Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Clare Barnes
(University of Edinburgh)
Richard Friend (University of York)
Naomi Oates (University of Sheffield)
Brock Bersaglio (University of Birmingham)
Oyinlola Ogunpaimo (Teagasc Irish Development Authority)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Fiona Nunan
(University of Birmingham)
- Formats:
- Papers
- Stream:
- Global environmental justice
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 30 June, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
This panel unsettles development through asking what the impacts of dominant development paradigms are on environmental (in)justice issues, and whether paradigms centering alternative society-environment relations are emerging. The panel is a mix of paper presentations and a roundtable discussion.
Long Abstract:
Calls for unsettling development and challenging dominant development paradigms have long been made by those studying and working in environmental fields, from across the social sciences and humanities. Research, practice and activism in areas such as environmental (in)justice, political ecology, sustainable development, value and commodity chains, climate change, land and natural resource conflicts, and environmental values, raise pertinent questions for environment and development communities. Such questions foreground issues of politics, power and scale, and include: what are the impacts of development on environmental injustice and inequality, as experienced along the lines of class, gender, sexuality, race, etc.? How are conflicts over environmental resources manifested and impacted by development paradigms and their legacies, including (neo)colonialism and neoliberalism? Which (environmental) knowledges and values shape, or are excluded from, development practices? In what ways do environmental values, meanings and visions compete with each other? Are dominant narratives of environmental degradation being ‘unsettled’? How are social movements and development paradigms centering alternative society-environment relations emerging across the world? Recent discussions also turn to the influence of covid-19, and societies’ responses to the pandemic, on underlying environmental justice issues. And indeed, to whether this moment of reflection created by the pandemic can be harnessed to further alternative perspectives on environmental visions of the future. This panel welcomes theoretical and empirical papers on these topics and will be a mixed format of paper presentations and roundtable discussions, across sessions. The panel is organised by the DSA Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change Study Group.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Wednesday 30 June, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
Forest Landscape Restoration could impact millions of rural livelihoods but as currently framed risks magnifying existing conservation injustices. We argue that centring social and environmental justice in restoration can enable realisation of its unsettling, transformative potential.
Paper long abstract:
Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) is gaining widespread support as a conservation and development approach, with the UN designating the 2020s 'the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration.' Advocates often proclaim that the approach will produce 'triple wins' - for biodiversity, carbon and human wellbeing.
FLR could impact millions of people, but its justice dimensions remain largely unexamined. Of 228 SCOPUS-indexed papers on FLR published since 2010, only 15 mention justice; none discuss it in detail. FLR literature rarely engages with the socio-political histories shaping present landscapes, with the variations in environmental values arising from these histories, or with how past inequities are 'baked in' to present land management institutions. Participatory decision-making processes are proposed as remedy to these challenges but with minimal attention to historically-produced power relationships. This creates risks that FLR will magnify existing injustices and cause harm to less powerful peoples.
We argue that FLR does have transformative potential from both development and conservation perspectives. But it will only realise that potential if it centres social and environmental justice. This means abandoning 'triple win' narratives, recognising the inevitability of trade-offs, and being transparent about the processes by which those trade-offs are negotiated. We also argue for restoration as a form of healing, drawing on examples of decolonial approaches where restoration has been used to further reparative justice.
We conclude by arguing for a humble restoration, in which past and present harms are explicitly recognised and restoration actions taken to redress these harms in pursuit of more just and sustainable futures.
Paper short abstract:
The paper explores a grassroots organisation's innovative initiatives in creating transition pathways for farmers to adopt agroecological practices. It discusses how such initiatives can help decenter dominant forms of knowledge while creating equitable and sustainable livelihood opportunities.
Paper long abstract:
Unsettling dominant forms of resource-intensive agricultural practices require institutional buy-in and support of regenerative forms of farming. However, the model and vision of technocentric productivity have led to the institutionalisation of resource-intensive practices, leading to a knowledge-practice lock-in. Despite practitioners' contrary experiences, mainstream scientific institutions suffer from epistemological inertia in moving towards agroecological knowledge systems. Creating a legitimate space for the 'science at margins' requires 'insiders' recognising the interconnections between sustainability and livelihood issues and building patterns of production and consumption based on mutual co-existence.
This paper highlights the knowledge-practice gap and the sustainability-livelihood link while tracing the innovative initiatives of an Indian grassroots organisation known as Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS) (Corporation for Farmers’ Empowerment). RySS implements the Zero-Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) Program of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. This unique program is redefining farmers' relationship with the land through implementing a host of practices derived from agroecological practices. RySS program does this with the help of young people known as ‘Natural Farming Fellows’ (NFF), who are trained to facilitate farmers' transition to ZBNF compatible practices. Interestingly, most NFFs are agricultural graduates trained in the mainstream knowledge systems of agri-development and extension.
By elaborating on the dynamics of knowledge dialogues through NFFs participation in the programme, this paper explores grassroots capacity building pathways. Their narratives foreground possibilities of ground-up engagement needed to initiate institutional changes focused on ecological wellbeing.
Paper short abstract:
Forest Rights Act (2006) brought the local communities closer than ever to their forests. Both individual and collective forest rights are issued to promote environmental justice and equity. It is observed that the CFR are in peril, while the IFR have become safe havens for the populist policies.
Paper long abstract:
The paper analyses the changing pattern of community participation in forest management amidst the Forest Rights Act implementation in India. The Forest Rights Act (2006) of India initiated granting forest
user rights to the deserving forest dependent communities, intending to undo the historical injustice they were facing since the colonial
times. This has direct implications to the overall mission for achieving environmental justice and equity. The ownership of the forestlands nevertheless remains with the local government and the forest department while only the user rights are granted to the deserving communities under FRA.
There are majorly two types of rights conferred under FRA, viz., the
community forest rights (CFR) and the individual forest rights (IFR).
Across our research locales we found that the CFR were sparingly
allocated, whereas the number of IFR were phenomenally large and were also the preferred (informally) mode of FRA implementation for the local governments to suit their populist strategies. It was observed that the low number of CFR was directly impacting the equitable development in the communities involved, further diluting the possibility of promoting environmental justice among these historically marginalized communities. This paper uses the findings of a comparative qualitative and ethnographic case study of two states of India (Gujarat, and Telangana), with an aim to assess the implications for the future of forest governance in India. The field data collected during the recently completed ICSSR sponsored major research project (File No:02/252/2016-17/ICSSR/RP) is used for framing the major arguments of the paper.