• No results found

The Rise of Agro-Extractive Capitalism : insights from Guatemala in the early 21st century

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The Rise of Agro-Extractive Capitalism : insights from Guatemala in the early 21st century"

Copied!
614
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1

The Rise of Agro-Extractive Capitalism

Insights from Guatemala in the early 21st century

(2)

2 © Alberto Alonso-Fradejas 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission

by the author.

(3)

3

The Rise of Agro-Extractive Capitalism

Insights from Guatemala in the early 21st century

De opkomst van agro-extractief kapitalisme

Inzichten uit Guatemala in het begin van de 21e eeuw

To obtain the degree of Doctor from the Erasmus University Rotterdam by command of the Rector Magnificus

Prof.dr. R.C.M.E. Engels

And in accordance with the decision of the Doctorate Board

The public defence shall be held on

Monday 10 September 2018 at 16.00 hrs

by

Alberto Alonso-Fradejas

(4)

4

Doctoral Committee

Doctoral dissertation supervisors

Prof.dr. M.N. Spoor Prof.dr. S.N. Borras

Other members

Prof.dr. M. Edelman, Hunter College and City University New York Dr. H. Pérez Niño, SOAS, University of London

(5)

5

(6)

6

Acknowledgements

Certainly, I am the only one responsible for the contents, errors and omissions of this work. Nonetheless, I would have never been able to endure the doctoral journey and complete this manuscript if not for the support of many others. There is simply too many important people to properly acknowledge, so please bear with me comrades, friends and family.

First and foremost, I am most grateful to my promotors Max Spoor and Jun Borras for their guidance, encouragement and support. A great example of Brecht´s “indispensable ones”, you two helped me growing into the enfant scholar-activist I am today. Maraming salamat! Heel erg bedankt! Thanks a million to Murat Arsel and Jenny Franco, my scholarly mentors in the shadow even if the latter might think otherwise. I am very grateful to Sergio Sauer and Eric Holt-Giménez for introducing me to Jun at the first land-grabbing conference at the IDS-Sussex in 2011, and thereby guiding my steps towards the ISS. Thank you to all the ISS faculty, especially to those currently and formerly part of the Political Ecology research group including Murat Arsel, Mindi Schneider, Oane Visser, Julien-Francoise Gerber, Cristóbal Kay, Ben White, Bridget O´Lauglin and Marc Wuyts. Special thanks to all ISS administration and secretariat teams, especially to Sharmini Bisessar-Selvarajah. Thank you also to ISS´ facilities team, to my friends from the security and cleaning services, and of course to the “Butterfly Queens” Sandy and Dinneke. Too many to name one by oneat the ISS, but please be certain you have been an unmatched support during my doctoral trip during both challenging times and on an everyday basis.

I am profoundly indebted to all Guatemalans who are part, directly or indirectly, of this research. They include the many Maya-Q´eqchi´, other ethnic Mayans and non-indigenous women and men of different ages who welcomed me and share their perspectives, fears and illusions with me. I am very grateful to my activist-research comrades from the Guatemalan Institute of Agrarian and Rural Studies (IDEAR) with whom we worked, learned, enjoyed and sufferes for years in the northern lowlands, including Jochen Dürr, Fernando Alonzo, Teresita Chinchilla, Domingo Montejo and especially my comrade, friend and mentor Jose Luís Caal Hub, b´antyox compa! Thank you also to Sara Mingorría and Gonzalo Gamboa from ICTA-UAB for sharing concerns, hopes, friendship and socio-metabolic comradeness in the Polochic valley and beyond. Thank you also to Helmer Velásquez and all my comrades in IDEAR and CONGCOOP: Pablo Sigüenza, Juan Pablo Ozaeta, María Vargas, Arlyn Jiménez, Zully Morales, Diana Vásquez, Josue Chavajay, Katja Winkler, Alejandro Aguirre, Nuria Mejía, Juan Carlos Us Pinula, Byron Garoz, Frank Garbers, Junny Mejía, Álvaro Caballeros, Norayda Ponde, Lilian López, and especially Susana Gauster.

In addition to those who were or still remain part of the IDEAR, there are dozens of comrades and friends in Guatemala I´m deeply indebted to for different reasons I cannot describe in detail here. Any ways, they know. They are Laura Hurtado, Emanuel Bran-Guzmán, Álvaro Revenga, Liza Grandia, Georg Grünberg, Bayron Milián, Silvel Elías, Pablo Prado, Wilson Romero, Enrique Corral (long life comrade!), Quimy de León, Nelton Rivera, Jorge Macías, Abelino Chub (free!), Santiago Bastos, Megan Ybarra, Angelina Snodgrass Godoy, Poncho Porres (luciérnaga combativa), Lucrecia, Ana y Patty Ardón, el Cheto, René Chacón, Rovoham Monzón, Edwin Bracamonte, Grecia Méndez, Victor Hugo Ramos, Lorena Pereira, Iliana Monterroso, el Lobo, Leocadio Juracán, Mauro Vay, Ana Bustamente Cruz, Luisa Samayoa, Alejandro Arriaza, la Yeya y el Pelón, Anna Avidano, Simone Dalmasso, Adele Tibaldeschi, and more generally, my comrades from CUC, CCDA, CODECA, AMR, UVOC, ACDIP, CONDEG, CNOC, the Social Pastorals, USAC, URL, La Cuerda, PRODESSA, El Observador, SERJUS, CALDH, Mesa Global, AVANCSO, Madreselva, Ceiba, Asociación de Abogados Maya, SANK, Luciérnaga, ComunicARTE, H.I.J.O.S., Mama Maquín, ACOFOP, Caracol Producciones, Red Tz´ikin and so many other organizations committed to social justice in Guatemala. A very special thanks to my family in

(7)

7

Antigua, including Manu and Casa del Mango, Emas, Fofo, Alecsis, Lar, Álvaro, Sana, Miren, Renato, Erick, Guayito, Nora, Txomin, Saruka, Gonzalo, Roberto, and Liliana.

Back to the Netherlands, I am most grateful to all my comrades at TNI (Transnational Institute) for their comradeness and support in the darkest hours, especially to those part of the Agrarian and environmental Justice team namley Pietje Vervest, Jenny Franco, Lyda Forero, Zoe Brent, Sylvia Kay, Katie Sandwell, Tim Feodoroff, Mads Barbesgaard and Carsten Pedersen. Very special thanks to Tom Kramer, Khu Khu Ju and many comrades and friends from Myanmar from whom I keep learning so much. Thank you also to my fellow villagers at the ISS and beyond for their insights, patience and encouragement, including Tsegaye Moreda, Zoe Brent, Ben McKay, Christina Schiavoni, Martha Robbins, Elyse Mills, Daniela Andrade, Yunan Xu, Salena Tramel, Clara Park, Giulio Iocco, Umut Kocagöz, Sergio Coronado, Mauro Conti, Antonio Roman-Alcala, Gustavo Oliveira, Pierre Merlet, Ana Victoria Portocarrero, Ratha Thuon, Nadine Reis, Natalia Mamonova, Sue Mark, Robin Thiers, Jin Zhang, Donna Hornby, Natasha Bruna, Amod Shah, Boaventura Monjane, Chunyu Wang, Carol Hunsberger, Juan Liu, Sara Vigil, Daniela Calmon, Anne Siebert, Yukari Sekine, Adwoa Gyapong, Melek Mutioglu, Eric Gutierrez, Arnim Schiedel, Cecile Fameree, Luis Felipe Rincón, Li Hua, Corinne Lamain, Valeria Recalde, Claudia Schur and Razack Karriem. I am very grateful to Salena Tramel for her commitment in the painstaking task of copy-editing this dissertation. Thank you also to Zoe Brent, who didn´t think twice about answering my call for help to copy-edit one chapter. And a very special thanks to the rest of my fellow “phders” at the ISS throughout all this years.

Thank you to all the friends I made during these years in Den Haag, especially María de Vargas, Mariam, Bianca, Giulio, Danielle, Olga, Kostja, Suzzy, Shikha, Sat, Holger, Unaity, Rogers, Giulia, Gustavo, Tatuli, Srushti, Jan Willem, Paula, Constance, Tamara(s), Zelalem, Byni, Zemzem, Farzane, Mansooreh, Alma, Brandon, Tefarah, Juan David, Fasil, Renata, Clarissa, Darío, Zohanny, Carolina, Nico, Zsofi, Emiel, Kaia, Dirk, and Adriana because “tú hiciste de mi vida un cuento para niños en donde naufragios y muertes son pretextos de ceremonias adorable” (A. Pizarnik). Thank you Gaby and Cape for sharing infinite office hours shoulder to shoulder. Mila esker to my friends and comrades from the “Basque Planet”, especially to Davide, Ibontxu, Uri and Miguel, Jorge, Iñigo, Santi, Mikel, Julen, Gorka, Inestxu, Aintzane but also to Piero, Joka and Lorena. Big thanks to my friends from Benegiles, Zamora, especially Aguila, Vale, Titi, Coroco, Óscar, Fitu, Purito, Casiano, Richard, Tomeo, David, Javi, Marco, Fernando, Álvaro, Lydia, Noelia, Nuria, Esther, Mea, Ali, Rober, Mari, Eva, Carmen, Rocío, Turiño, Juan, Biri, and Jose Ignacio. I am grateful to all comrades and friends from the LDPI, BICAS, ICAS and ERPI scholar-activist networks, as well as from FIAN, La Via Campesina, the IPC for Food Sovereignty, and the Journal of Peasant Studies.

Thank you so much to my amazing family, especially to my beloved aunties and uncles Ezequiel, Isabel, Justa, Cari Lali, Carmen, Teo, Antonio, Luís, Josep, Fidel, Puri and Jose. Thank you to my dear cousins Pablo, Antonio, Javi, Ricardo, María, Esther, Jesús, Rubén A., Charo, Ruben B., José Luís, Conchi, Leyre, Aymar, and Edgar. Very special thanks to my beloved “lil” brother Alex, of whom I cannot be more proud, and to my dear friend and sister in law Idoia.

Finally and very specially, I am deeply grateful to my parents, Agenor and Carmina, for their unconditional love and support to this internationalist and rebellious son of theirs. Individually and together, you two are simply awesome! Thanks a million to my peasant grandpas Cipriano, Nica, Fernando and especially granny Martina, beloved matriarch warrior who surely was among those who inspired Bertolt Brecht to claim “there are those who struggle for a day and they are good. There are those who struggle for a year and they are better. There are those who struggle many years, and they are better still. But there are those who struggle all their lives: These are the indispensable ones”. La lutxa sigue!

(8)

8 Table of contents List of figures _____________________________________________________________ 12 List of tables ______________________________________________________________ 13 Glossary _________________________________________________________________ 14 Abstract _________________________________________________________________ 17 Samenvatting _____________________________________________________________ 19 Chapter 1 Introduction _________________________________________________________ 21 1.1. Convergent global crises in the early 21st century _______________________________________ 21

1.2. A research problematique and question: Resource extractivism and agro-environmental change in the early 21st Century ______________________________________________________________________ 23

1.3. An in breadth and depth investigation: Analytical approach and methodological strategy outline __ 28 1.4. The rise of agro-extractive capitalism: Core insights from Guatemala in 2006-2014 ____________ 32 1.5. Dissertation overview ___________________________________________________________ 36 Chapter 2 Analytical approach, methodological strategy and research methods ___________ 39

2.1. General analytical approach _______________________________________________________ 39 2.1.1. A broadly cast critical agro-environmental political economy approach ___________________ 39 2.1.2. The agrarian question as a methodological umbrella __________________________________ 42 2.2. A genealogy of agro-environmental change during convergent world crises in Guatemala _______ 43 2.3. Analysis of change and continuity in agro-ecological, policy and social structures ______________ 45 2.3.1. Materialist criteria for the identification of agrarian classes and fractions __________________ 46 2.3.2. Socio-cultural criteria for the intersectional analysis of class structures and differentiation_____ 49 2.4. Interactive analysis of productive relations in agriculture _________________________________ 51 2.4.1. Forces of production and productive relations in agriculture ___________________________ 55 2.4.2. Labor relations ______________________________________________________________ 60 2.4.3. Land relations _______________________________________________________________ 63 2.4.4. Financial relations ____________________________________________________________ 67 2.4.5. Knowledge and technology relations _____________________________________________ 71 2.4.6. Ecological relations ___________________________________________________________ 73 2.5. Multi-dynamic analysis of the politics of agro-environmental change _______________________ 79 2.5.1. Who is involved in the politics of agro-environmental change? _________________________ 88 2.5.2. How do politics of agro-environmental change unfold? _______________________________ 89 2.6. Research methods ______________________________________________________________ 92 2.6.1. Semi-structured interviews _____________________________________________________ 95 2.6.2. Participant observation and observant participation __________________________________ 96 2.6.3. Two waves of gender-differentiated panel household survey ___________________________ 97 2.6.4. Geographic information system analysis ___________________________________________ 98 2.6.5. Secondary source analysis _____________________________________________________ 100 2.6.6. Soil analysis ________________________________________________________________ 100 2.6.7. Water analysis ______________________________________________________________ 101 2.6.8. Documentary films __________________________________________________________ 102 PART I Setting the stage __________________________________________________ 103

Chapter 3 A genealogy of the agro-extractive capitalist project _______________________ 103 3.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 103

(9)

9

3.2. Agro-extractive mercantilism: Dynamics of agro-environmental change under imperialism in Guatemala circa 1871-1943 ______________________________________________________________ 106 3.3. The social-democratic project of agro-capitalism from Below: Cold War agro-environmental change in Guatemala during 1944-1954 __________________________________________________________ 117 3.4. Bullets and beans agro-capitalism: Cold War agro-environmental change in Guatemala circa 1955-1985 122

3.5. Purge agro-capitalism: Agro-environmental change under neoliberal globalization in Guatemala circa 1986-2005 ___________________________________________________________________________ 132 3.5.1. Macro structural adjustment ___________________________________________________ 137 3.5.2. Sectoral adjustment __________________________________________________________ 140 3.5.3. Outcomes of the neoliberal onslaught on the countryside: Purge agro-capitalism __________ 153 3.5.3.1. Agro-environmental politics during peace negotiations __________________________ 160 3.5.3.2. Agro-environmental politics during the first peace decade _______________________ 162 Chapter 4 The “green gold” pandemic in the Guatemalan agro-ecological, social and policy structures during 2006-2014 ____________________________________________________ 169

4.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 169 4.2. The rise of the Guatemalan flex cane and palm complexes under the convergent global crises conjuncture __________________________________________________________________________ 175

4.2.1. Flex cane and palm commodity fever in Guatemala in the early 21st century ______________ 177

4.2.2. Cane and palm as favorites of the “Almighties” ____________________________________ 181 4.3. Change and continuity in the agro-ecological structure _________________________________ 184 4.4. Change and continuity in the social structure _________________________________________ 189 4.4.1. Dominant agrarian classes _____________________________________________________ 190 4.4.2. Subordinate agrarian classes ___________________________________________________ 196 4.4.2.1. Empirical identification of subordinate agrarian classes and fractions _______________ 197 4.4.2.2. Features and differentiation tendencies for subordinate agrarian classes _____________ 200 4.5. Change and continuity in the policy structure ________________________________________ 210 4.5.1. Neoliberalism 2.0: The policy structure under the Global Redesign Initiative and neo-institutional paradigms ________________________________________________________________________ 211 4.5.2. Accumulation for dominant agrarian classes _______________________________________ 213 4.5.3. Integration and safety nets for subordinate agrarian classes ___________________________ 218 PART II Interactive analysis of productive relations in Guatemalan agriculture under converging global crises ___________________________________________________ 225

Chapter 5 Labor relations ______________________________________________________ 225 5.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 225 5.2. Labor and labor market _________________________________________________________ 228 5.3. Flex palm companies’ labor regime fix and plantation workers ___________________________ 232 5.4. Flex palm companies’ labor regime fix and palm fruit suppliers __________________________ 242 5.5. Flex palm companies’ labor regime fix and other labor regimes in farming __________________ 244 Chapter 6 Land relations ______________________________________________________ 253

6.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 253 6.2. Land control mechanisms by flex cane and palm companies _____________________________ 257 6.2.1. Land deals by flex cane and palm companies with dominant agrarian classes ______________ 259 6.2.2. Land deals by flex cane and palm companies with subordinate agrarian classes ____________ 260 6.3. Implications of land control mechanisms by flex cane and palm companies on land relations ___ 272 6.3.1. Implications for fragmented agrarian classes to gain, regain and expand land access ________ 273 6.3.2. Implications for fragmented agrarian classes to maintain and control land access __________ 282

(10)

10

Chapter 7 Financial relations ___________________________________________________ 293 7.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 293 7.2. The “financialization 3.0” wave of the Guatemalan economy ____________________________ 297 7.2.1. The state as creditor and debtor ________________________________________________ 298 7.2.2. Private finance and financiers __________________________________________________ 301 7.3. Financialization 3.0 in the flex cane and palm complexes _______________________________ 307 7.3.1. Financial fix upgrading old financial tools: Heightened and diversified bank loans __________ 309 7.3.2. Financial fix through new financial tools: Securitization ______________________________ 310 7.4. Financialization 3.0 for subordinate agrarian classes ___________________________________ 316 7.4.1. Credit relations of fragmented subordinate agrarian classes in the northern lowlands _______ 317 Chapter 8 Knowledge and technology relations ____________________________________ 323

8.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 323 8.2. Knowledge and technology relations in the flex cane and palm complexes __________________ 326 8.2.1. Knowledge and technology relations in cane and palm farming ________________________ 328 8.2.2. The Knowledge fix in flex cane and palm commodity production ______________________ 329 8.2.2.1. Flex cane commodity production __________________________________________ 331 8.2.2.2. Flex palm commodity production __________________________________________ 334 8.3. Knowledge and technology relations in subordinate agrarian class farming __________________ 336 Chapter 9 Ecological relations __________________________________________________ 345

9.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 345 9.2. Social metabolism of flex cane and palm commodity production _________________________ 349 9.2.1. Appropriation and use of environmental goods ____________________________________ 349 9.2.2. Pollutants and waste in flex cane and palm commodity production _____________________ 353 9.3. Ecological relations in flex cane and palm commodity production ________________________ 361 9.3.1. Ecological relations of access to environmental goods _______________________________ 362 9.3.2. Ecological relations of pollutants and waste transfer ________________________________ 368 9.3.3. “Acclimatization” of flex cane and palm commodity production _______________________ 372 Chapter 10 The agro-extractive capitalist project ___________________________________ 377

10.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 377 10.2. Agro-extractive capitalist productive relations in historical perspective _____________________ 382 10.2.1. Historical traits ___________________________________________________________ 382 10.2.2. Historical distinctiveness ___________________________________________________ 385 10.3. On agro-extractive capitalist productive relations _____________________________________ 391 10.3.1. The agro-extractive capitalist project: Capitalist in nature __________________________ 391 10.3.2. The agro-extractive capitalist project: Extractivist in character ______________________ 395 10.3.3. The agro-extractive capitalist project: Contentious since the very beginning ____________ 397 PART III Multi-dynamic politics of agro-environmental change in Guatemala under converging global crises ___________________________________________________ 403

Chapter 11 Supporters of the agro-extractive capitalist project ________________________ 403 11.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 403 11.2. Cast of characters ______________________________________________________________ 409 11.3. Political agenda and contention frame ______________________________________________ 411 11.4. Repertoire of contention ________________________________________________________ 416 11.4.1. Trojan horse strategy ______________________________________________________ 417 11.4.1.1. Divide and rule tactic ___________________________________________________ 418 11.4.2. Discursive flexibility strategy ________________________________________________ 421

(11)

11

11.4.2.1. Selective representation tactic _____________________________________________ 421 11.4.2.2. Strategic choice of use-discourse tactic ______________________________________ 422 11.4.3. Staying alive strategy _______________________________________________________ 424 11.4.3.1. Response-ability by decree tactic ___________________________________________ 426 11.4.3.2. Response-ability by market compulsion tactic _________________________________ 428 11.4.4. The iron fist in velvet glove strategy ___________________________________________ 431 11.4.4.1. Rule of law tactic _______________________________________________________ 431 11.4.4.2. Jungle law tactic ________________________________________________________ 437 11.5. Politics across supporters ________________________________________________________ 439 11.5.1. Across agro-extractivists and national financiers _________________________________ 441 11.5.2. Across agro-extractivists and rentier landlords, outgrowers and contract-farmers ________ 441 11.5.3. Across large cane and palm producers and modern dependent agrarian bourgeois _______ 442 11.5.4. Across absentee agro-extractivists and parochial dominant classes ___________________ 444 11.5.5. Across agro-extractivists and amenable response-ability gatekeepers __________________ 444 11.6. Politics within supporters ________________________________________________________ 445 11.6.1. Material politics __________________________________________________________ 445 11.6.2. Generational politics ______________________________________________________ 447 Chapter 12 Challengers of the agro-extractive capitalist project _______________________ 451

12.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 451 12.2. Cast of characters ______________________________________________________________ 455 12.3. Political agenda and frame of contention ____________________________________________ 458 12.4. Repertoire of contention ________________________________________________________ 466 12.4.1. Convergence strategy ______________________________________________________ 467 12.4.1.1. Intersectionalization of grievances tactic _____________________________________ 468 12.4.1.2. Interweaving of struggles and forms of struggling______________________________ 469 12.4.2. Land sovereignty strategy ___________________________________________________ 471 12.4.2.1. Gain and regain land access _______________________________________________ 472 12.4.2.2. Maintain and control land access ___________________________________________ 477 ƒ Struggles to preempt forced land sales and harness willful ones ________________________ 477 12.5. Politics across challengers _______________________________________________________ 485 12.5.1. Across fragmented subordinate class challengers _________________________________ 485 12.5.2. Across national partisan social justice movements ________________________________ 488 12.6. Politics within challengers _______________________________________________________ 491 12.6.1. Within fragmented subordinate class challengers _________________________________ 491 12.6.2. Within the national partisan peasant movement __________________________________ 492 Chapter 13 Accommodators to the agro-extractive capitalist project ___________________ 499

13.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 499 13.2. Cast of characters ______________________________________________________________ 504 13.3. Political agenda and frame of contention ____________________________________________ 508 13.4. Repertoire of contention ________________________________________________________ 511 13.4.1. Win-win private accountability strategy ________________________________________ 512 13.4.1.1. Response-ability by market compulsion _____________________________________ 513 13.4.1.2. Watchdog ____________________________________________________________ 515 13.4.2. Chicken bus assistant strategy _______________________________________________ 517 13.4.2.1. Incorporation improvement ______________________________________________ 517 13.4.2.2. Collateral damage reduction ______________________________________________ 522 13.4.3. The backdoor strategy _____________________________________________________ 528 13.4.3.1. Narco-tacos ___________________________________________________________ 530

(12)

12

13.4.3.2. Enchi-maras ___________________________________________________________ 531 13.5. Politics across accommodators ___________________________________________________ 533 13.6. Politics within accommodators ___________________________________________________ 534 13.6.1. Within amenable accommodators ____________________________________________ 534 13.6.2. Within reluctant accommodators _____________________________________________ 535 Chapter 14 Conclusions _______________________________________________________ 537

14.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 537 14.2. The agro-extractive capitalist project through the looking glass: Agro-ecological, social and policy structures ___________________________________________________________________________ 538 14.3. The agro-extractive capitalist project: Capitalist in nature, extractivist in character ____________ 542 14.4. Authoritarian corpopulism as agro-extractive capitalism’s political side _____________________ 544 14.5. Anything but a story foretold: Accommodators and challengers of the agro-extractive capitalist project 549

14.5.1. Challenging the agro-extractive capitalist project _________________________________ 550 14.5.2. Accommodating to the agro-extractive capitalist project ___________________________ 554 List of references _________________________________________________________ 559

Annexes ________________________________________________________________ 603

Annex 1 Interviews and meaningful events ________________________________________ 603 15.1. Individual semi-structured interviews ______________________________________________ 603 15.2. Group interviews ______________________________________________________________ 606 15.3. Participation in meaningful events _________________________________________________ 607 Annex 2 Statistical design of the gender divided household survey stratified at village level 611

List of figures

Figure 1 Food, fuel (energy) and metals commodity price indexes 1992-2017 (2005=100) ____________________________ 22 Figure 2 Map of Guatemala with sub-regions, departments and municipalities of research in the northern lowlands region. _______ 31 Figure 3 Primary categorization of agrarian classes according to nature of labor relations and position in the class structure _______ 48 Figure 4 Multiple forces of production, components and portions of agro-commodity value, and diverse productive relations in agriculture _________________________________________________________________________________________ 54 Figure 5 Multi-dynamic politics framework ____________________________________________________________ 83 Figure 6 Flight route for aerial pictures of cane and palm areas in the northern lowlands. January 2010. ___________________ 99 Figure 7 Water sampling areas ___________________________________________________________________ 102 Figure 8 Most favored nation import tariff rate (in %) in Guatemala. 1985-2005 ________________________________ 138 Figure 9 Guatemalan private banks’ assets. 1989-2005 (US$ millions) _______________________________________ 149 Figure 10 Guatemalan System of Protected Areas (SIGAP). ______________________________________________ 152 Figure 11 Number of chicken and pigs in Guatemala. 1986-2005 ___________________________________________ 154 Figure 12 Guatemalans living abroad before the 1960s and up to 2000 _______________________________________ 157 Figure 13 International monthly prices for cane sugar. 1986-2014 (US$/MT) __________________________________ 176 Figure 14 International monthly prices for crude palm oil. 1986-2014 (US$/MT) ________________________________ 176 Figure 15 Land under cane and palm cultivation in Guatemala. 1982-2014 (in thousand hectares) _____________________ 178 Figure 16 Cane sugar production and exports in Guatemala. 2006-2014 (thousands of MTs) ________________________ 179 Figure 17 Crude palm oil production and exports in Guatemala. 2006-2014 (thousands of MTs) ______________________ 179 Figure 18 Map of cultivated and potential land for palm in the Northern Transversal Strip. 2010. _____________________ 185 Figure 19 Map of cultivated and potential land for palm in South Petén. 2010 ___________________________________ 186

(13)

13

Figure 20 Map of cultivated and potential land for palm in Polochic. 2010 _____________________________________ 187 Figure 21 Households according to members of an economically active age employed for at least two months in the year (in %). 2010 and 2014.* ___________________________________________________________________________________ 228 Figure 22 Average wage for palm plantation workers as a share of the legal minimum and the daily cost of the Food and Basic Needs Baskets. 2010 and 2014 (%). ___________________________________________________________________ 234 Figure 23 Working-days per hectare/year in cane, palm and common subordinate class cultivator crops. 2009 ______________ 238 Figure 24 Bidders and buyers of petty land owners’ land according to their relevance. 2010 and 2014 (%) _________________ 264 Figure 25 Reasons for rejecting land purchase bids. 2010 and 2014 (%) _______________________________________ 267 Figure 26 Reasons behind increased land prices. 2010 and 2014 (in %) _______________________________________ 274 Figure 27 HHs with state-endorsed land ownership by type of land title deed. 2010 and 2014 (%) _____________________ 288 Figure 28 Loanable money supply by the Guatemalan Central Bank: Total and by public/ private sector. 1986-2014 (US$ million) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 299 Figure 29 Guatemala’s sovereign debt: Total, external and domestic. 1986-2014 (US$ million) _______________________ 300 Figure 30 Assets of the Guatemalan banking system. 1989-2014 (real US$ million) ______________________________ 302 Figure 31 Real growth rates of assets and profits in the Guatemalan banking system. 1999-2005 and 2006-2014 (%) _______ 302 Figure 32 Investment loans in Guatemala. Total, by domestic private banks, by foreign private banks, and by international financial institutions. 2001-2014 (US$ million) _____________________________________________________________ 303 Figure 33 Credit in the Guatemalan banking system: Total and by purpose. 2008-2014 (US$ and %) __________________ 304 Figure 34 Interest rates by private banks and alternative financial actors, by credit use. 2013 (%) ______________________ 306 Figure 35 Board interlocks of Guatemalan flex agribusinesses with off-shore financial companies _______________________ 313 Figure 36 Credit debt in 2010 and 2014 for fragmented subordinate agrarian classes in the research zones. ________________ 317 Figure 37 Credit use among subordinate agrarian class lowlanders. 2010, 2014 and 2014-2010 change (%) ______________ 318 Figure 38 Multiple-ness and flexible-ness of the Guatemalan flex cane complex in 2014. ____________________________ 333 Figure 39 Multiple-ness and flexible-ness of the Guatemalan flex palm complex in 2014. ____________________________ 336 Figure 40 Lowlander cultivators’ ideas on how to improve land yields. 2014 _____________________________________ 338 Figure 41 Total dissolved solids (TDS) in milligrams/liter, salinity (S) in grams/kilogram and electrical conductivity (EC) in microsiemens/centimeter of water samples ____________________________________________________________ 358 Figure 42 Dissolved oxygen (O2) in water samples (in milligrams/liter) ________________________________________ 359

Figure 43 Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of water samples (in millivolts) __________________________________ 360 Figure 44 PH and temperature (°C) of water samples ___________________________________________________ 361 Figure 45 Reasons for decreasing land yields by subordinate class cultivators. 2010 and 2014 (%) ______________________ 365 Figure 46 Household freshwater sources. 2014 ________________________________________________________ 368

List of tables

Table 1 Criteria for the identification of agrarian classes and fractions __________________________________________ 49 Table 2 Primary socio-cultural class divisions according to position in the class structure_______________________________ 51 Table 3 Diverse productive relations around multiple forces of production in agriculture _______________________________ 52 Table 4 Land use in 2000 in the land converted to cane plantations between 2000 and 2010 _________________________ 188 Table 5 Land use in 2005 in the land converted to palm plantations between 2005 and 2010 ________________________ 189 Table 6 Dominant agrarian classes and fractions: 2006 and 2014 class position features, and 2006-2014 class differentiation tendencies _________________________________________________________________________________ 191 Table 7 Preliminary categories of subordinate agrarian class households following labor criteria _________________________ 198 Table 8 Subordinate agrarian classes and fractions in the northern lowlands following mixed materialist criteria _____________ 200 Table 9 Share of HHs within subordinate agrarian classes and fractions in 2010 and 2014, and relative change 2014-2010 ___ 201 Table 10 Subordinate agrarian class HH position in the 2014 class structure according to their position in the 2010 class structure 203 Table 11 Subordinate agrarian classes and fractions by age groups. 2010, 2014 and relative change 2014-2010. ____________ 205 Table 12 Subordinate agrarian classes by consumer-labor balance ratio groups. 2010 and 2014________________________ 207

(14)

14

Table 13 Subordinate agrarian class HHs by average total members and members of an economically active age. 2010 and 2014 _ 208 Table 14 Subordinate agrarian class HHs by average number of women and men of an economically active age. 2010 and 2014 __ 209 Table 15 Job sources for two to twelve months a year. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (in %) ______________________ 229 Table 16 Job sources for two to twelve months by age group of the head-of-HH man. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (in %) __ 230 Table 17 Employment and fringe benefits for palm plantation workers. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (%) ____________ 235 Table 18 Palm plantation workers by class. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (in %) ____________________________ 236 Table 19 Work-day duration in corporate palm plantations. 2010, 2014, and change 2014-2010 _____________________ 236 Table 20 Months of employment in corporate palm plantations. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (in %) _______________ 239 Table 21 Employment and fringe benefits for workers in petty capitalist farming. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (%) ______ 245 Table 22 Work-day duration in petty capitalist farming. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (%) ______________________ 246 Table 23 Number of working months in petty capitalist farming. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (%) ________________ 247 Table 24 Farm labor-exchanging HHs over total farming HHs by subordinate class position. 2010, 2014 & 2014-2010 change (%) ________________________________________________________________________________________ 249 Table 25 Farm labor-exchanging HHs in 2014 by their class position in 2010 __________________________________ 250 Table 26 Land sales following purchase bids and land purchase bids according to their success. 2010 and 2014 (%) __________ 262 Table 27 Land purchase bids and sales of titled land by type of title deed. 2010 and 2014 (%) ________________________ 266 Table 28 Character of land deals involving agrarian subordinate classes, in general and by buyer’s scale of capital ____________ 272 Table 29 Subordinate agrarian class land ownership structure. 2010, 2014 and 2014-2010 change (%) _________________ 276 Table 30 Head of HH man’s age groups by land ownership groups. 2010 and 2014 (%) ___________________________ 277 Table 31 Classes and fractions by land ownership categories. 2010 and 2014 (%). ________________________________ 279 Table 32 Average cultivated land by petty land ownership categories. 2010 and 2014 (has.) and 2014-2010 change (%) ______ 281 Table 33 Type of land title deed by head of HH man’s age group. 2010 and 2014 (%) _____________________________ 289 Table 34 Type of land title deed by class and class fraction. 2010 and 2014 (%) _________________________________ 290 Table 35 Agro-commodity value portions rendered fictitious capital during main financialization waves of the Guatemalan economy (1871-2014) _______________________________________________________________________________ 295 Table 36 Flex cane and palm companies Clean Development Mechanism projects and CERs _________________________ 315 Table 37 Irrigation water use by main irrigated crops in Guatemala. 2003 and 2010 (millions of m3), and 2010-2003 change (%)

________________________________________________________________________________________ 353 Table 38 Perspectives of subordinate class men and women villagers on changes in their family’s well-being following flex cane and palm companies’ expansion. 2010 and 2014. _____________________________________________________________ 399 Table 39 Supporters’ repertoire of contention in the northern lowlands during 2006-2014 ____________________________ 417 Table 40 Repertoire of contention in defense of territory in the northern lowlands in 2006-2014 ________________________ 466 Table 41 Community decision-makers across research zones in the northern lowlands. 2010 and 2014.___________________ 482 Table 42 Share of women and men who think there is a bad relation between village land sellers and non-sellers. 2010 and 2014 _ 488 Table 43 Accommodators’ repertoire of contention in the northern lowlands in 2006-2014 ___________________________ 512

Glossary

ACOFOP Petén’s Forest Communities Association

ADINC Farmers Association for the Comprehensive Development of the Northern Basin of the Chixoy River ADRI Alliance for Comprehensive Rural Development

AGEXPORT Guatemalan Exporters Association AMR Rural Women Alliance

ANACAFE National Coffee Association

(15)

15 ASAZGUA Guatemalan Sugar Producers Association BANGUAT Guatemala National Bank

BANRURAL National Rural Development Bank CABEI Central American Bank of Economic Integration

CACIF Coordinating Committee of Financial, Industrial, Commercial and Agricultural Chambers of Guatemala CAMAGRO Agricultural Chamber of Guatemala

CCDA Peasant Committee of the Highlands

CentraRSE Guatemalan Business Council for Sustainable Development

CHN National Bank of Mortgage Credit of Guatemala

CICIG International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala CNOC National Coordination of Peasant Organizations CODECA Peasant Development Committee

CONAP National Council of Protected Areas

CONGCOOP Guatemalan Coordination of NGOs and Cooperatives CONIC National Indigenous-Peasant Coordination

COPMAGUA Coordination of Organizations of the Maya People of Guatemala CSA Climate Smart Agriculture

CUC Committee for Peasant Unity DoT Defense of territory

DR-CAFTA Dominican Republic, Central America Free Trade Agreement with the US ECAS Associative Peasant Enterprises

ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean of the United Nations FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FGT Guillermo Toriello Foundation FONTIERRAS Guatemala’s Land Fund

FUNDESA Foundation for the Development of Guatemala FYDEP Company for the Promotion and Development of the Petén HEIA High external input agriculture

IDEAR Guatemalan Institute of Agrarian and Rural Studies IDB Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)

IICA Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture INTA National Institute of Agrarian Transformation IOM International Organization for Migration

(16)

16 IPC International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty GREPALMA Guatemalan Palm Growers Guild

LEIA Low external-input agriculture

MAGA Guatemalan Minister of Agriculture, Food, and Livestock MLAR Market-led agrarian reform

MOSGUA Social Organizations’ Movement of Guatemala NTAX non-traditional agricultural exports

OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights PACs Collective Agrarian Patrimonies

PAFFEC Family Farming Program for the Strengthening of Peasant Economy PGT Guatemalan Labor Party/ communist party

PNDRI Comprehensive Rural Development Policy PROPALMA Small-scale Palm Contract-Farming Program

REDD+ United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

RIC Cadastral Information Registry RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil SAA Secretariat of Agrarian Affairs of Guatemala SIGAP Guatemalan System of Protected Areas SIPI Ixcán Union of Independent Palm Growers TCCC The Coca Cola Company

TGs Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security

UNAC National Peasant Union

UNEP United Nations N Environmental Programme URNG Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity US United States of America

USTR US Trade Representative WB World Bank

WTO World Trade Organization WWF World Wildlife Fund

YASTACS Young although smartly-trained activists YASTEXES Young although smartly-trained executives

(17)

17

Abstract

‘When she awoke, the dinosaur was still there’ (Monterroso 1998 [1959], 77)

Financial, food, energy and environmental/climate crises detonate in 2007-2008 and smolder for years to follow. A global, yet uneven, resurgence of natural resource extractivism and consolidation of

environmental services in capital accumulation and climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies both drive and express the convergent crises conjuncture in the early 21st century. Global demand for

agro-commodities grows, expanding beyond traditional food, fiber and feed uses to include liquid fuels, bio-materials and carbon sinks, in what becomes the rise of ‘flex crops and commodities complexes’ (Borras et al. 2016). The “land grabbing” and “new extractivism” research agendas in response to the multiple and convergent crises conjuncture have brought issues of contemporary agro-environmental change into the spotlight.

However, both streams of literature have run parallel to one another. While they have offered important insights, the findings have often been disconnected, and therefore partial, in addressing a common problem. Building on trailblazing efforts to bridge critical (agrarian) political economy and political ecology perspectives, I aim to comprehend the nature, character and trajectories of agro-environmental change, and the politics that enable and constrain them, under heightened resource extractivism during the convergent crises conjuncture. Hence, my inquiry is driven by the question: How does early 21st-century

resource extractivism shape the nature, character and directions of agro-environmental change, and with what implications for whom?

My findings suggest that the restructuring of the agricultural relations of production that results from the rise of flex crops and commodities complexes, as well as the political dynamics behind such an

occurrence, underpin a distinct model of resource extractivism after the turn of the century. My examination of this phenomenon in Guatemala during the 2006-2014 period offers a series of insights that may resonate elsewhere. Most especially, burgeoning flex cane and palm complexes from 2005 onward fuel the rise of a distinct form of biomass extractivism. I call this the agro-extractive capitalist project. This particular form of organizing labor-power, land, money-capital, knowledge and technology and external nature into agro-commodity production is capitalist in nature, extractivist in character and underpinned by a new politics of racialized class domination. Regarding the first claim, I argue that value in flex cane and palm commodity production is generated through the exploitation of mostly free labor, with the exception of some residual pockets that still rely on forced labor. But in the largely job-scarce context of Guatemala in the early 21st century, the expansion of cane and palm plantations which results

in job losses rather than gains is behind the burgeoning of rural surplus population. Furthermore, the agro-extractive capitalist project downgrades many subordinate class villagers from the latent to the stagnant section of surplus population—or that on the edge of survival. Hence, the agro-extractive capitalist project is fundamentally capitalist in that it not only enlarges the “reserve army of labor”, but also pushes the surplus population to the limits of subsistence.

Regarding the second claim, the agro-extractive capitalist project is extractivist in character for three reasons. First, flex cane and palm commodity production is underpinned by the extraction and appropriation of increasingly diverse (agro)commodity surplus value portions and state revenues. As a result, flex cane and palm companies are able to reap super-profits. Additionally, appropriated surplus value and state revenues are progressively financialized, and thus realized in monetary form to fund accumulation in the flex cane and palm complexes. Second, flex cane and palm commodity production involves the appropriation of productive and reproductive labor of the plantation workers’ families for free. It additionally includes the stockpiling of natural goods and disposal of waste and pollutants at zero

(18)

18

cost. Third, hyper-intensive flex cane and palm commodity production damages workers’ health and vitality, and exhausts external nature’s energy and materials. It does so in ways that compromise cane and palm commodity production from the cost side, and upends life in the countryside and beyond. Regarding the third claim, the agro-extractive capitalist project shapes and expresses a new politics of class domination that I call authoritarian corpopulism. Supporters of the overarching project develop an authoritarian corpopulist agenda to recast flex cane and palm commodity production. Instead of simply being yet another accumulation project, proponents of agro-extractivism frame it as an extraordinary response-able phenomenon capable of feeding the world, generating green energy and cooling down the planet, while at the same time sponsoring employment and stimulating economic growth. This agenda involves two strategic shifts. First is the “multistakeholderization” of flex cane and palm commodity chains. And second is swapping out the “bullets and beans” agenda of authoritarian-paternalistic military regimes, once used to counter the communist threat during the Cold War era. Instead, authoritarian corpopulism relies on persuasion—and selective violence cloaked in the rule of law—to counter critique and opposition to the agro-extractive capitalist project. But in addition to the policy concessions (i.e. public grants and multi-stakeholder governance) that are part of populist political regimes elsewhere, authoritarian corpopulism brings in concessions in private relations of production. As a result, flex cane and palm companies gain recognition coin a fame as pro-social businesses, while simultaneously increasing labor and land productivity, expanding plantations, accessing new funds, reducing production costs, and contributing to the reproduction of their businesses’ personal and natural conditions of production.

However, the politics behind early 21st-century resource extractivism in Guatemala are anything but a

story foretold. The agro-extractive capitalist project also triggers reactions from state and social actors that take both challenging and accommodative standpoints. Challengers use their dissent and/or unrest as a practice of contestation against the agro-extractive capitalist project, and advocate for a transformative project. Accommodators struggle to tame the virulence of the agro-extractive capitalist project, and/or to accommodate themselves to it in the best possible way. They are further divided according to their character (i.e. lawful or criminal) and will (i.e. amenable or reluctant). In sum, the agro-extractive capitalist project reshapes the political terrain of agro-environmental and capitalist transformations through alliances between corporates, the state and a Guatemalan white, oligarchic bourgeoisie permeating both of the foregoing. By legitimizing flex cane and palm commodity production through populist moves, and recurring to force when needed, dissent is suppressed and accommodations are worked out. The result is a new politics of racialized class domination, which ultimate trajectory has yet to be seen.

(19)

19

Samenvatting

In 2007-2008 zijn financiële crises en crises op het gebied van voedsel, energie en milieu/klimaat ontstaan die nog jaren doorwerken. Een mondiale, maar ongelijke opleving van het extractivisme van natuurlijke hulpbronnen en de consolidatie van milieudiensten in kapitaalaangroei en strategieën voor aanpassing aan klimaatverandering geven uitdrukking aan de samenvallende crises in het begin van de 21e eeuw en dragen er ook aan bij. De wereldwijde vraag naar agrogrondstoffen groeit en breidt zich uit van traditioneel voedsel-, vezel- en veevoedergebruik naar vloeibare brandstoffen, biomaterialen en

koolstofputten. Dit leidt tot de opkomst van 'complexen van flexibele gewassen en producten' (Borras et al. 2016). Het onderzoek naar 'landjepik' en 'nieuw extractivisme' dat op gang is gekomen na de meervoudige en samenvallende crisissituatie heeft de problematiek van de hedendaagse agro-milieuverandering in de schijnwerpers gezet.

Dit zijn echter twee aparte onderdelen van de onderzoeksliteratuur. Hoewel er belangrijke inzichten uit naar voren komen, zijn de bevindingen vaak losstaand, en dus slechts gedeeltelijk bruikbaar om een gemeenschappelijk probleem aan te pakken. Dit onderzoek bouwt voort op baanbrekende inspanningen om cruciale inzichten uit de (agrarische) politieke economie en politieke ecologie te combineren. Het doel van het onderzoek is om inzicht te krijgen in de aard, het karakter en de trajecten van agro-milieuverandering en de politiek die deze verandering mogelijk maakt en beperkt ten tijde van versterkt extractivisme van hulpbronnen in de samenvallende crisissituaties. Op basis hiervan is de centrale onderzoeksvraag: Hoe bepaalt het extractivisme van hulpbronnen aan het begin van de 21e eeuw de aard, het karakter en de richting van de agro-milieuveranderingen, en wat zijn de gevolgen voor welke actoren?

De gegevens wijzen erop dat de herstructurering van de landbouwproductie die het gevolg is van zowel de opkomst van complexen van flexibele gewassen en producten als de achtergelegen politieke dynamiek, de basis vormt voor een duidelijk herkenbaar model van extractivisme van hulpbronnen na de

eeuwwisseling. Het hier beschreven onderzoek naar dit verschijnsel vond in 2006-2014 plaats in Guatemala. Het heeft inzichten opgeleverd die ook elders van toepassing kunnen zijn. Vooral de bloeiende flexibele suikerriet- en palmcomplexen bevorderen sinds 2005 de opkomst van een duidelijke vorm van biomassa-extractivisme. In dit proefschrift wordt dit het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project genoemd. Deze specifieke vorm van het organiseren van arbeidskracht, grond, geld-kapitaal, kennis en technologie en externe natuur in de agrogrondstoffenproductie is kapitalistisch, winningsgericht en stoelt op een nieuwe politiek van raciale klassenoverheersing.

Wat de eerste stelling betreft wordt in dit proefschrift betoogd dat de waarde die de productie van flexibele suikerriet- en palmrondstoffen oplevert ontstaat door vooral gebruik te maken van gratis arbeid, met uitzondering van enkele overgebleven gevallen van dwangarbeid. Binnen de context van het gebrek aan banen in Guatemala in het begin van de 21e eeuw is de uitbreiding van suikerriet- en palmplantages, die eerder tot minder dan tot meer banen leidt, echter de oorzaak van het toenemende

bevolkingsoverschot op het platteland. Bovendien heeft het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project tot gevolg dat veel dorpelingen uit de lagere sociale klassen afglijden naar het stagnerende deel van de overtollige bevolking. Daar bevinden ze zich aan de rand van het bestaansminimum. Dit betekent dat het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project niet alleen het 'reserveleger van arbeidskrachten' vergroot, maar ook de overtollige bevolking in een situatie brengt waarin ze nauwelijks kunnen overleven.

Wat de tweede stelling betreft zijn er drie redenen voor het winningskarakter van het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project. Ten eerste wordt de productie van flexibele suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen ondersteund door de toe-eigening van steeds diverser wordende delen van de meerwaarde van (agro)grondstoffen en overheidsinkomsten. Hierdoor kunnen bedrijven in de flexibele suikerriet- en

(20)

20

palmproductie superwinsten behalen. Daarnaast worden de toegeëigende meerwaarde en de

overheidsinkomsten geleidelijk gefinancialiseerd, en zo in geld omgezet om de accumulatie in de flexibele suikerriet- en palmplantages te financieren. Ten tweede wordt bij de productie van flexibele suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen gratis gebruikgemaakt van de productieve en reproductieve arbeid van de gezinnen van de plantagearbeiders. Verder worden bij deze productie kosteloos voorraden natuurlijke hulpbronnen aangehouden en afval en vervuilende stoffen verwijderd. Ten derde schaadt de hyper intensieve productie van flexibele suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen de gezondheid en vitaliteit van de arbeiders. Ook zorgt dit alles voor uitputting van natuurlijke hulpbronnen. De productiewijze van suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen is vanuit het oogpunt van de kosten onverantwoord en verstoort het leven op het platteland en

daarbuiten.

Wat betreft de derde stelling: het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project geeft vorm en uitdrukking aan een nieuwe politiek van klassenheerschappij. Daarvoor is in dit proefschrift de term autoritair corpopulisme bedacht. Aanhangers van het overkoepelende project ontwikkelen een autoritair corpopulistische agenda om de productie van flexibele suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen in een nieuwe vorm te gieten. In plaats van het te presenteren als het zoveelste accumulatieproject, noemen voorstanders van agro-extractivisme het een buitengewoon 'verantwoord' initiatief. Dit zou het niet alleen mogelijk maken om de wereld van voedsel te voorzien, groene energie op te wekken en de planeet te koelen, maar ook om werkgelegenheid te scheppen en economische groei te bevorderen. Deze agenda brengt twee strategische veranderingen met zich mee. Ten eerste de introductie van meerdere stakeholders in de productieketen van flexibele suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen. Ten tweede het inruilen van de 'bewapeningsagenda' van autoritair-paternalistische militaire regimes, die tijdens de Koude Oorlog de communistische dreiging moest bezweren. In plaats daarvan maakt autoritair corpopulisme gebruik van overtuiging − en selectief van geweld onder het mom van handhaving van de rechtsorde. Hiermee wordt kritiek op en verzet tegen het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project geneutraliseerd. Naast de concessies op het gebied van beleid (namelijk overheidssubsidies en multistakeholder-governance) die populistische politieke regimes elders doen, brengt autoritair corpopulisme ook concessies met zich mee op het gebied van particuliere productierelaties. Hierdoor krijgen producenten van flexibele suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen erkenning als prosociale bedrijven. Tegelijkertijd neemt de arbeids- en grondproductiviteit toe en breiden deze bedrijven plantages uit, boren ze nieuwe geldbronnen aan, verminderen ze productiekosten en leveren ze een bijdrage aan de reproductie van de persoonlijke en natuurlijke productievoorwaarden van hun onderneming.

De politiek achter het grondstoffenextractivisme in Guatemala aan het begin van de 21e eeuw is echter allesbehalve een uitgekristalliseerd verhaal. Het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project lokt ook reacties uit van overheids- en maatschappelijke actoren die zowel kritische als instemmende standpunten innemen. De critici verzetten zich met hun afwijkende mening en/of onrust tegen het agro-extractieve

kapitalistische project en pleiten voor een transformatief project. Mensen die ermee instemmen worstelen met de schadelijke kanten van het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project en/of proberen zich zo goed mogelijk aan te passen. Verder houden sommige actoren zich aan de wet, maar vertonen andere illegaal gedrag, en willen sommige actoren meewerken terwijl andere terughoudend zijn. Samenvattend hervormt het agro-extractieve kapitalistische project de politiek van landbouw-milieu- en kapitalistische

transformaties. Dit gebeurt door middel van allianties tussen bedrijven, de overheid en een blanke, oligarchische bourgeoisie van Guatemala die zich begeeft op beide genoemde gebieden. De productie van flexibele suikerriet- en palmgrondstoffen wordt gelegitimeerd door middel van populisme en zo nodig met gebruik van geweld. Op deze wijze wordt tegenstand onderdrukt en komt men tot een vergelijk. Dit resulteert in een nieuwe politiek van raciale klassenoverheersing waarvan de afloop nog niet vaststaat.

(21)

21

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Convergent global crises in the early 21st century

Long in the making, climate/environmental, energy, food and financial crises detonate in the in 2007-2008 and smolder for years to follow. At times competing and at others mutually-reinforcing vectors and expressions for these convergent crises include: i) mounting financial speculation on hydrocarbon, mineral and biomass commodities futures,1 following the financialization wave of the world economy since the 1970s;2 ii) heightened global demand for raw materials and agricultural commodities on the heels of the rise of the BRICS and MICS since the 1990s;3 iii) peaking world oil production,4 and; iv) increasing temperature and occurrence of severe weather events associated to ‘anthropogenic’5—or rather ‘capitalocenic’6—climate change.7

Beyond their ultimate reasons, there are two key and interrelated “booms” behind the global crises. On the one hand there is a surge in transition discourses, including moving towards green energy, feeding a growing world population, taking climate change seriously, and to a lesser extent, building more reliable financial and monetary systems. While competing and often even ruling out each other, ideas on how to tackle the global crises stem from state,8 corporate9 and social actors,10 and persist well beyond the aftermath of the financial crisis detonation in 2007-2008. On the other hand prices for raw and semi-processed natural resource-based commodities begin to soar since 2001 and especially from 2007-2008 onward, albeit in a highly volatile fashion11 (ECLAC et al. 2011). Figure 1 shows that whereas the commodities boom collapses around 2014, prices for metals, food and fuel (energy) remain significantly higher than those prior to the mid-2000s.

1 Clapp (2009), Ghosh (2010), Isakson (2014b)

2 Epstein (2005) Krippner (2005), Duménil and Lévy (2005), Fine (2007)

3 Cotula et al. (2009), ECLAC et al. (2011), Deininger and Byerlee (2011). BRICS (Brazil, Russian, India, China and South Africa),

and MICS (middle-income countries).

4 Hirsch et al. (2005), Murphy and Hall (2011) 5 i.e. Human-led (Crutzen and Steffen 2003) 6 i.e. Accumulation-led (Moore 2016) 7 (Fischer and Knutti 2015)

8 Best epitomized in the 2030 ‘Agenda for Sustainable Development’ approved by the United Nations in 2015 (UN 2015). 9 Jointly funneled through the World Economic Forum’s global, regional and industry agendas (WEF. 2017)

10 As expressed, for instance, in the agendas of transnational agrarian, food, and climate justice movements.

11 From the perspective of any kind of market-oriented agricultural producer, it is in the sudden and substantial price variability

for their produce, coupled with rising costs of farm inputs and transportation, that the “food crisis” hits. As Jansen reminds us, ‘though price shocks might be highly problematic for some producers, higher food prices do not, in general, lead to an agrarian crisis’ (2015, 217). Of course, this is different for cultivators who are “net food-buyers”, as Jansen also acknowledges (ibid).

(22)

22

Figure 1 Food, fuel (energy) and metals commodity price indexes 1992-2017 (2005=100)

* January to June 2017 average

** Includes cereals, vegetable oils, meat, seafood, sugar, bananas, and oranges price indices *** Includes copper, aluminum, iron ore, tin, nickel, zinc, lead, and uranium Price Indices **** Includes crude oil (petroleum), natural gas, and coal price indices

Source: Author elaboration with date from IMF (2018)

Whereas their effects had already been felt by millions of people and non-human species worldwide even before 2007-2008, and their relevance in the longue durée of agrarian,

environmental and capitalist transformations has yet to be written,12 the preceding dynamics are assembled in a way that helps make sense of a particular world historic conjuncture. For explanatory purposes, I call this “the convergent crises” conjuncture. In this context, the first decade of the 21st century witnesses a global, yet uneven,13 resurgence of natural resource extractivism—and the consolidation of environmental services—in capital accumulation and climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Global demand for agro-commodities grows, expanding beyond traditional food, fiber and feed uses to include liquid fuels, bio-materials and carbon sinks, in what becomes the rise of ‘flex crops and commodities complexes’ (Borras et al. 2016). These involve crops (e.g. corn, soybean, sugarcane or oil palm), but also trees, with ‘multiple uses (food, feed, fuel, fibre, industrial

12 Oya (2013), Friedmann (2016)

13 Across sectors, world regions, countries and even at various regional levels within countries (Borras et al. 2011, White et al.

2012, Hall 2013b) 0 50 100 150 200 250

(23)

23

material, etc.) that can be flexibly interchanged’ (ibid, 94). Relatively dormant since the 1980s,14 flex crops and commodities complexes are thrust into the ring in the early 21st century to take down the convergent world crises. Corporate flex crops and commodities complexes consolidate and upgrade within former strongholds, and set off to conquer unchartered territories.

But how is the early 21st-century extractivist fever unfolding? Particularly in the realm of biomass extraction, to what extent, how and with what consequences—for whom—is the rise of the flex crop and commodities complexes unfolding? What is it that enables and constrains this trend in the current world-historic conjuncture? And is it possible that this solution now contributes to the problem? These are the overarching questions triggering this research. I turn now to pinning down the particular ways in which I frame, interrogate and investigate them.

1.2. A research problematique and question: Resource extractivism and agro-environmental change in the early 21st Century

The convergent global crises conjuncture has spurred a good deal of political and scholarly work and debate particularly, but not only, regarding the agrarian and environmental dynamics behind heightened resource extractivism. To this end, two important research agendas have gained relevance from the mid-2000s onward. One concerns the investigation of a new global land rush. The other one involves analyzing the massive wave of natural resource extraction projects that is spilling over the world.

On the one hand there is the ‘research rush on the global land rush’ (Edelman et al. 2013, 1528). Following GRAIN’s 2008 report alerting the public to the ‘global land-grab for food and financial security’ (2008), the phenomenon was initially assessed by mainstream actors who have an agenda to frame and influence these land deals as potential drivers of good governance and poverty alleviation.15 As the Director of the Agricultural and Rural Development Department of the World Bank argues

‘[W]hen done right, larger-scale farming can provide opportunities for poor countries with large agricultural sectors and ample endowments of land. To make the most of these opportunities, however, countries will need to better secure local land rights and improve land governance. Adopting an open and proactive approach to dealing with investors is also needed to ensure that investment contributes to broader development objectives’ (in Deininger and Byerlee 2011, xv emphasis added).

Despite important nuances among them, assessments of the global land rush from such a perspective share common epistemological and ontological stances. Epistemologically, they rely on neo-classical and neo-institutional perspectives, which are built on the assumption that outcomes of land deals depend on the state of governance and market competition in the places where they unfold. Hence, land deals are ontologically divided into lawful, transparent and

14 With notorious exceptions like the Brazilian flex cane complex (McKay et al. 2016), US flex corn complex (Gillon 2016),

Argentinean and Brazilian flex soy complexes (Brent 2015, Oliveira and Schneider 2016), Scandinavian flex tree complex (Kröger 2016), or the Indonesian and Malaysian flex palm complexes (Alonso-Fradejas et al. 2016). Apart from the flex corn and flex tree complexes in the US and Scandinavian countries, respectively, which show longer genealogies, the other flex crops and commodities complexes in these countries thrived in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis, and especially under heightened neoliberal globalization from the 1990s onward.

15 This is the perspective of the World Bank (World Bank 2008, Deininger and Byerlee 2011), The International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI) (von Braun 2008, Von Braun and Meinzen-Dick 2009) and the political core within the International Land Coalition (ILC) to which the latter two and other international governmental organizations are part, together with a variety of NGOs, social organizations, and scholarly or otherwise research centers (Cotula et al. 2009, Anseeuw et al. 2012).

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Daarnaast heeft het Departement Dierwetenschappen drie jaar geleden ingezet op onderwijsverbreding waardoor nu ook onderwijs en onderzoek naar de voeding van

Our research identified a number of relevant inconsistencies and gaps in the Mozambican legal framework regarding land rights and resettlement: (1) the

The Monotone Treatment Selection Assumption is applicable, if it is credible that the treated group has a higher or lower mean potential outcome than the control group’s hypothesized

3 rondom omgevallen stammen komen meer muizen voor dan elders in het bos, waar geen stammen liggen. Bovendien herbergen door-en-door verrotte en be- groeide stammen meer

Tabel 2 Betalingsbereidheid voor de toekomstige investeringen in landschapselementen (in euro), voor de proefgebieden van Groene Woud, Ooijpolder en Amstelland..

In proef 3 waren de VEM en DVE-opname van groep M iets hoger dan van de beide andere groepen voornamelijk door een iets hogere snij- maisopname. Door deze hogere VEM- en DVE-

environmental permit, legislation requires regular reviews and updates of existing regulations (see section 2.2 above). There may also be sectoral legislation that requires

The emphasis on China does not increase greatly in the discourses presented in the FPCs between 2008 and 2016. In the section on ‘regional priorities’, China is only mentioned after