We engage the conflicts arising from clashes at the extractive frontier between local and mainstream policy understandings of nature, sustainability, and well-being. We aim at a more equitable conversation between these local understandings and wider (post) development policy and practice.
The discrepancy between different approaches to well-being, sustainability, and resources management, is most obvious when local populations in areas high in natural resources are faced with 'extractive' development. This has led to violent clashes between protesters and government forces worldwide that have been read as 'environmental conflicts'. Yet, this reading often lacks a clear understanding of the motivations behind different local ideas of well-being and sustainability, or how these might equitably articulate with mainstream (post)development policy and practice. We aim to re-centre the perspectives of local actors at the extractive frontier to find a more equitable conversation between these understandings and wider policy and practice. We engage with the political negotiations and everyday conflicts that arise from clashes between local and state way of knowing and engaging nature and/or their concepts of sustainability, well-being, development, and progress. Our discussions engage with, but are not limited to, the following questions: -What role can local ways of knowing nature play as a discourse and as a way of 'doing things otherwise' in terms of development theory and practice (e.g. SDGs, REDD+)? -What can be learnt from placing local discourses and practices in conversation with Euro-American based sustainable alternatives to development (e.g. transition initiatives, de-growth)? -How can these local approaches be translated and used in a more equitable conversation with scholarly and policy agendas on sustainability and well-being? -What contribution can these local discourses and practices make to debates on environmental citizenship and social and environmental justice?