|
Abstract:
|
"So far my preliminary study of one collective forest in northwest Yunnan and conversations with the former prefectural head of the forestry bureau indicate that if anything, the jargon connected with community forestry and devolution of management rights, are merely jargon. First and foremost, 'collective forests' in China (or 'jitilin') are not forests owned by the local village and township 'collectives' in the sense that they are owned by some kind of a 'collective' reminiscent of the communes we see under the various collectivisation phases during the Maoist days. Rather, they refer to forests owned by lower levels of the state and other sub-state/or non-state entities - such as township and village governments, and village small groups. In most cases, this means that the townships or the village governments led by the leader makes the decision without consulting the population in the township or village. This is despite the central government's call for self-governance and accountability at the village level. Evidently, the desire and proclamation of the importance for self-governance (despite the requirement for village heads and representatives to the village committee be elected) does not necessarily lead to democratic participation at village levels for various reasons. This is a problem that stems from governance and accountability issues not simply at the village level, but across the village, the township, and the county governments, and across the various bureaus, including the forestry bureau."
|