Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Accommodating power and inclusivity in integrated landscape approaches: what can we learn from political ecology?

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 13 Ad

Accommodating power and inclusivity in integrated landscape approaches: what can we learn from political ecology?

Download to read offline

Presented by Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen, Eric Bayala, James Reed,
Freddie Siangulube, Malaika Yanou, Terry Sunderland, at FLARE 2022, Rome, on 9 October 2022

Presented by Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen, Eric Bayala, James Reed,
Freddie Siangulube, Malaika Yanou, Terry Sunderland, at FLARE 2022, Rome, on 9 October 2022

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

More from Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Accommodating power and inclusivity in integrated landscape approaches: what can we learn from political ecology?

  1. 1. Accommodating power and inclusivity in integrated landscape approaches: what can we learn from political ecology? Mirjam A.F. Ros-Tonen, Eric Bayala, James Reed, Freddie Siangulube, Malaika Yanou, Terry Sunderland 8th Annual Meeting on Forests and Livelihoods (FLARE) 9 October 2022, Rome Contact: m.a.f.ros-tonen@uva.nl
  2. 2. Why integrated landscape approaches? Wicked problems (Rittel & Weber 1973) Source: https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/deforestation-and-forest- degradation
  3. 3. “Landscape approaches have emerged as the most widely advocated means to... • address growing pressures on land, water and other resources; • accommodate the needs of present and future generations; • facilitate the simultaneous framing of development and conservation needs; • steer the evolution of landscapes towards desirable futures” (Sayer et al. 2013: 8352) But whose desirable futures? And how to negotiate those among actors with different power positions?
  4. 4. Political ecology Interdisciplinary study of: • The relationships between political, economic and social dimensions of environmental issues and changes • The politics of the human-nature relationships • Power imbalances and uneven access to resources • Interactions between multiple levels of scale • The politics of knowledge • The use of discourses What are the different interests, and how can they be made visible and understood? How to deal with gender imbalances and indigenous territorial claims & rights? Whose knowledge is used in ILAs? Whose knowledge is ignored? To what discourses do stakeholders adhere and how do they use those in the negotiations? How can we integrate power imbalances in stakeholder analyses?
  5. 5. Source: Wildlife Division of the Ghana FC Source: Wildlife Division of the Ghana FC Source: Wildlife Division of the Ghana FC Example 1: Unravelling discourses in northern Ghana The Builsa Yenning CREMA The Moagduri Wuntaluri Kuwosaasi CREMA The Sanyiga Kasena Gavara Kara (SKGK) CREMA Photo credits: Eric Bayala Q method allowed identifying common concerns and “discourse coalitions”
  6. 6. Example 2: Unravelling power differences in Zambia Source: Siangulube et al. 2022 (conditionally accepted in Regional Environmental Change) Power analysis allowed identifying visible, hidden and invisible power Source: Siangulube et al. forthcoming
  7. 7. Example 3: The politics of knowledge in Zambia Source: Upla et al. 2022 Photo credits: Malaika Yanou Presentation Yanou: Photovoice and walking interviews revealed various dimensions of ILK and practices relevant to ILAs: conservation, taboos and beliefs, sacred landscapes, livelihood traditions and climate indicators
  8. 8. Some major contributions of political ecology to integrated landscape approaches Theme Authors Contribution to ILA principles How? Politics of knowledge Fairhead & Leach 1996; Escobar 1998; Peluso 2012; Pimbert 2017; Chambers 2017; Yanou et al. under review Adaptive management and continual learning; common concern entry points; multi-stakeholders; negotiated change logic; strengthened stakeholder capacity Reveals the politics of knowledge and learning; foregrounds indigenous and local knowledge (decolonisation of knowledge) Discourse analysis Peluso 2003; Walker & Fortmann 2003; Bixler et al. 2015; Benjaminsen 2021; Bayala et al. forthcoming Common concern entry points; multi- stakeholders; negotiated and transparent change logic; strengthened stakeholder capacity Reveals different perceptions of landscape dynamics and “desired landscapes”; identifies frictions and incompatibilities; uncovers perceived trade-offs Power and network analysis Clay 2016; Rai et al. 2018; Osborne et al. 2021; Siangulube et al. 2022 Multiple scales; multi-stakeholder; negotiated and transparent change logic; strengthened stakeholder capacity Deconstructs ‘stakeholders’, power imbalances and diverging interests; Identifies frictions and incompatibilities; focuses on empowerment
  9. 9. Risks of landscape approaches without a political ecology perspective • Downplaying power imbalances and diverging interests (Clay 2016; Arts et al. 2017; Ros-Tonen et al. 2018) • Depoliticizing human-nature interactions (McCall 2016; Bluwstein 2021) • Overlooking that persistent trade-offs may require hard choices (McShane et al. 2011; Budiharta et al. 2018; Howe et al. 2020) • Trivializing the politics of knowledge and multiple truth claims (Klenk & Meehan 2015; Conde & Walter 2022)
  10. 10. Conclusions • Political ecology helps uncover ‘the politics’ of human-nature interactions, competing claims to NRs, knowledge exchange and negotiations— analytically strong but generally lacks practicality • ILAs’ focus on negotiated outcomes is somewhat naïve regarding power imbalances, inequalities and the politics of landscape governance  Needed: a political ecology of landscapes to unravel power differences, discourses and different knowledges prior to ILA implementation
  11. 11. Thank you This project is working with CIFOR, the Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) and other partners to conduct innovative research related to landscapes, including forestry and other productive processes; as well as the essential work of engaging multiple stakeholders cifor.org/colands
  12. 12. References Adams, W. M., Hodge, I. D., & Sandbrook, L. (2014). New spaces for nature: the re‐territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(4), 574-588. Bayala, E., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Reed, J. & Sunderland, T. (forthcoming). Stakeholder perceptions on landscape governance in northern Ghana: A Q-study to identify common concern entry points for integrated landscape approaches (work in progress) Benjaminsen, T. A. (2021). Depicting decline: images and myths in environmental discourse analysis. Landscape Research, 46(2), 211-225. Bixler, R. P., Dell'Angelo, J., Mfune, O., & Roba, H. (2015). The political ecology of participatory conservation: institutions and discourse. Journal of Political Ecology, 22(1), 164-182. Bluwstein, J. (2021). Colonizing landscapes/landscaping colonies: from a global history of landscapism to the contemporary landscape approach in nature conservation. Journal of Political Ecology, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.2850 Budiharta, S., Meijaard, E., Gaveau, D. L., Struebig, M. J., Wilting, A., Kramer-Schadt, S., ... & Wilson, K. A. (2018). Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Global Environmental Change, 52, 152-161.Walker, P. A. (2006). Political ecology: where is the policy?. Progress in Human Geography, 30(3), 382-395. Chambers, R. (2017). Can we Know Better? Reflections for Development. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.3362/ 9781780449449 Clay, N. (2016). Producing hybrid forests in the Congo Basin: A political ecology of the landscape approach to conservation. Geoforum, 76, 130-141. Conde, M., & Walter, M. (2022). Knowledge co-production in scientific and activist alliances: Unsettling coloniality. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 8(1), 150-170. Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology, 5(1), 53-82. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape: society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic (Vol. 90). Cambridge University Press. Howe, C., Corbera, E., Vira, B., Brockington, D., & Adams, W. M. (2020). Distinct positions underpin ecosystem services for poverty alleviation. Oryx, 54(3), 375-382. (continues)
  13. 13. References Klenk, N., & Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environmental science & Policy, 54, 160-167. McCall, M. K. (2016). Beyond “landscape” in REDD+: the imperative for “territory”. World Development, 85, 58-72. McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., ... & O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966-972. Osborne, T., Brock, S., Chazdon, R., Chomba, S., Garen, E., Gutierrez, V., ... & Sundberg, J. (2021). The political ecology playbook for ecosystem restoration: Principles for effective, equitable, and transformative landscapes. Global Environmental Change, 70, 102320. Peluso, N. L. (2012). What's nature got to do with it? A situated historical perspective on socio‐natural commodities.Development and change, 43(1), 79-104. Peluso, N. L. (2003). A look at environmental discourses and politics in Indonesia. Nature in the Global South: Environmental Projects in South and Southeast Asia, ed. P. Greenough and AL Tsing, 231-252. Pimbert, M. P. (2017). Food Sovereignty, Agroecology and Biocultural Diversity. Constructing and contesting knowledge. London: Routledge. Rai, N.D., Bhasme, S., & Balaji, P. (2018). Power, inequality and rights: A political ecology of forest restoration. In: Mansourian S. and Parrotta, J. (eds.) Forest Landscape Restoration (pp. 47-62). London: Routledge. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., ... & Van Oosten, C. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349-8356. Walker, P., & Fortmann, L. (2003). Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies, 10(4), 469-491. Siangulube, F.S., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Reed, J., Djoudi, H., Gumbo, D. & Sunderland, T. (in press). Navigating power imbalances in landscape governance: A network and influence analysis in Southern Zambia. Regional Environmental Change. Yanou, M. P., Ros-Tonen, M.A.F., Reed, J. & Sunderland, T. (under review). Indigenous local knowledge and practices among Tonga people in Zambia and Zimbabwe: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy.

Editor's Notes

  • Wicked problems: unique problems, connected to other problems, with no clear problem solution and no clear-cut solutions.
    Examples:
    Deforestation and environmental degradation: 10 mln ha/yr forest loss from 2015-2020 (FAO 2020)
    Biodiversity loss: one million species face extinction and nature’s vital contributions to human wellbeing are deteriorating and nature’s vital contributions to human wellbeing are deteriorating
    Climate change: affects food production and the poor and vulnerable in the global South the hardest (IPCC 2019)
    Food insecurity: > 800 million people (>10% of the world population) are undernourished
  • The presentation by Eric showed how the Q method allowed identifying common concern entry points in Northern Ghana and which actor groups had similar and contrasting concerns.
  • Freddie examined power differences in access to national resources to reveal that traditional leaders have considerable influence on access to land, forest and water resources but that development decisions were mainly determined by governance agencies. Livestock farmers were perceived to have considerable influence on grazing and pasture management. An interesting aspect of his research was that he revealed a distinction between visible, hidden, and invisible power. This distinction is important from a political ecology perspective. Hidden power is the power to manipulate collective decisions, for instance, by withholding particular issues from the agenda, a ‘divide and rule’ strategy through donations or corruption, or granting access to resources to people affiliated to the same political party and withholding such access to those favouring another party. Invisible power is hard to uncover but refers to subtle forms of resistance against forms of domination and another aspect that political ecology considers important to consider and helps position in a theoretical perspective.

×