Tag: News

Panel Conveners: Cristina Espinosa (Assistant Professor) & Zabrina Welter (PhD Candidate)

From the Chair for Sustainability Governance, Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, University of Freiburg

Panel Description:

Throughout the world, new patterns of resource exploration, extraction and nature appropriation are rapidly emerging in the name of sustainable, low-carbon, and peaceful futures (Fairhead, Leach, & Scoones, 2012; Church & Crawford, 2018). Examples range from the exacerbated extraction of ‘transition minerals’ in the Global South that facilitate the shift towards low-carbon economies principally in the Global North (Jowitt, Mudd, & Thompson, 2020; Parra, Lewis, & Ali, 2021) to numerous international greening schemes for protecting biodiversity hotspots (Fairhead, Leach, & Scoones, 2012; Woods, 2019). At the same time, these trends have consolidated as a widespread government strategy for attaining sustainable development, particularly in Latin America (Arsel, Hogenboom, & Pellegrini, 2016). However, the rapid expansion of resource appropriation and extraction touches ground in sensitive environments populated by indigenous and other marginalized populations already affected by complex local settings (Sonter, Dade, Watson, & Valenta, 2020). As one can expect, these developments have dire environmental justice implications (Temper, del Bene, & Martinez-Alier, 2015). They bring along human rights violations, environmental damage, biodiversity loss, clashing imaginaries of the ‘good life’, and bitter conflicts with varying degrees of intensity and violence (Leifsen, Gustafsson, Guzmán-Gallegos, & Schilling-Vacaflor, 2017). Thus governance factors and socio-environmental conflicts will crucially shape development trajectories based on the appropriation of nature and the extraction of natural resources over the next decades (Jowitt et al., 2020).

In connection to the above described trends, excellent Political Ecology research has been conducted on themes such as resistance and contestation (e.g. Bebbington & Bury, 2013; Engels & Dietz, 2017), and participation in natural resource governance (Leifsen et al., 2017). While power has been a key analytical focus in these studies, the links between power, knowledge and expertise intertwined with socio-ecological conflicts and natural resource governance processes (e.g. Escobar, 1998; Forsyth, 2015, 2020; Nightingale, 2005) are less common though they seem to be slowly but steadily gaining academic attention (see e.g. Conde, 2014; Kirsch, 2014; Li, 2015; Sánchez Vázquez, 2019). Astonishingly, legal processes through which citizens, NGOs and governments seek redress for environmental injustices are relatively under-explored in this emerging line of inquiry and among Political Ecologists more broadly. Yet, legal processes constitute one of the most visible sites for political tensions involving contemporary socio-ecological conflicts and contested natural resource governance arrangements (Vela-Almeida & Torres, 2021). They are privileged sites where different actors seek redress for environmental injustices suffered by human and non-human subjects. For example, in the context of extractive projects, in countries like Ecuador, lawsuits are being brought forward for alleged violations of consultation rights and the rights of nature (Vela-Almeida & Torres, 2021). Similarly, in Alaska courtrooms are venues in which government decisions regarding zoning and environmental permitting are challenged by actors who invoke indigenous rights and non-human rights and wield multiple environmental knowledges (Panikkar, 2020; Tollefson & Panikkar, 2020). Likewise, environmental liability litigation is becoming a promising practice to remedy biodiversity loss (Phelps et al., 2021). Another interesting example can be seen in conflict-affected countries like Colombia, where environmental damages caused during the armed conflict, such as those related to illegal extractive activities, are expected to be remediated as part of transitional justice processes in the post-conflict context (Hulme, 2017; Gómez-Betancur, 2020; Ramírez Gutiérrez & Saavedra Eslava, 2020). All these legal processes require the articulation and recognition of caused environmental injustices, the assignment of responsibility, and the establishment of appropriate measures to redress harm. Thus, these processes withhold the opportunity of formal and public recognition of multiple knowledge systems, values and rights (Panikkar, 2020; Phelps et al., 2021).

In this panel, we seek to gain a deep and critical understanding of such power/knowledge dynamics in legal spheres and processes initiated to advance environmental justice objectives linked to contested natural resource governance. We invite contributions that examine and reflect about how established discourses and procedures for the production and verification of what counts as legitimate knowledge in the governance of natural resources are maintained, destabilized, or modified and thereby shape particular power relationships between governments, corporations and citizens with varying implications for environmental justice. Likewise, we would appreciate contributions that explore the implications that the privileging of particular knowledge systems and administrative rationalities within legal contexts has for citizen engagement in contested natural resource governance processes. Contributions to this panel can consider the following research questions:

· How are different types of knowledge and expertise adjudicated in legal processes initiated to advance environmental justice objectives in connection to contested natural resource projects or governance decisions?

· Which types of knowledge and expertise are rendered authoritative and which are rendered inappropriate in these legal contexts?

· Who represents and embodies this authoritative knowledge and expertise and who represents and embodies the subjugated knowledge and expertise?

· How do processes of racialization/gendering/class and intersecting social relations of power enter into the construction of and disqualification in categories of ‘expertise’ in legal processes?

· In which ways do marginalized actors negotiate and navigate expertise barriers and epistemic hierarchies in courtrooms?

· What knowledge politics emerge in courtrooms when court-cases revolt around non-anthropocentric rights, e.g. rights of nature?

Please send your abstract and additional information to cristina.espinosa@envgov.uni-freiburg.de and zabrina.welter@envgov.uni-freiburg.de as follows:

Name, affiliation, presentation title (maximum 20 words), abstract (maximum 250 words), and 3 keywords

Submission deadline: December 10, 2021

References

Arsel, M., Hogenboom, B., & Pellegrini, L. (2016). The extractive imperative and the boom in environmental conflicts at the end of the progressive cycle in Latin America. The Extractive Industries and Society, 3(4), 877-879. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.10.013

Bebbington, A., & Bury, J. (2013). Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America: University of Texas Press.

Church, C., & Crawford, A. (2018). Green Conflict Minerals. International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Conde, M. (2014). Activism mobilising science. Ecological Economics, 105, 67-77.

Engels, B., & Dietz, K. (2017). Contested Extractivism, Society and the State Struggles over Mining and Land Development, Justice and Citizenship, SpringerLink. Bücher, Springer eBook Collection. Political Science and International Studies (pp. Online-Ressource (XV, 273 p. 272 illus, online resource)). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?. Journal of peasant studies, 39(2), 237-261.

Gómez-Betancur, L. (2020). The rights of nature in the Colombian Amazon: examining challenges and opportunities in a transitional justice setting. UCLA J. Int’l L. Foreign Aff., 25, 41.

Hulme, K. (2017). Using a framework of human rights and transitional justice for post-conflict environmental protection and remediation.

Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation, and the political ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology, 5(1), 53-82.

Forsyth, T. (2015). Integrating science and politics in political ecology. In R. L. Bryant (Ed.), The international handbook of political ecology: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Forsyth, T. (2020). Who Shapes the Politics of Expertise? Co-Production and Authoritative Knowledge in Thailand’s Political Forests. Antipode, 52(4), 1039-1059. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12545

Jowitt, S. M., Mudd, G. M., & Thompson, J. F. H. (2020). Future availability of non-renewable metal resources and the influence of environmental, social, and governance conflicts on metal production. Communications Earth & Environment, 1(1), 13. doi:10.1038/s43247-020-0011-0

Kirsch, S. (2014). Mining capitalism: The relationship between corporations and their critics: Univ of California Press.

Leifsen, E., Gustafsson, M.-T., Guzmán-Gallegos, M. A., & Schilling-Vacaflor, A. (2017). New mechanisms of participation in extractive governance: between technologies of governance and resistance work. Third World Quarterly, 38(5), 1043-1057. doi:10.1080/01436597.2017.1302329

Li, F. (2015). Unearthing conflict: corporate mining, activism, and expertise in Peru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Nightingale, A. J. (2005). “The Experts Taught Us All We Know”: Professionalisation and Knowledge in Nepalese Community Forestry. Antipode, 37(3), 581-604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00512.x

Panikkar, B. (2020). “Litigation Is Our Last Resort”: Addressing Uncertainty, Undone Science, and Bias in Court to Assert Indigenous Rights. Nature and Culture, 15(2), 173-198. doi:10.3167/nc.2020.150204

Parra, C., Lewis, B., & Ali, S. H. (2021). Mining, Materials, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 2030 and Beyond. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Phelps, J., Aravind, S., Cheyne, S., Dabrowski Pedrini, I., Fajrini, R., Jones, C. A., . . . Webb, E. L. (2021). Environmental liability litigation could remedy biodiversity loss. Conservation Letters, n/a(n/a), e12821. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12821

Ramírez Gutiérrez, C., & Saavedra Eslava, A. S. (2020). Protection of the Natural Environment under International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law: The Case of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in Colombia. UCLA J. Int’l L. Foreign Aff., 25, 123.

Sánchez Vázquez, L. (2019). ¿Ciencia de resistencia? Monitoreos ambientales participativos en contextos de conflicto ambiental. Reflexiones desde una mirada decolonial. Revista de Paz y Conflictos, 12(2), 57-79. doi:10.30827/revpaz.v12i2.10399

Sonter, L. J., Dade, M. C., Watson, J. E. M., & Valenta, R. K. (2020). Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity. Nature Communications, 11(1), 4174. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17928-5

Temper, L., del Bene, D., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2015). Mapping the frontiers and front lines of global environmental justice: the EJAtlas. Journal of Political Ecology, 22, 255-278. doi:10.2458/v22i1.21108

Tollefson, J., & Panikkar, B. (2020). Contested extractivism: impact assessment, public engagement, and environmental knowledge production in Alaska’s Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Journal of Political Ecology, 21(1), 1166-1188. doi:https://doi.org/10.2458/v27i1.23828

Vela-Almeida, D., & Torres, N. (2021). Consultation in Ecuador: Institutional Fragility and Participation in National Extractive Policy. Latin American Perspectives, 48(3), 172-191. doi:10.1177/0094582X211008148

Woods, K. M. (2019). Green territoriality: Conservation as state territorialization in a resource frontier. Human Ecology, 47(2), 217-232.

Co-organizers:

Abigail Croker, Imperial College London

Kapil Yadav, King’s College London

Naira Dehmel, King’s College London

Keywords: early-career perspectives, decolonizing political ecology, South-North positionalities, divisions and collaboration

Abstract

We are the early career political ecologists. We find ourselves in the South, North, between them or moving between both. We have started our academic journey and are getting acquainted with the literature in political ecology, theoretical frameworks, and methodology. We are planning and carrying out our fieldwork, analysing data, engaging with global scholars and institutions, attending academic conferences, and working towards initial peer-reviewed publications.

There is much good and bad that we inherit in the world and political ecology. There is much we wish to change in the world. But as we go about doing this through our work, there is something about the existing political ecology that doesn’t feel right. This session focuses on: When did political ecology not speak to you (or your heart)? Why? What can be done?

This session questions and challenges our academic inheritance. It aims to make visible some of the concerns that are felt and shared by many of us. If we are the future of political ecology, then what do we want to leave behind as we move forward. We are interested in exploring the following questions, as well as any related ones:

1) How to decolonize all that has been passed down to us?

2) How do we challenge the knowledge of power and power of knowledge, given the disciplinary origin of political ecology?

3) How do we move beyond the anglophone aspect of political ecology?

4) How can collaborative work be done when there are structural inequities between the political ecologists of the North and the South?

5) Is there a common ground where early political ecologists find a common ground as ‘We’?

For this panel discussion, we invite PhD students and Post-doctorates to submit their ideas for answering these and raising similar relevant questions. There will be a strong emphasis on the diversity of speakers (geographical origin, cultural perspectives, race, gender, caste, career stage, discipline, etc.) and inclusive discussions. Therefore, we kindly request that you include some information on your positionality (related to these dimensions or others you find important) when submitting your abstract.

Please direct any inquiries and/or submit your abstract (max 250 words), including a title, 3 keywords and your affiliation by 17 January to Abigail Croker (a.croker20@imperial.ac.uk), Kapil Yadav (kapil.yadav@kcl.ac.uk), and Naira Dehmel (naira.dehmel@kcl.ac.uk). We will communicate our decision on selected contributions by 25 January and submit our final proposal for an Organised Session, including the selected contributions, to the POLLEN 2022 portal by 30 January.

Co-organizers: Shreya Sinha and Tanya Matthan

There is a large and growing scholarship on growing fluidity and interconnections between the rural and the urban, reflected in terms such as rural-urban complex, ruralities, agrarian urbanisations, extended urbanisations, recombinant urbanization, etc. Scholars have emphasized that the contemporary ‘rural’ encompasses far more than the agrarian and that neat binaries of rural/urban, city/country, and agrarian/industrial rarely hold up against empirical scrutiny. These conceptual shifts reflect not only the spatial reorganisation of the countryside but also flows of people, commodities, and capital across these landscapes. This panel session seeks to explore where and how questions of ecology feature in these rural-urban transitions and transformations.

As the fields of urban and agrarian studies are brought into deeper dialogue through work on ‘agrarian urbanization’, we see a critical role for political ecology in understanding rural-urban transformations owing to its emphasis on cross-scalar analysis. In particular, we ask how these landscape transformations shape and are shaped by ecologies, resources, and material flows – from water to minerals, forests to pastures, toxic waste to air pollution. Current scholarship has largely focused on processes of commodification, financialization and dispossession of land – we argue for specific and granular analyses of the diverse ecological shifts propelled by and implicated in these recent transformations and indeed, the historical connections between rural and urban landscapes. We consider this essential in order to place the urgent scholarship on environmental change in conversation with the grounded political economies across diverse geographies.

Possible themes include, but are not limited to:
● The transformations in the use and contestations over resources (land, water, forests etc.) as a result of rural-urban transformations
● The shifting materiality, meanings, values and social relations attached to ecology/environmental resources in these transformations
● Forms of marketization, commodification and speculation that emerge in relation to resources beyond and tied to land
● How these changes reconstitute our understandings of the agrarian, the urban and the environmental
● What the political ecology of rural-urban transformations tells us about regional and global capitalisms, and the reproduction of uneven geographies

We welcome contributions from across disciplines and on studies based in the global South and North.
Please direct any inquiries and/or a 250-word abstract to Shreya Sinha (shreya.sinha@reading.ac.uk) and Tanya Matthan (tanyamatthan@berkeley.edu) by revised deadline of January 15, 2022. We will communicate our decision by December 10. Final panel proposals will be submitted by January 31.

Indicative references:
● Woods, Michael. 2009. Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6): 849-858.
● Balakrishnan, Sai and Shubra Gururani. 2021. New terrains of agrarian-urban studies: Limits and Possibilities. Urbanization, 6(1): 7-15.
● Connolly, Creighton. 2018. Urban Political Ecology Beyond Methodological Cityism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43(1): 63-75.
● Kay, Cristóbal. 2008. Reflections on Latin American Rural Studies in the Neoliberal Globalization Period: A New Rurality? Development and Change, 39(6): 915-943.

Session organizers:

Deborah Delgado_¹, Ana Watson², Conny Davidsen²

¹Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru

²University of Calgar

Abstract:

Despite growing international calls and strong evidence of their crucial roles, indigenous and local communities are still struggling to have a voice and impact in environmental governance to secure their livelihoods and territories vis-à-vis growing exploitation, violence, state neglect, and projected impacts of climate change. At the 2021 World Parks Congress, Amazonian indigenous peoples’ organizations championed the motion to protect 80% of the Amazon Forest. Similarly, at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, indigenous leaders made their case to protect not only their forests, but also recognize their rights to make decisions over territory and be key agents for climate action. While asking for conservation, their claim revolves around the protection of their territory and their rights to self-determination. This panel invites case studies considering the 7 socio-cultural regions recognized by the UN (Africa; the Arctic; Asia; Central and South America and the Caribbean; Eastern Europe, Russian Federation, Central Asia and Transcaucasia; North America; and the Pacific). We look for work that examine the impacts of climate change action and conservation policies on indigenous livelihoods and territorial rights.

Typically, the politics forest conservation and biodiversity movements has paid attention to charismatic species and remote pristine areas (Pascual et al. 2021). Political ecology literature has illustrated the risks of symbolic and material displacement vis-a-vis rising neoliberal conservation practices that impose human-centered market logics, for example in Africa (Fletcher 2010; Büscher 2013; Brockington, Duffy, and Igoe 2008; Fletcher 2017; Devine and Baca 2020). Thus, suggesting the powerful interests and values of forest conservation that could contrast with indigenous rights. On the other side, Latin America decolonial scholars demonstrate the integrated nature of the decolonial and environmental agenda of indigenous people confronting the western values and extractive developmentalist projects towards their recognition (Quijano 2007; Matos Mar et al. 2016; Leff 2004; Mignolo 2011; Walsh 2007; Rodríguez and Inturias 2018). However, Latin America has been influenced by a set of different historical conjunctions that differs from the colonial-style conservation deployed in Africa and Asia. A comprehensive analysis of the various dynamics between climate and conservation practices along the lines of indigenous autonomy and self-governance projects, gender and race is still missing.

We welcome presentations that offer explorations on the power dynamics at the junction of environmental policies, conservation, collective rights and livelihoods in the global tropics, particularly as conservation narratives in the global tropics can vary greatly.

Potential contributions may focus on, but are not limited to, the following topics:

• Implications of inequality and (de)colonial practices in conservation
• Self-determination and knowledge production
• Indigenous self-governance at the interplay of the environmental and health crisis
• Neoliberal conservation and indigenous action amidst illegal economies
• Gender and its political implications for, indigenous autonomies and forest conservation
• Power relations on conservation practices involving peasant and indigenous communities, NGOs, state institutions and / or international organizations.

Keywords (maximum 6 keywords): Indigenous self-determination, autonomy, forest, conservation, climate action

We invite contributions from academic researchers, practitioners and activists from the Global South and North. If you are interested in contributing to the session, please send a title and

an abstract (max. 250 words) and your affiliation to ana.watson1@ucalgary.ca by December 12th.

References

Brockington, Dan, Rosaleen Duffy, and Jim Igoe. 2008. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas. London: Earthscan.

Büscher, Bram. 2013. Frontiers of Conservation. Transforming the Fronteir: Peace Parks and the Politics of Neoliberal Conservation in Southern Africa. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.

Devine, Jennifer A., and Jenny A. Baca. 2020. “The Political Forest in the Era of Green Neoliberalism.” Antipode 52 (4): 911–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/ANTI.12624.

Fletcher, Robert. 2010. “Neoliberal Environmentality: Towards a Poststructuralist Political Ecology of the Conservation Debate.” Conservation and Society 8 (3): 171. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.73806.

———. 2017. “Environmentality Unbound: Multiple Governmentalities in Environmental Politics.” Geoforum 85 (June): 311–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.06.009.

Leff, Enrique. 2004. “Racionalidad Ambiental y Diálogo de Saberes. Significancia y Sentido En La Construcción de Un FuturoSustentable.” POLIS 7: 1–35.

Matos Mar, Jose, Julio Cotler, Fernando Fuenzalida, Augusto Salazar Bondy, Heraclio Bonilla, Karen Spalding, Gustavo Gutierrez, et al. 2016. Antología Del PensamientoCríticoPeruano Contemporáneo. Edited by Martin Tanaka. Buenos Aires: CLACSO. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/se/20161027035821/AntologiaPensamientoCriticoPeruano.pdf.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2011. “Epistemic Disobedience and the Decolonial Option: A Manifesto.” Transmodernity Fall: 44–66.

Pascual, Unai, William M. Adams, Sandra Díaz, SharachchandraLele, Georgina M. Mace, and Esther Turnhout. 2021. “Biodiversity and the Challenge of Pluralism.” Nature Sustainability 4 (7): 567–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7

Quijano, Aníbal. 2007. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality.” Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 168–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353.

Rodríguez, Iokiñe, and Mirna Liz Inturias. 2018. “Conflict Transformation in Indigenous Peoples’ Territories: Doing Environmental Justice with a ‘Decolonial Turn.’” Development Studies Research 5 (1): 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2018.1486220.

Walsh, Catherine. 2007. “Interculturalidad y Colonialidad Del Poder. Un Pensamiento y Posicionamiento ‘Otro’ Desde La Diferenciacolonial.” In El Giro Decolonial. Reflexiones Para Una DiversidadEpistémica Más Allá Del Capitalismo Global., edited by Santiago Castro-Gómez and Ramón Grosfoguel, 47–62. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores; Universidad Central, Instituto de EstudiosSocialesContemporáneos y Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto Pensar.

Session Organizers: Emilie Wiehe and Noella Gray, University of Guelph

Abstract

The importance of equity and justice in marine conservation specifically and the blue economy more broadly has gained significant traction among scholars and practitioners alike in recent years (Bavinck & Verrips, 2020; Bennett et al., 2019). This momentum responds in part to the longstanding conflicts and displacements resulting from conservation interventions as well as the growing popularity of the blue economy as a model for development and the need to ensure its social sustainability. Academic discussions surrounding equity and justice in marine conservation have found their grounding in the literature on social justice and environmental justice, with a focus on three dimensions of justice: representation, procedure and recognition (Bennett et al., 2021; Gustavsson, Lindström, Jiddawi, & de la Torre-Castro, 2014).

Given the largely different contexts in which marine conservation interventions take place, debates have been ongoing regarding the relative importance of each dimension of justice, and the role of value systems in underpinning understandings of fairness and equity. Recent research has also examined who may be the recipients or “subjects” of justice or the major stakeholders concerned and differences in perceptions of fairness among different stakeholder groups, within and across sites (Gurney, Mangubhai, Fox, Kiatkoski Kim, & Agrawal, 2021; Kahmann, Stumpf, & Baumgärtner, 2015; Lau, Gurney, & Cinner, 2021). In addition, while the development of indicators around equity in protected area management has proven useful for comparability across sites (Bennett et al., 2020; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017) several authors have shown the plurality of notions of justice and fairness even within specific sites (Gurney et al., 2021; Lau et al., 2021).

In contrast to the more applied scholarship on equity in marine conservation interventions, equity and social justice in the blue economy have been advocated in broad governance terms and in a sectoral approach given the constellation of activities and sectors that it entails (Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2019; Satizábal, Dressler, Fabinyi, & Pido, 2020). The notion of blue justice with a focus on small-scale fishers, in particular, has grown in popularity (Cohen et al., 2019). While this approach offers promise in terms of ensuring a fair and equitable blue economy, it also threatens resistance movements as the term becomes diluted and co-opted by various groups.

Recognizing “the potential for cross-fertilization” between political ecology and radical environmental justice  (Svarstad & Benjaminsen, 2020), we welcome papers that consider:

• How equity, fairness and justice are conceptualized and/or operationalized in marine conservation and blue economy initiatives at various scales;
• The impacts of specific oceans governance policies and projects on the three dimensions of justice;
• The potential for novel oceans governance approaches to address or exacerbate longstanding injustices;
• Examples of efforts to reform existing oceans governance practices in order to be more equitable; and/or
• How analyses of equity and justice in coastal and ocean environments may differ from terrestrial approaches and may in turn inform broader debates on the topic.

If you would like to participate in this session, please submit a title, an abstract of no more than 250 words, and 3 keywords by 8th December 2021 to ewiehe@uoguelph.ca and grayn@uoguelph.ca.

We also welcome information regarding your positionality if you would like to provide it, so that we may be attentive to the diversity of voices in the session.

References

Bavinck, M., & Verrips, J. (2020). Manifesto for the marine social sciences. Maritime Studies, 19(2), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00179-x

Bennett, N. J., Calò, A., Di Franco, A., Niccolini, F., Marzo, D., Domina, I., … Guidetti, P. (2020). Social equity and marine protected areas: Perceptions of small-scale fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Conservation, 244(April), 108531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108531

Bennett, N. J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Blythe, J., Silver, J. J., Singh, G., Andrews, N., … Sumaila, U. R. (2019). Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. Nature Sustainability, 2(11), 991–993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0404-1

Bennett, N. J., Katz, L., Yadao-Evans, W., Ahmadia, G. N., Atkinson, S., Ban, N. C., … Wilhelm, A. (2021). Advancing Social Equity in and Through Marine Conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8(July), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.711538

Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Moreno-Báez, M., Voyer, M., Allison, E. H., Cheung, W. W. L., Hessing-Lewis, M., … Ota, Y. (2019). Social equity and benefits as the nexus of a transformative Blue Economy: A sectoral review of implications. Marine Policy, 109(October). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103702

Cohen, P. J., Allison, E. H., Andrew, N. L., Cinner, J., Evans, L. S., Fabinyi, M., … Ratner, B. D. (2019). Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Frontiers in Marine Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00171

Gurney, G. G., Mangubhai, S., Fox, M., Kiatkoski Kim, M., & Agrawal, A. (2021). Equity in environmental governance: perceived fairness of distributional justice principles in marine co-management. Environmental Science and Policy, 124(June), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022

Gustavsson, M., Lindström, L., Jiddawi, N. S., & de la Torre-Castro, M. (2014). Procedural and distributive justice in a community-based managed Marine Protected Area in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Marine Policy, 46, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.005

Kahmann, B., Stumpf, K. H., & Baumgärtner, S. (2015). Notions of justice held by stakeholders of the Newfoundland fishery. Marine Policy, 62, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.08.012

Kockel, A., Ban, N. C., Costa, M., & Dearden, P. (2020). Addressing distribution equity in spatial conservation prioritization for small-scale fisheries. PLoS ONE, 15(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233339

Lau, J. D., Gurney, G. G., & Cinner, J. (2021). Environmental justice in coastal systems: Perspectives from communities confronting change. Global Environmental Change, 66, 102208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102208

Satizábal, P., Dressler, W. H., Fabinyi, M., & Pido, M. D. (2020). Blue economy discourses and practices: reconfiguring ocean spaces in the Philippines. Maritime Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00168-0

Svarstad, H., & Benjaminsen, T. A. (2020). Reading radical environmental justice through a political ecology lens. Geoforum, 108(November 2019), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.11.007

Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A., Gross-Camp, N., … Burgess, N. D. (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211(May), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.014