Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pieck, Sonja. 2013. Asphalt Dreams Road Construction and Environmental Citizenship in Peru
Pieck, Sonja. 2013. Asphalt Dreams Road Construction and Environmental Citizenship in Peru
Citizenship in Peru
Sonja K. Pieck
ABSTRACT
Peru today is one of the main staging grounds for a continent-wide integra-
tion effort. Launched in 2000, the Initiative for the Integration of Regional
Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA) calls for an enormous expansion of
the continent’s transport and energy networks and an effort to increase the
region’s economic competitiveness. Among its most controversial projects
is the Interoceanic Highway linking western Brazil with the Pacific coast of
Peru. The highway has attracted fierce criticism from NGOs who point to
major environmental impacts, an inadequate mitigation process, and a lack
of transparency in funding flows and decision making. In an effort to voice
their concerns, these groups engage the idea of ‘environmental governance’
to increase public participation in the development process and promote eco-
logical sustainability. This alternative framework in turn opens up space for
‘environmental citizenship’. This article takes a closer look at how Peruvian
NGOs employ this idea and suggests that while the group’s advocacy of
governance has had success, the building of environmental citizenship will
require a move beyond urban Peruvian NGOs as technical experts.
INTRODUCTION
I would like to thank the individuals who kindly agreed to be interviewed for this study, and in
particular Dr Ernesto Raez for his generosity and help. I also wish to thank the editors of the
journal and the article reviewers for their helpful suggestions on a previous draft of this essay.
Additional thanks to the Bates College Imaging Center and Camille Parrish for their assistance
in developing the two maps.
1. For more information, see http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/peru-economy-gdp-
idUSL1E8SB5OI20120511 (accessed 17 May 2012).
Development and Change 44(5): 1039–1163. DOI: 10.1111/dech.12056
C 2013 International Institute of Social Studies.
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main St., Malden, MA 02148, USA
1040 Sonja K. Pieck
rural poverty on the one hand, and an influx of wealth to major urban areas
on the other. Much of Peru’s progress has been fuelled by China’s demand
for raw materials, so much so that roughly 33 per cent of Peru’s exports
are destined for China, compared to only 13 per cent going to the United
States (World Bank, 2011). Also responding to the Chinese market is Peru’s
neighbour, Brazil. As South America’s rising power and the world’s sixth
largest economy, Brazil is leading the attempt to physically integrate all
twelve South American countries to increase exports to East Asia.
Launched in 2000, the Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infras-
tructure in South America (IIRSA) calls for an enormous expansion of the
continent’s transport and energy networks in an effort to create greater com-
petitiveness. Peru is one of IIRSA’s main staging grounds. Here, IIRSA is
being advanced through several controversial projects, including the Intero-
ceanic Highway, a road linking western Brazilian cities with their counter-
parts in the Peruvian Amazon, and on to the Peruvian Andes and coast. The
project is funded in large part by the Peruvian government, regional and inter-
national development banks, and private investors. Now nearing completion,
the highway has attracted fierce criticism from non-governmental organiza-
tions (NGOs) who point to troubling environmental impacts, an inadequate
mitigation process surrounding construction, and a lack of transparency in
funding flows and decision making. In an effort to voice their concerns, these
activists employ the discourses of environmental governance and citizenship
to force state and corporate accountability and increase public participation
in the definition of development in Peru.
In the context of the region’s leftward turn, their work raises broader
questions about the distribution of the benefits and the costs of economic
growth (Escobar, 2010; Macdonald and Ruckert, 2009). Can the enormous
investments in infrastructure be transformed into a better quality of life for
those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale and if so, how? This article
takes a closer look at the response of Peruvian NGOs as they confront a
challenge that is unprecedented in scope and power.
2. DAR (Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales; Rights, Environment and Natural Re-
sources), SPDA (Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental; Peruvian Society for Envi-
ronmental Rights), SER (Asociación Servicios Educativos Rurales; Association for Rural
Educational Services), ProNaturaleza (Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la Nat-
uraleza; Peruvian Foundation for the Conservation of Nature).
1042 Sonja K. Pieck
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3. Civil rights refer to people’s physical integrity and safety; political rights include procedural
fairness in the application of law and the right to vote; and social rights include economic
welfare and security and the right to a certain quality of life permitting full participation in
society (Marshall, 1992).
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1043
the grassroots level remains inchoate and not yet able to produce the deeper
democracy that the notion of environmental citizenship evokes.
4. Strategic economic and geographical factors determine how these hubs were demarcated
(for more information, see the IIRSA website at www.iirsa.org).
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1047
Source: Generated by author based on information from the Peruvian Ministry of Trans-
portation and Communication. The highway is highlighted in black.
By 2012, the road had been all but completed, though with delays and
major cost overruns. This did not stop Juan Carlos Zevallo, the director of
Peru’s Agency for the Supervision of Investment in Public Infrastructure
(Ositran), from claiming in April 2011 that the Interoceánica had already
created 10,000 direct and 30,000 indirect jobs and produced roughly US$
3 billion in economic activity.5 However, the road’s negative impacts are
also becoming evident. Over the past eight years, activists and researchers
have warned of major environmental effects from the road, especially on the
fragile ecosystems of the tropical lowlands and the Andean sierra.
Unfortunately, as Dourojeanni (2006) points out, the financiers of the road
do not have their own environmental guidelines. The Brazilian National De-
velopment Bank (BNDES) has no such guidelines, while the Andean Devel-
opment Bank (CAF) simply defers to the respective countries’ (usually lax)
environmental standards. In fact, the Peruvian environmental ministry de-
veloped an impact mitigation programme in collaboration with CAF, known
as CAF/INRENA. As will be discussed below, this mitigation programme
has been a focus of critique by members of the civil society working group.
Broadly, impacts can be direct (that is, associated with the actual con-
struction of the road) and indirect (in which the road facilitates other
environmentally damaging processes). Among direct impacts are the ero-
sion and sedimentation of rivers, air pollution, micro-scale climate change
due to deforestation and asphalting, destruction of wetlands, habitat frag-
mentation, and displacement of wildlife and plants. Indirect environmental
impacts include increased migration to the road, which in turn results in
increased deforestation, illegal hunting and an enormous increase of illegal
5. See ‘Construcción de IIRSA Sur generó beneficios económicos que superan los US$ 3,000
millones’ (‘Construction of IIRSA-South Generated Earnings Exceeding US$3 Billion.’)
http://www.andina.com.pe/Espanol/Noticia.aspx?id=z7eFCN0MZN0= (accessed 12 May
2012).
1050 Sonja K. Pieck
gold mining in the Amazon (Dı́az and Álvarez, 2008; Dourojeanni, 2006;
Dourojeanni et al., 2010; Fernández and La Rosa, 2010; cf. Laurance et al.,
2001). In some ways, the most worrisome implications of the Interoceanic
Highway are these indirect impacts (Dourojeanni, 2010: 17; Killeen, 2007).
As experience in other contexts across Latin America has made clear, roads
built into the rainforest accelerate ecological destruction by initiating a socio-
economic ripple effect. Most serious among them is internal migration. In a
context of extreme poverty and landlessness, the construction of a road into
ostensibly ‘empty’ lands encourages the in-migration of colonizers from
other parts of the country, who try to make a living either by eking out
an existence on the agricultural frontier, or by engaging in a host of illegal
activities such as mining, logging, the drug trade, prostitution or sex traffick-
ing (Dourojeanni et al., 2010). Land disputes arise as new arrivals confront
already existing populations, including indigenous communities.
Because sections of the road pass through various sensitive ecological
areas and indigenous lands, especially in the Amazon lowlands, many of
these activities are likely to happen in national parks and other protected
areas. The region is considered to be a ‘biodiversity hotspot’ (Mittermeier
et al., 1997) — the national park Bahuaja-Sonene is home to 15–17 per
cent of the world’s plant species. The endemism rate is as high as 46 per
cent (Dourojeanni, 2006). As one group of experts warned, the direct and
indirect impacts of the road are likely to extend not 250 m (as indicated in the
feasibility study) but rather 50 km on each side of the road. This means that
among the areas impacted are not just the Bahuaja-Sonene national park,
but also the Salinas y Aguada Blanca reserve and the Tambopata reserve.
The road is also likely to negatively affect the Manu and Alto Purús national
parks, the Titicaca reserve, as well as the territories of the Amarakaeri
indigenous communities (Dourojeanni, 2006).
With a troublesome beginning, an unsatisfactory mitigation programme
and already visible environmental and socio-economic impacts, the road
has given rise to a network of environmental and social justice activists
working to articulate a coherent vision of good environmental governance
in Peru. After a brief discussion of the history and current structure of the
group, I focus on how the road informs the networking process, activists’
critiques of politics-as-usual, and their ideas of the roles citizens should play
in environmental governance.
The Civil Society Working Group for the Interoceanic Highway (hereafter
‘working group’ or GTIOS, after its Spanish acronym) is a two-tiered activist
network consisting of a national umbrella working group, headquartered in
Lima, and three regional working groups that are based in the areas impacted
most heavily by the Interoceanic Highway: Madre de Dios (Amazon), Cuzco
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1051
(highlands) and Puno (highlands) (Figure 2). The network counts over fifty
organizations as members. Among them are Peru’s most important envi-
ronmental NGOs, such as SPDA, ProNaturaleza and DAR, alongside rural
development NGOs like SER.6
The GTIOS was founded in 2006, but it had grown out of a longer-term ef-
fort to monitor deforestation in the Tambopata-Manu area, run largely by the
Centro de Datos para la Conservación at the Universidad Nacional Agraria
la Molina and the Frankfurt Zoological Society (Interview, GTIOS found-
ing member, 11 March 2011). By mid-2005, it was decided that a meeting
should be arranged to bring environmental NGOs and business actors to the
table in order to discuss a particularly troubling project in Peru: the Intero-
ceanic Highway. That meeting took place in Cusco in February 2006. In the
aftermath, various individuals realized that a more organized response was
required. In August 2006, Ernesto Raez, then an ecologist at the Universidad
Peruana Cayetano Heredia in Lima, was named national coordinator, and
the three regional working groups were created. A separate Lima working
group was deemed unnecessary since the largest, oldest and most important
Peruvian NGOs are located in the country’s capital (though some have satel-
lite offices in various regions of Peru). As one interviewee stated, ‘having
access to Lima authorities and the Lima ministries is important’ (Interview,
11 March 2011), if the goal is to ultimately change national policy. This
spatially dispersed group meets periodically to exchange information and
develop strategic plans. Along with its membership, the GTIOS’s scope has
grown from an initial focus on the road to a larger discussion about the re-
lationship between development and environmental protection in Peru. An
electronic membership list was created in 2006, which currently has over
130 subscribers.
In its own words, the GTIOS seeks to ‘promote, propose and support
initiatives that are compatible with sustainable development around the
Interoceanic Highway, with the aim of having the negative impacts miti-
gated and the positive impacts of the road strengthened’.7 To this end, the
GTIOS monitors development mega-projects and increases public access to
6. Some of these NGOs had previous experience collaborating on environmental issues though
little conversation had happened across the environmental–rural development divide due
to the bifurcated histories of the organizations. Rural development NGOs in Peru can be
traced back to the country’s old Marxist left and the human rights movement. Environmental
NGOs are much younger and derive much of their inspiration and growth from the interna-
tional environmental movement. They are financially heavily dependent on North American
conservation organizations (Dourojeanni, 2009). Rarely have the two groups collaborated.
Even within the Peruvian environmental NGO sector, there are divisions. ProNaturaleza,
founded in 1984, is one of the oldest environmental NGOs in Peru and is dedicated to
biodiversity conservation. SPDA, created in 1986, focuses on environmental law. Finally,
DAR was founded in 2005 and employs a more populist discourse than the other NGOs.
The concepts of citizenship and governance have managed to harness these perspectives
into a more coherent critique of IIRSA.
7. See www.bicusa.org/proxy/Document.100409.aspx (accessed 14 October 2011).
1052 Sonja K. Pieck
information about the positive and negative impacts of projects that can
affect people’s lives and livelihoods. The GTIOS represents an interesting
fusion of environmental, social justice and development concerns, which
intersect in the concept of environmental governance. The GTIOS engages
this idea to highlight that development has failed, because it has occurred
without an appropriately holistic governance framework; it is civil society,
the concerned environmental citizens, who have both the right to know and
the obligation to act, to make development democratic, participatory and
sustainable. Environmental governance has been the channel through which
the working group has opened up space for citizenship. It is thus both a
critique of the current social order and the promise of its transformation.
How far it can go towards realizing change, however, will depend on the
political choices and positionings of GTIOS members.
To illustrate the frames that the GTIOS is developing around the concepts
of ‘governance’ and ‘environmental citizenship’, this section analyses the
written and spoken discourses of the GTIOS members. This is based on
an analysis of interviews and documents, especially those emanating from
the GTIOS organizations that are currently most active, namely ProNat-
uraleza, DAR, SPDA and SER.8 Their articulations are hybrids of en-
vironmental, rural development and human rights concerns. Two themes
are especially salient in interviews, survey responses and documents: cri-
tiques of the IIRSA development process; and proposals for improving that
process.
The GTIOS members have consistently criticized the way development
is implemented in Peru. A key point of contention is the perceived lack of
transparency on the part of power holders. Civil society knows very little
about how development projects are initiated, financed, or even when and
where they will be implemented. One interviewee was visibly frustrated that
local communities often did not know about a new project ‘until the day
the bulldozers pull up’ (Interview, regional coordinator, 25 March 2011).
Numerous activists explained to me that since large infrastructure projects
under IIRSA are financed in part with public monies, the projects required
a more sustained public debate. In fact, by 2007, the road was already cost-
ing 40 per cent more than previously thought.9 To create ‘environmental
governance’ in this context, information between the state and its citizens
must flow more freely and civil society should be able to take part in de-
cisions that will affect civic life. Governance, in the case of southern Peru
‘involves the relationship between all the actors involved/affected in the
8. The following discussion draws heavily on Fernández and La Rosa (2010), whose report
was written on behalf of, and with substantial input from, the GTIOS.
9. See http://www.bicusa.org/es/Article.10647.aspx (accessed 15 August 2011)
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1053
So what is the ideal relationship between the state, development and civil
society? One important linkage between state and society is monetary —
either through tax collection or earnings from what many Peruvians consider
to be resources of national heritage like oil, gas and minerals. The fact that the
Peruvian government is financing many of IIRSA’s development projects
from its own purse, means for the GTIOS that the citizenry, correspondingly,
should have both insight into and a say in national development plans, in the
spirit of a social contract. As one organizer from Cuzco put it:
At the very least . . . if they [construction companies] are going to charge us — because this
is on the basis of a loan — this is a topic that isn’t just a problem for the people along the
road, it’s a problem for the entire country. It’s about deciding how the money gets spent,
how information gets managed. That’s what annoys people . . . (Interview, 17 March 2011)
10. MINAM is the acronym for ‘Ministerio del Ambiente del Perú’ (Peruvian Ministry of the
Environment).
11. Whether GTIOS activity has led to a larger-scale ‘disciplining’ or even ‘silencing’ of local
communities vis-à-vis the state, and what kind of consequences this may hold, is an important
matter for consideration in future research.
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1057
making information available and making people talk about it. (Interview, Puno working
group member, 23 March 2011)
12. After five years of self-imposed exile, Fujimori was arrested in Chile in 2005 and is currently
serving a twenty-five year jail term in Peruvian prison for human rights violations during
his presidency.
13. Add to this the fact that Peru passed a law in 2006 that gave central government
much stronger surveillance powers over NGOs. For more information on Law 27692
see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6112284.stm and http://www.icnl.org/research/
monitor/peru.html (accessed 14 May 2012).
14. This is the result of a general suspicion of outsiders (due to the long-lasting war between
the Shining Path and government forces) and past experiences with NGOs (Interview, SER
staff member, 28 March 2011).
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1059
The second limitation is the working group’s lack of grassroots ties. While
some regional working groups were proud of their hard work developing
strong relationships with regional governments, all regional coordinators I
spoke with said that now was the time to think hard about developing deep
connections with the grassroots. This includes indigenous federations and
communities along the road (such as local mayors) as well as campesinos
and the business sector. The working group is once again hampered by its
homogeneity and its reliance on NGOs, which seem to discourage broader
participation by local communities. Until this changes, the GTIOS cannot,
and should not, speak for rural communities. As Smith and Pangsapa (2008:
13) observe: ‘rather than treating science as an authoritative basis for action
or an unquestionable “resource”, it needs to be supplemented with authentic
knowledge that accurately represents the lives of those affected by envi-
ronmental problems, and scientific knowledge should be seen as much as
a “topic” of research and open to deconstruction and problematization as a
resource’.
What does all this mean? As Peru undergoes an economic boom, does
the ‘environmental citizenship’ framework of the working group promise
a more socially just and ecologically sustainable future? Three potential
conclusions can be drawn. First, GTIOS so far has had a strong impact on
central government. Its promotion of an alternative environmental gover-
nance framework has resulted in a much more participatory and flexible
mitigation programme. In this sense, the working group has indeed made
progress and has opened up a space for alternative citizenship; the new mit-
igation programme is built on a participatory process. Second, the working
group’s engagement with environmental citizenship to date falls short of the
kind of deeper democracy that the concept promises. Largely because of its
composition, the working group does not (yet) have a representative voice.
Third, environmental citizenship itself needs to be thought of in different
terms. GTIOS members are adapting a neoliberal discourse, radicalizing it,
and using it to engage state institutions. One could say that the GTIOS is
‘organizing (or “channelling”) protest and citizen participation into orga-
nized and recognized institutional forms (NGOs) that are subject to rules
laid down by the state’ (Mercer, 2002: 18). Mercer posits this as a nega-
tive, but activism is temporally contingent. It is probable that in its work
to disseminate information to central government and local communities,
the GTIOS is opening up space for future reworkings of the relationship
between the Peruvian state and its citizenry.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Arce, M. (2008) ‘The Repoliticization of Collective Action after Neoliberalism in Peru’, Latin
American Politics and Society 50(3): 37–62.
Bäckstrand, K. (2003) ‘Civic Science for Sustainability: Reframing the Role of Experts, Policy-
Makers and Citizens in Environmental Governance’, Global Environmental Politics 3(4):
24–41.
Bebbington, A. (1997) ‘New States, New NGOs? Crises and Transitions among Rural Develop-
ment NGOs in the Andean Region’, World Development 25(2): 1755–65.
Bebbington, A., M. Scurrah and C. Bielich (2008) ‘Mapeo de Movimientos Sociales
en el Perú Actual’ [‘Mapping Social Movements in Current Peru’]. Project Re-
port, University of Manchester/CEPES http://www.cepes.org.pe/apc-aa/archivos-aa/
e19ae5c595bdc837daaf4cc13d916d7e/Informe_mapeo_movimientoss_sociales_FINAL.pdf
(accessed 28 July 2011)
Calderón, C. and L. Servén (2004) ‘The Effects of Infrastructure Development on Growth
and Income Distribution’. World Bank Report #WPS3400. Washington, DC: World
Bank. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2004/
09/21/000012009_20040921105044/Rendered/PDF/WPS3400.pdf (accessed 10 May 2012).
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1061
Dı́az, D.B. and P.P. Álvarez (2008) Carretera Interoceánica Sur: Consideraciones para su
Aprovechamiento Sostenible [Southern Interoceanic Road: Considerations for its Sustainable
Improvement]. Lima: Asociación Civil Labor.
van Dijck, P. and S. den Haak (2006) ‘Troublesome Construction: IIRSA and Public–
Private Partnerships in Road Infrastructure’. Amsterdam: CEDLA. http://www.cedla.
uva.nl/50_publications/pdf/cuadernos/cuad20.pdf (accessed 1 May 2012).
Dobson, A. (2003) Citizenship and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dourojeanni, M.J. (2006) ‘Estudio de Caso sobre la Carretera Interoceánica en la
Amazonı́a Sur del Perú’ [‘Case Study on the Interoceanic Road in the Southern
Peruvian Amazon’]. http://www.inesc.org.br/publicaciones/otras-publicaciones/Carretera%
20Interoceanica%20-%20Peru.pdf (accessed 12 August 2011).
Dourojeanni, M.J. (2009) Crónica Forestal del Perú. [Forestry Chronicle of Peru]. Lima: Edito-
rial San Marcos.
Dourojeanni, M.J. (2010) ‘Presentación’ [‘Presentation’], in C.E. Fernández and V.C. La Rosa
Propuestas para Construir Gobernanza en la Amazonı́a a través del Transporte Sostenible
[Proposals to Build Governance in the Amazon through Sustainable Transport], pp. 17–19.
Lima: DAR.
Dourojeanni, M.J., A. Barandiarán and D. Dourojeanni (2010) Amazonı́a Peruana en 2021.
[Peruvian Amazon in 2012] (2nd edn). Lima: Sociedad Peruana de Derecho y Ambiente.
Escobar, A. (2010) ‘Latin America at a Crossroads’, Cultural Studies 24(1): 1–65.
Fernández, C.E. and V.C. La Rosa (2010) Propuestas para Construir Gobernanza en la Amazonı́a
a través del Transporte Sostenible [Proposals to Build Governance in the Amazon through
Sustainable Transport]. Lima: DAR.
Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Gray, M.L. (1999) ‘Creating Civil Society? The Emergence of NGOs in Vietnam’, Development
and Change 30(4): 693–713.
Grindle, M.S. (1986) State and Countryside: Development Policy and Agrarian Politics in Latin
America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gudynas, E. (2009) ‘Ciudadanı́a Ambiental y Meta-Ciudadanı́as Ecológicas: Revisión y Alter-
nativas en América Latina’ [‘Environmental Citizenship and Ecological Meta-citizenships:
Revision and Alternatives in Latin America’], in J. Reyes Ruiz and E. Castro Rosales (eds)
Urgencia y Utopı́a Frente a la Crisis de Civilización [Urgency and Utopia Facing the Crisis
of Civilization], pp. 58–101. Mexico: University of Guadalajara.
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hickey, S. and G. Mohan (2005) ‘Relocating Participation within a Radical Politics of Devel-
opment’, Development and Change 36(2): 237–62.
IDB (2004) ‘Initiative for Regional Infrastructure Integration in South America’. IDB Business
Seminar: Financing Private and Public Sector Infrastructure Projects, 23–24 September
2004. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank. http://www.iadb.org/biz/ppt/
092305tuliod.pdf (accessed 20 August 2010).
Igoe, J. (2003) ‘Scaling up Civil Society: Donor Money, NGOs and the Pastoralist Land Rights
Movement in Tanzania’, Development and Change 34(5): 683–85.
IIRSA (2004) ‘IIRSA Project Portfolio’. http://www.iirsa.org/BancoConocimiento/L/lb04_
cartera_de_proyectos_iirsa_2004/lb04_cartera_de_proyectos_iirsa_2004.asp?CodIdioma=
ENG (accessed 20 February 2009).
IIRSA (2009) ‘IIRSA Project Portfolio’. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
http://www.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2009/04494en.pdf (accessed 10 March 2010).
IMF (2012a) ‘Regional Economic Outlook: Western Hemisphere’. Washington, DC:
International Monetary Fund. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/reo/2012/whd/eng/pdf/
wreo0412.pdf (accessed 2 May 2012).
1062 Sonja K. Pieck
IMF (2012b) ‘The IMF and Good Governance’. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gov.htm (accessed 30 April 2012).
IMF (2013) ‘Regional Economic Outlook: Latin American Growth to Edge Higher in 2013’.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/CAR050613A.htm (accessed 16 July
2013)
Kiely, R. (1998) ‘Neo-Liberalism Revised? A Critical Account of World Bank Concepts of
Good Governance and Market-Friendly Intervention’, Capital & Class 22(64): 63–88.
Killeen, T.J. (2007) A Perfect Storm in the Amazon Wilderness: Development and Conserva-
tion in the Context of the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of
South America (IIRSA). Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science No. 7. Arlingon, VA:
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS), Conservation International. http://www.
conservation.org/publications/Documents/AABS.7_Perfect_storm_English.low.res.pdf (ac-
cessed 30 May 2009)
Kurtz, H.E. (2005) ‘Alternative Visions for Citizenship Practice in an Environmental Justice
Dispute’, Space and Polity 9(1): 77–91.
Latta, P.A. (2007) ‘Citizenship and the Politics of Nature: The Case of Chile’s Alto Bı́o Bı́o’,
Citizenship Studies 11(3): 229–46.
Latta, P.A. and H. Wittman (2010) ‘Environment and Citizenship in Latin America: A New
Paradigm for Theory and Practice’, European Review of Latin American and Caribbean
Studies 89: 107–16.
Laurance, W.F., M.A. Cochrane, S. Bergen, P.M. Fearnside, P. Delamônica, C. Barber, S.
D’Angelo and T. Fernandes (2001) ‘The Future of the Brazilian Amazon’, Science 291
(5503): 438–39.
Llosa, E. (2003) ‘La Batalla por la Interoceánica en el Sur Peruano: ¿Localismo o Descentral-
ismo?’ [‘The Battle for the Interoceanic Road in Southern Peru: Localization or Decentral-
ization?’]. Working Paper No. 129. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Luque, E. (2005) ‘Researching Environmental Citizenship and its Publics’, Environmental Pol-
itics 14(2): 211–25.
Macdonald, L. and A. Ruckert (eds) (2009) Post-Neoliberalism in the Americas. London: Ash-
gate.
Marshall, T.H. (1992) Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press.
Mercer, C. (2002) ‘NGOs, Civil Society and Democratization: A Critical Review of the Litera-
ture’, Progress in Development Studies 2(1): 5–22.
Mittermeier, R.A., P.R. Gil and C.G. Mittermeier (1997) Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically
Wealthiest Nations. Mexico City: CEMEX.
Molyneux, M. (2008) ‘The “Neoliberal Turn” and the New Social Policy in Latin America: How
Neoliberal, How New?’, Development and Change 39(5): 775–97.
Paulett, R.M. (2006) ‘Perú: El Difı́cil Camino de la Transición a la Democracia 2000–2003’
[‘Peru: The Difficult Road of Democratic Transition’], Sociológica 21(G2): 79–105.
Peck, J. and A. Tickell (2002) ‘Neoliberalizing Space’, Antipode 34(3): 380–404.
Pieck, S.K. (2011) ‘Beyond Postdevelopment: Civic Responses to Regional Integration in the
Amazon’, Journal of Cultural Geography 28(1): 179–202.
Romero, S. (2009) ‘Fatal Clashes Erupt in Peru at Roadblock’, The New York Times 6
June. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/world/americas/06peru.html (accessed 2 Octo-
ber 2011).
Rosenau, J. (1995) ‘Governance in the Twenty-first Century’, Global Governance 6: 13–43.
Schmink, M. and C. Wood (eds) (1984) Frontier Expansion in Amazonia. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Shafir, G. (1998) ‘Introduction: The Evolving Tradition of Citizenship’, in G. Shafir (ed.) The
Citizenship Debates, pp. 1–28. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Smith, M.J. and P. Pangsapa (2008) Environment and Citizenship: Integrating Justice, Respon-
sibility and Civic Engagement. London and New York: Zed Books.
Environmental Citizenship in Peru 1063
Wilson, F. (2004) ‘Towards a Political Economy of Roads: Experiences from Peru’, Development
and Change 35(3): 525–46.
World Bank (2011) ‘Peru Brief 2011’. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://web.worldbank.org/
WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/PERUEXTN/0,,contentMDK:22252133∼
pagePK:1497618∼piPK:217854∼theSitePK:343623,00.html (accessed 17 May 2012).
WRI (2003) World Resources 2002–2004. Decisions for the Earth: Balance, Voice, and Power.
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.