Category: Biodiversity conservation & management

Lessons for Research Policy and Practice: The Case of Co-enquiry Research with Rural Communities

Have you ever worked in multi-partner projects aimed at working for rather than with communities? Have you experienced the challenges of doing so? How have you overcome such challenges and transform them into opportunities?

In this article, we explore the relationship between institutional funding for research and community-based or co-enquiry research practice. We describe the implementation of co-enquiry research in the COMBIOSERVE project, which was funded by the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme for research and innovation, between the years 2012 and 2015. Research partnerships between Latin American and European civil society organisations, research institutions, and Latin American rural communities are analysed. Challenges for effective collaboration in co-enquiry and lessons learned for research policy and practice are outlined.

Based on our case study we suggest that: (1) the established values and practices of academia seem largely unfavourable towards alternative forms of research, such as co-enquiry; (2) the policies and administrative practices of this European Commission funding are unsuitable for adopting participatory forms of enquiry; and (3) the approach to research funding supports short engagements with communities whereas long-term collaborations are more desirable. Based on our case study, we propose more flexible funding models that support face-to-face meetings between researchers and communities from the time of proposal drafting, adaptation of research processes to local dynamics, adaptation of administrative processes to the capacities of all participants, and potential for long-term collaborations. Large-scale funding bodies such as European Commission research programmes are leaders in the evolution of research policy and practice. They have the power and the opportunity to publicly acknowledge the value of partnerships with civil society organisations and communities, actively support co-enquiry, and foment interest in innovative forms of research.

Incentivising REDD+?

This article, led by my former MSc student Tessa Dunlop, investigates the current state of development and performance of REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms in five countries. Benefit distribution plays a central role in incentivizing action in REDD+. Conceived as a global performance-based incentive mechanism to reduce land-use emissions in developing countries, REDD+ involves changes in resource governance by many actors at multiple scales, in order to minimize the climate impact of land-use activities or to maximize their contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A key governance issue for developing countries is how to incentivize action among stakeholders and the way countries design their benefit-sharing mechanisms (BSMs) is therefore seen as a critical factor in determining the success of REDD+ in the long term.

We investigate up-to-date national level REDD+ planning documents to provide new evidence on how countries are planning to implement BSMs, including an analysis of common governance themes and where gaps exist. Our unique comparative study reveals that there is a lack of comprehensive participatory, transparent and accountable processes among country strategies and in particular, shortcomings in preparation for local and subnational governance, financial disbursement and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Furthermore, countries are making slow progress on land tenure and carbon rights reform. In fact, such ambiguous legislation on carbon benefits, coupled with weak institutional capacity and ineffective dispute-resolution mechanisms, may make it difficult for REDD+ stakeholders to participate fully in initiatives and receive a fair distribution of benefits. This research indicates that REDD+ actors including donors and national governments will need to further rethink strategies and policy frameworks to improve their BSMs and to guarantee effective, equitable and efficient REDD+ outcomes in the long term.

Justice and conservation: the need to incorporate recognition

In light of the Aichi target to manage protected areas equitably by 2020, we ask in this article how the conservation sector should be incorporating concerns for social justice. We focus in particular on ‘recognition’, because it is the least well understood aspect of environmental justice, and yet highly relevant to conservation because of its concern with respect for local knowledge and cultures. In order to explore the meaning of recognition in the conservation context, we take four main steps. First, we identify four components of recognition to serve as our analytical framework: subjects of justice, the harms that constitute injustice, the mechanisms that produce injustices, and the responses to alleviate these. Secondly, we apply this framework to explore four traditions of thinking about recognition: Hegelian intersubjectivity, critical theory, southern decolonial theory, and the capabilities approach. Thirdly, we provide three case studies of conservation conflicts highlighting how different theoretical perspectives are illustrated in the claims and practices of real world conservation struggles. Fourthly, we finish the paper by drawing out some key differences between traditions of thinking, but also important areas of convergence. The convergences provide a basis for concluding that conservation should look beyond a distributive model of justice to incorporate concerns for social recognition, including careful attention to ways to pursue equality of status for local conservation stakeholders. This will require reflection on working practices and looking at forms of intercultural engagement that, for example, respect alternative ways of relating to nature and biodiversity.

Land-based climate change mitigation, land grabbing and conflict

This is the first Working Paper of the MOSAIC project, a 4-year international research project aimed at studying the interesection between land-based climate change mitigation, land grabbing and conflict, in Asian countries in political transition, i.e. Cambodia and Myanmar. The project involves grassroots civil society organizations, NGOs and academic partners from these two countries, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Canada.

The Working Paper, led by Carol Hunsberger at the University of Western Ontario, introduces the research action framework that guides project development. Recent research highlights the potential for climate change mitigation projects and large scale land deals to produce conflicts over land and resources. However, this literature generally views climate change policies and land grabbing as separate processes, and focuses on discrete areas where displacement or contested claims occur. We argue that additional research strategies are needed to understand the social and ecological spill-over effects that take place within larger areas where land-based climate change projects (e.g. biofuel production, forest conservation, or hydroelectric projects) and large land-based investments (e.g. plantations or mines) are found.

We propose adopting a landscape perspective to study intersections and complex interactions within and across social, ecological and institutional domains. By co-producing knowledge with local actors, building capacity with civil society groups, and informing advocacy that targets policy processes at multiple scales, we suggest that such research could contribute to preventing, resolving or transforming conflicts – even in places where difficult political transitions are underway.

Download also the country-focused accompanying articles by Courtney Work and Kevin Woods, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.

 

How do biosphere reserves influence local vulnerability and adaptation?

In a new paper led by my colleague Isabel Ruiz-Mallén and published online in the journal Global Environmental Change, we interrogate how biosphere reserves can influence local vulnerability and adaptation. Based on a comparative study of four rural communities in Mexico and Bolivia we explore if resource management regulations can increase vulnerability and compromise individual and collective agency for adaptation. We use focus groups, interviews and scoring exercises to analyse the influence of reserve management practices on locally perceived changes and stresses on livelihoods, and to discuss communities’ coping and adaptation strategies. We show that both reserves are perceived as a source of stress but somewhat differently. In Mexico, communities feel vulnerable to the reserve’s regulations but less to climatic and economic stresses, whereas in Bolivia communities perceive the insufficient enforcement of the reserve’s rules as the most relevant stress to their livelihoods. Most of household-based and collective adaptations to environmental change have been adopted without the support of the biosphere reserves. We discuss how and why the biosphere reserves contribute to local vulnerability and why their role in enhancing local adaptation is limited.