Downloaded 77 times
Uploaded bySTEPS Centre
Melissa Leach: Planetary boundaries, politics and pathways. Plenary dialogue, Resilience 2014.
The document discusses the complex interplay between planetary boundaries, social inequality, and ecological integrity, urging the need for alternative pathways to enhance sustainability and resilience. It emphasizes the importance of including diverse perspectives in decision-making processes regarding resource management and governance. The text highlights the political implications of defining planetary boundaries and calls for inclusive deliberation to address who benefits from these frameworks.
More Related Content
Similar to Melissa Leach: Planetary boundaries, politics and pathways. Plenary dialogue, Resilience 2014.
Melissa Leach: Planetary boundaries, politics and pathways. Plenary dialogue, Resilience 2014.
- 1. Planetary boundaries, politicsand pathways Melissa Leach Plenary Dialogue Montpellier, 7 May 2014
- 2. Intensified poverty andinequalities Ecological stresses Ill healthLand grabs Water scarcity Energy poverty RR Social, institutional and political-economic processes Scarcities, challenges, deprivations, ill-being Development threats in the Anthropocene
- 3. Source: Raworth 2012, basedon Rockström et al 2009 Planetary and social boundaries: Creating a safe and just space for humanity
- 4. Urgent challenges ….. •Building pathways that enhance sustainability and resilience, integrating: • Ecological integrity • Social equality • Human rights, well- being and security
- 5. Source: Leach, Raworth and Rockström 2013 Thismeans building and steering alternative pathways....
- 6. 6 That respect threeDs: What directions are different pathways headed in? What goals, values, interests, power relations are driving particular pathways – and how might they be ‘re-steered’? Is there a sufficient diversity of approaches? - to resist powerful processes of lock-in, build resilience in the face of uncertainty, and respond to a variety of contexts, goals and values? What are the implications for distribution? Who stands to gain or lose from current or alternative pathways? How will choosing between them affect inequalities of wealth, power, resource use, and opportunity? Need to attend to contestations, tensions and trade-offs….
- 7. Politicising planetary boundaries Whoseboundaries? Whose safety? Whose goals? Sustainability and resilience of what for whom? Which pathways? Choosing and shaping interlocked with power Who gains, who loses? Planetary boundaries as power grab, undermining justice and democracy?
- 8. 8 Planetary boundaries –discourse and narrative ‘Planetary boundaries’ as a discourse A particular ‘regime of truth’ co-constructed through power, knowledge and institutions ‘Accelerating human influence in the anthropocene threatening planetary boundaries’ as a powerful narrative A storyline – with a beginning, middle and end Created by people and institutions Assigns responsibility and blame Underpins, justifies, legitimates action
- 9. 9 Whose boundaries? Whosesafety? A two degree ‘safety barrier’ or ‘guardrail’ for climate change Safety involves meanings and values beyond climate per se.... Secure livelihoods? Freedom from gender-based violence? Too hot for coral reefs? Too hot for small island states? 1.5 degrees? 3 degrees? ??
- 10. Alternative sustainable foodfutures transgenics industrial hybridssmall-scale farmer livelihoods participatory breeding Biochar and climate-smart agriculture Whose goals? Sustainability and resilience of what for whom?
- 11. 11 One forest, multiplevalues and sustainabilities Carbon sequestration Hydrological services Biodiversity Ecotourism Timber and building supplies Ancestors and cultural practices Fallows for farming Food and medicines
- 12. 12 Global governance A globalreferee (Rockstrom et al 2009) Recognition of the ‘earth system’ and ‘safe operating space’ as legal entities that can legitimise supra- national governance Which pathways?
- 13. 13 To aspirations fordirected control and ‘planetary management’ “control variables of the Earth” (Rockstrom et al 2009) “identification of mechanisms amenable to human control” (E. Ehlers and T. Krafft, Eds., Earth System Science in the Anthropocene, 2006). “planetary management” (European Commission Directorate General for Research, 2009). Planetary control and management From human ‘control’ in the anthropocene, and planetary domination “we…” who “…are taking control of Nature’s realm” P. J. Crutzen and C. Schwagerl, “Living in the Anthropocene: Toward a New Global Ethos,” Yale Environ. 360, no. 24 January, pp. 6–11, 2011.
- 14. 14 A “landscape approach”means taking both a geographical and socio-economic approach to managing the land, water and forest resources that form the foundation – the natural capital – for meeting our goals of food security and inclusive green growth.... we are better able to maximize productivity, improve livelihoods, and reduce negative environmental impacts’ (Landscape approaches in sustainable development, World Bank) Landscape rationalisation and planning Before: Forest livelihood After: 34,000 ha Jatropha biofuel plot
- 15. 15 Insert a geoengineering pic Techno-scientific fixes Climate geo-engineering Crop biotechnologies
- 16. 16 Green market fixes “Sellingnature to save it” (Kathy McAfee 2010)
- 17. Original artwork (watercolour on 20 x 30 illustration board, 2011) by Filipino painter Boy Dominguez ‘Green Grabbing’, JPS Special Issue 39(2), April 2012. Edited by James Fairhead, Melissa Leach and Ian Scoones
- 18. 18 Pathways marginalised? Transformative pathways– involving alliances that challenge and rework political, economic and social structures Zero carbon energy Ecological agriculture
- 19. 19 Citizen pathways –involving grassroots innovation, mobilisation and collective action Slum and shack dwellers’ networks Food sovereignty and agroecology
- 20. 20 Emergent pathways –involving alignments in diverse bottom-up marginal interests, pursuing contending – even unknown – ends.
- 21. Democratising planetary boundaries? Mattersfor inclusive deliberation and debate Whose boundaries? Whose safety? Whose goals? Sustainability and resilience of what for whom? Which pathways? Choosing and shaping interlocked with power Who gains, who loses? Planetary boundaries as power grab, undermining justice and democracy?
- 22. 22 Towards politics andgovernance for sustainability, resilience and development Challenging unsustainable and unjust pathways, opening up to appreciate alternatives, enabling and supporting transformational pathways Multi-scale – to respond to challenges across global, national, regional, local settings Adaptive – to respond to complexity, uncertainty and dynamics in social, ecological, political and economic systems Networked and alliance-based – combining state and non-state actors and institutions, formal and informal processes, planning and mobilisation, leadership and distributed action Deliberative – to foster inclusive, democratic debate around boundary- placing, goals, and means to get there Engaged with science – but as reflexive partner in framing questions, investigating processes, debating implications (rather than distant authority)
- 23. Safe and justfutures? Innovation and transformation Freeman et al 1973 SPRU, UK Importance of science, technology and innovation Stretching limits, steering within them Hererra et al 1972 Fundacion Bariloche, Argentina Values-based vision: a society ‘based on equality and full participation of all its members ....intrinsically compatible with its environment.’ Human creativity Social and political transformation