DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Owns Our Forests? Forest Ownership in the ECE Region Who Owns Our Forests? Forest Ownership in the ECE Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who Owns Our Forests? Forest Ownership in the ECE Region Who Owns Our Forests? Forest Ownership in the ECE Region Who owns our forests? Forest ownership in the ECE region Who owns our forests? Forest ownership in the ECE region COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER Copyright© 2019 United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. All rights reserved worldwide. The publication of submissions from member States in this study does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) or the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries as may be referred to in any of the submissions. Party submissions may contain data, opinions and statements from various information sources. The UNECE or FAO do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any data, opinion, statement or other information provided in any of the submissions. This work is co-published by UNECE and FAO. ABSTRACT This study examines forest ownership in the UNECE region. Based on data on 35 countries, and the first to include all forest ownership categories, this study investigates the changing nature and patterns of forest ownership, the ways in which governance and social structures influence forest owners and users, as well as forest management. Within the limits of data availability and harmonization, the publication provides an overview of, and a new baseline for, understanding the diversity and dynamics of forest ownership in the ECE region. ECE/TIM/SP/43 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION eISBN 978-92-1-004828-6 ISSN 1020-2269 eISSN 2518-6450 United Nations publication issued by the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) ii Foreword FOREWORD BY UNECE AND FAO Considering the critical role of forests in housing biodiversity, providing a source of livelihood for millions of people in our region, and combating catastrophic consequences of climate change, there is an important question that merits attention. Who owns forests in the ECE region and why does it matter? There are important finesses in the way in which forest ownership is defined, interpreted, and implemented across different contexts. The aim of this study is to unravel these finesses and highlight their implications for sustainable forest management. Our ambition is to encourage the reader to go beyond the simplistic public/private dichotomy and show that forest ownership is not written in stone. Neither as a definition, nor as an existing form of relations. Rather, the access to forest, its products and services, as well as related rights and duties, go beyond the traditional perception of forest ownership. And the topic merits much more attention than it has been previously given. This study, based on data on 35 countries, and the first to include all forest ownership categories, looks at the changing nature of forest ownership, explores its causality, and sheds light on the ways in which governance and social structures affect both owners and users, as well as management of forests. Readers will benefit from a comprehensive overview of changes in ownership patterns in the ECE region. The ECE region, of course, has plenty of examples of changes in forest ownership and management policies, reflecting previous and recent social and political developments. Some notable examples include countries with economies in transition, where we witnessed radical changes in ownership patterns through restitution and privatisation. The study also features a cross-comparison of major ownership trends in the ECE region with trends in other regions and provides historical insight into processes that led to contemporary patterns of forest ownership. Those insights, more than anything else, reveal the deeply political and economic dimension of changing ownership patterns. In order to better design and implement policies for sustainable forest management, we need to understand the context of changing forest ownership, but also the situation and needs of forest owners. We cannot hope to manage our forests sustainably in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goal 15, without an in-depth understanding of who owns them, how duties and responsibilities are distributed among owners, users and the society at large, and what does that mean in the given context. Conceived at the request of UNECE/FAO member States and produced as the outcome of a partnership between UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section and the European Cooperation in Science and Technology Action FP1201 on “Forest Land Ownership Changes in Europe: Significance for Management and Policy” (COST Action FACESMAP), this study is an important step in the right direction. We take this opportunity to thank everyone involved in the process of its preparation and we hope this study will inspire further discussion. Hiroto MITSUGI Olga ALGAYEROVA Assistant Director-General, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Forestry Department of the Food and Agriculture Executive Secretary of the United Nations Organization of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe iii Who owns our forests? Forest ownership in the ECE region FOREWORD BY COST ACTION FACESMAP The issue of forest ownership has recently been receiving growing attention in research and policy for several reasons. On the one side, there is increasing awareness that for a number of unsolved current issues in forest policy and management the behaviour of the owners is a crucial factor. This is true for the policy aim in many countries to utilize better the sustained yield of wood from the forests as raw material for the forest-based industries. The values and goals of forest owners are similarly relevant when it comes to biodiversity conservation, particularly in integrated conservation concepts that aim to combine timber production and nature conservation. Finally, the challenges of the changing climate require a relatively fast reaction of the owners in adapting their forests to new climatic conditions. On the other side, we observe changing ownership structures in various parts of the western world, due to multiple societal and political developments, including structural changes to agriculture, changes in lifestyles, as well as restitution, privatization and decentralization policies. In former socialist countries, restitution and privatisation has created a new ownership pattern and institutional frames are often still adapting to the new political and economic conditions. In some other countries, new community and private owners are bringing fresh interest and new objectives to forest management. Everywhere, a growing number of so-called “new forest owners” hold only small parcels, have no agricultural or forestry knowledge and no capacity or interest to manage their forests. The interactions between ownership type, forest management approaches, and policy, are of fundamental importance in understanding and shaping forestry, but our knowledge on forest ownership is quite limited. The limited knowledge relates to official figures as well as research. For instance, differing national statistical systems make cross-country comparisons difficult. It also becomes apparent that we have a good understanding of the behaviour of classical forest holdings but we know much less about other forest owner types with their specific motives and preferences. With the aim to give an account of the state-of-knowledge on such questions in Europe, a scientific networking project was launched, the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action FP1201 on “Forest Land Ownership Changes in Europe: Significance for Management and Policy” (FACESMAP). From 2012 to 2016, experts from across Europe and beyond produced literature reviews, expert reports on country situations, specific topical analyzes, field visits, and knowledge exchange with stakeholders (for the results, see: http://facesmap.boku.ac.at/). Realizing that UNECE/FAO at the same was also about to start efforts to collect data for a regional overview of our knowledge on forest ownership, the COST Action FACESMAP and UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section joined forces to conduct a survey and produce a joint study on the state of forest ownership in the ECE region. On the basis of previous work of UNECE and FAO and the expertise in the COST Action, a joint questionnaire was developed, administered and finally analyzed. We are very happy to present here the results of this intensive and productive collaboration. As chair of FACESMAP I have to thank all those involved in this remarkable joint project from the side of the UNECE/FAO Forestry and Timber Section, the responding countries as well as the participants of the COST Action! Without the knowledge, engagement, creativity and professional working attitudes of so many, this state-of-art report would not have been accomplished. Many thanks! Gerhard WEISS Chair of COST Action FP1201 “FOREST LAND OWNERSHIP CHANGES IN EUROPE: SIGNIFICANCE FOR MANAGEMENT AND POLICY” iv Contents CONTENTS FOREWORD BY UNECE AND FAO ............................................................................................................................................................................................................iii FOREWORD BY COST ACTION FACESMAP ........................................................................................................................................................................................iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Property Outlaws Eduardo M
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 5-1-2007 Property Outlaws Eduardo M. Peñalver Cornell Law School, [email protected] Sonia K. Katyal Fordham Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Peñalver, Eduardo M. and Katyal, Sonia K., "Property Outlaws" (2007). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 28. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/28 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PROPERTY OUTLAWS EDUARDO MOISitS PE&ALVERt & SONiA K. KATYAL" Most people do not hold those who intentionallyflout property laws in par- ticularly high regard. The overridingly negative view of the property lawbreaker as a "wrongdoer" comports with the status of property rights within our charac- teristically individualist, capitalist, political culture. This reflexively dim view of property lawbreakers is also shared, to a large degree, by property theorists, many of whom regard property rights as a relatively fixed constellation of enti- tlements that collectively produce stability and efficiency through an orderly sys- tem of ownership. In this Article, Professors Peihalverand Katyal seek partially to rehabilitate the reviled characterof the intentional property lawbreaker, and to show how property outlaws have played an important role in the evolution and transfer of property entitlements.
    [Show full text]
  • Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
    Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Forest Health & Biosecurity Working Papers OVERVIEW OF FOREST PESTS ROMANIA January 2007 Forest Resources Development Service Working Paper FBS/28E Forest Management Division FAO, Rome, Italy Forestry Department DISCLAIMER The aim of this document is to give an overview of the forest pest1 situation in Romania. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. © FAO 2007 1 Pest: Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products (FAO, 2004). Overview of forest pests - Romania TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Forest pests and diseases................................................................................................. 1 Naturally regenerating forests..................................................................................... 1 Insects ..................................................................................................................... 1 Diseases................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SFI 2020 Annual Report
    SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY INITIATIVE 2YEARS SFI-00001 1995-20205 BETTER CHOICES FOR THE PLANET 2020 SFI PROGRESS REPORT 18-month calendar July 2020–December 2021 SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY INITIATIVE 2YEARS SFI-00001 1995-20205 IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE WORK TOGETHER TO ENSURE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF OUR PLANET. People and organizations are seeking solutions that don’t just reduce negative impacts but ensure positive contributions to the long-term health of people and the planet. SFI-certified forests and products are powerful tools to achieve shared goals such as climate action, reduced waste, conservation of biodiversity, education of future generations, and sustainable economic development. SFI PROVIDES PRACTICAL, SCALABLE SOLUTIONS FOR MARKETS AND COMMUNITIES WORKING TO PURSUE THIS GROWING COMMITMENT TO A SUSTAINABLE PLANET. When companies, consumers, educators, community, and sustainability leaders collaborate with SFI, they are making active, positive choices to achieve a sustainable future. Our mission is to advance sustainability through forest-focused collaborations. For 25 years, SFI has been a leader in sustainable forest management through our standards. In recent years, we have built on our successes and evolved into a solutions-oriented sustainability organization that addresses local, national, and global challenges. Our recently updated mission, to advance sustainability through forest-focused collaborations, reflects this focus. Climate change, biodiversity, strength in diversity, clean water, the future of our youth, the importance of a walk in the forest, and the sustainability and resilience of our communities—these are some of the important issues that the SFI community is working to address. Thank you for We also realized that we will need a new generation of leaders to help us tackle the future challenges being a part of facing our planet.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Documentation Report Chisholm Fire (LWF-063)
    Final Documentation Report Chisholm Fire (LWF-063) Forest Protection Division TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Context ................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Chisholm Community............................................................................................. 2 1.3 Documentation Team.............................................................................................. 3 Section 1.0 1 1.0 OVERVIEW 1.1 CONTEXT Over the past decade, fire seasons in North America have generally increased in both length and severity. In both 2000 and 2001, the fire season in Alberta was officially declared on March 1, one month earlier than all previous years on record. Coinciding with this has been the aging of forests throughout North America beyond their natural historic ranges, and the increase in community and industrial developments in forested areas which are creating a greater number of wildland/rural/industry interface boundaries. The latter has required unique fire management strategies. As the severity of the 2001 fire season developed in late May, Land and Forest Service escalated man-up and aircraft expenditures significantly above normal levels in expection of increased fire load (Figures 1-3). Prior to fire activity in the Protection Zone of Alberta, municipalities in the agricultural areas were experiencing extreme fire behaviour
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Directory of Wildland Fire Management Personnel
    2021 DIRECTORY OF WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL April 1, 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS Forest Fire Centres ....................................................................................................................................... i Provincial / Territorial Warehouses ............................................................................................................ ii Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre (CIFFC) .................................................................................... 1 CIFFC Working Groups / Communities of Practice ................................................................................... 1 Forest Fire Management Agencies British Columbia ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Yukon ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Alberta ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 Northwest Territories................................................................................................................................. 5 Saskatchewan .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Manitoba ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change... Health) and the Community
    THE JOURNAL OF THE SCHOOL OF FORESTRY & ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SPRING 2006 environment YALE Conservationists Thinking Big to Save the Last Great Places INSIDE: Gift for Land Conservation page 11 Spurring Action on Climate Change page 15 Developing World Gaining Access to Online Research page 19 letters To the Editor: Editor’s Note: Below are excerpts from national spokesman for taking meaningful, I read your article about forests as a a letter sent to Yale University President national action on climate change. remedy for global warming [“As a Remedy Richard Levin on February 7 and We believe that the president of Yale can to Global Warming, Do Forests Matter?,” President Levin’s response. get some attention, particularly if you turn Fall 2005] and was perplexed, because your own commitment to rallying the nowhere in the article was the fact that the Dear President Levin, commitments of the presidents of other carbon taken up by a tree part remains out We were struck by a juxtaposition of major U.S. universities to join you in calling of circulation as long as that tree part is two articles in the January 29 for meaningful action on climate change not degraded to its con- Washington Post, one a headline that reflects our most current scientific stituent molecules or article entitled “Debate on knowledge. elements. This should Climate Shifts to Issue of V. A LARIC SAMPLE be a major tenet of the Irreparable Change,” and the PRESIDENT tree-based sequestration other on how the State of the PINCHOT INSTITUTE WASHINGTON, D.C. argument, and it should Union address has become M.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest for All Forever
    Centralized National Risk Assessment for Romania FSC-CNRA-RO V1-0 EN FSC-CNRA-RO V1-0 CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ROMANIA 2017 – 1 of 122 – Title: Centralized National Risk Assessment for Romania Document reference FSC-CNRA-RO V1-0 EN code: Approval body: FSC International Center: Policy and Standards Unit Date of approval: 20 September 2017 Contact for comments: FSC International Center - Policy and Standards Unit - Charles-de-Gaulle-Str. 5 53113 Bonn, Germany +49-(0)228-36766-0 +49-(0)228-36766-30 [email protected] © 2017 Forest Stewardship Council, A.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the publisher’s copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means (graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, recording taping, or information retrieval systems) without the written permission of the publisher. Printed copies of this document are for reference only. Please refer to the electronic copy on the FSC website (ic.fsc.org) to ensure you are referring to the latest version. The Forest Stewardship Council® (FSC) is an independent, not for profit, non- government organization established to support environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests. FSC’s vision is that the world’s forests meet the social, ecological, and economic rights and needs of the present generation without compromising those of future generations. FSC-CNRA-RO V1-0 CENTRALIZED NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ROMANIA 2017 – 2 of 122 – Contents Risk assessments that have been finalized for Romania ........................................... 4 Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for Romania ...................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Historical Perspective of Urban Forests in Canada As Published in Histoires Forestières Du Québec, Hiver 2015 Vol
    Urban Forest Series, Volume I A Brief Historical Perspective of Urban Forests in Canada As published in Histoires forestières du Québec, Hiver 2015 Vol. 7, No 1, Pages 27-32 Michael Rosen, R.P.F. President, Tree Canada Introduction In recent years, a greater amount of interest has been in expressed in urban forests – partly as a result of increasing urbanization but also due to new threats including the invasive insect, emerald ash borer. This history reveals much about the country itself - the reluctance to move past the image of “hewers of wood” has made urban forestry a young “specialty field” within forestry in Canada. According to Dean (2015), European urban forests with their long lines of identical trees speak of the human control of na- ture while in North America, rows of street trees served to tame the wilderness as muddy frontier roads were “brought into line”. Others point to the “democratization of the automobile, densification, climate change and invasive insects” as powerful North American themes which pose the greatest threat to urban forests (Lévesque, 2014, p 6). Urban forests in Canada have been dominated by three themes: superficial support by the provincial and federal governments, individuals’ commitment to developing urban forests of excellence, and awareness and action fueled by natural disaster. Canada – the Urban People in a Forest Nation The world looks to Canada as a forest leader – and with good reason. With 417.6 million ha of forest (10% of the world) Canada leads in many of the standard, industrial forestry measures: “timber-pro- ductive forest land”, “allowable annual cut”, “area burned by forest fire”, and “area of certified forest”.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Impacts of Drought on Aspen and White Spruce Forests in Western Canada
    Recent impacts of drought on aspen and white spruce forests in western Canada E.H. (Ted) Hogg and Michael Michaelian Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320-122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 110th CIF-IFC Conference and AGM Grande Prairie, Edmonton, September 19, 2018 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2017 1 Team members, collaborators & acknowledgments CIPHA research team Field & laboratory assistance Jim Hammond Ray Fidler Pam Melnick Ted Hogg (NoFC) Rick Hurdle Michelle Filiatrault Ryan Raypold Mike Michaelian (NoFC) Al Keizer Cathryn Hale Erin Van Overloop Trisha Hook (NoFC) Brad Tomm Bonny Hood Martin Robillard Mike Undershultz (Alberta AF) Jim Weber Tom Hutchinson Dan Rowlinson and others Devon Belanger Crystal Ionson Mark Schweitzer Marc Berube Amy Irvine Dominic Senechal Collaborators Natacha Bissonnette Oksana Izio Jessica Snedden Sarah Breen Angela Johnson Joey Tanney Lindsay Bunn Devin Letourneau Ryan Tew Craig Allen (USGS) Laura Chittick Jen MacCormick Bill van Egteren Alan Barr (Environment Canada) Brian Christensen Chelsea Martin Bryan Vroom Pierre Bernier (LFC) Owen Cook Sarah Martin Cedar Welsh Andy Black (UBC) Andrea Durand Lindsay McCoubrey Caroline Whitehouse Scott Goetz (NAU-ABoVE) Fraser McKee Dave Wieder Ron Hall (NoFC) and many others Bob Kochtubajda (EC) Funding Werner Kurz (PFC) Canada Climate Change Action Fund Vic Lieffers (U of Alberta) Program of Energy Research and Development
    [Show full text]
  • Indicators for Relational Values of Nature's Contributions to Good
    Ecosystems and People ISSN: (Print) 2639-5916 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm22 Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia Matthias Schröter, Esra Başak, Michael Christie, Andrew Church, Hans Keune, Elena Osipova, Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach, Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven, Patricia Balvanera, David González, Sander Jacobs, Zsolt Molnár, Unai Pascual & Berta Martín-López To cite this article: Matthias Schröter, Esra Başak, Michael Christie, Andrew Church, Hans Keune, Elena Osipova, Elisa Oteros-Rozas, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach, Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven, Patricia Balvanera, David González, Sander Jacobs, Zsolt Molnár, Unai Pascual & Berta Martín-López (2020) Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia, Ecosystems and People, 16:1, 50-69, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa Published online: 10 Jan 2020. UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 628 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm22 ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE 2020, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 50–69 https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2019.1703039 REVIEW: THE SCIENCE-POLICY INTERFACE OF ECOSYSTEMS AND PEOPLE Indicators for relational values of nature’s contributions to good quality of life: the IPBES approach for Europe and Central Asia Matthias Schröter a,EsraBaşakb, Michael Christie c, Andrew Church d,HansKeunee,f, Elena Osipovag, Elisa Oteros-Rozash,i, Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbachj, Alexander P.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Perspectives on Indigenous Peoples' Forestry
    GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ FORESTRY: LINKING COMMUNITIES, COMMERCE AND CONSERVATION Proceedings of the International Conference Vancouver, Canada June 4-6, 2002 Global Perspective on Indigenous Forestry: Linking Communities, Commerce and Conservation 1 Conference Proceedings—June 4-6 2002 Vancouver, Canada __________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ........................................................................................................................... 4 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE ............................................................................... 4 SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS ................................................................................. 7 Tuesday, June 4, 2002......................................................................................................... 7 SESSION 1:THE STATUS AND FUTURE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ FORESTRY: GLOBAL AND REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES......................................7 David Kaimowitz, Making Forests Work For Communities ...................................... 7 Ed John, Legal Issues and Global Processes.............................................................. 8 Miriam Jorgensen, Beyond Treaties: Lessons for Community Economic Development................................................................................................................ 8 SESSION 2:ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIGENOUS FORESTRY......9 Harry Bombay, Issues and Opportunities for Indigenous Forestry
    [Show full text]
  • Lomfeld 2017 Property
    Bertram Lomfeld A Political Grammar of Property Law Preliminary Draft 02/2017 DELIBERATING PROPERTY: A POLITICAL GRAMMAR OF PROPERTY LAW Bertram Lomfeld 1 Political Properties: What? Who? Why? 2 Justificatory Reasons for Property 3 A Bundle of Property Rights 4 A Bundle of Property Duties 5 Property As Deliberation 6 Applying the Grammar: Some Tentative Case Studies Some people understand property as a natural human right. Meant to depoliticize property it is perhaps one of the most political arguments one could take. This paper is starting from an opposite perspective, i.e. fundamental value pluralism. Starting from value pluralism, it is impossible to define a ‘universal’ core of property either on a conceptual or a normative (justificatory) level. To understand property as a clear ‘human right’ might still allow for a conceptual ‘structural’ pluralism, 1 but it accepts only private autonomy and subjective freedom as justificatory basis. For an economic perspective, the core function of property rights is the internalization of social cost.2 So, it all depends on the perspective: ‘How one defines the core of property depends on what values one thinks property serves‘.3 This paper attempts to sketch a more freestanding genuinely pluralistic property theory relying on a ‘deliberative’ discourse theory.4 The strategy of a ‘deliberative legal theory’ is pragmatic and idealistic at the same time.5 Considering law as a constitutive structure of social cooperation, it analyzes social practices of law and theory discourses (scholarship, legislation and judicial cases). It deconstructs or ‘liquefies’ monistic normative principles or policies and tries to reconstruct them as an integrative yet plural ‘political grammar’ for legal argumentation.
    [Show full text]