument that communities can establish micro-social conventions as a response to lands' occupation and forests' degradation. This framework is aimed at both policy-makers and civil society to (i) justify and design decision- and policy-making and (ii) evaluate existing policies. Implementing it requires a paradigm shift from State-centred and neoliberal agenda towards innovative solutions in the name of sustainability and global justice.