*CfP POLLEN 2018:*

*From performativity to hybridization: exploring theory-practice
entanglements in (so-called) market-based environmental initiatives*

POLLEN18: Political Ecology, the Green Economy, and Alternative

Oslo, Norway

June 20-22, 2018

*ABSTRACT DEADLINE: December 6, 2017*

Session organizers: Catherine Windey (University of Antwerp), Vijay
Kolinjivadi (Université du Québec en Outaouais), Gert Van Hecken
(University of Antwerp), and Elizabeth Shapiro-Garza (Duke University)

Over the last two decades, market-based instruments (MBIs) for nature
conservation have become increasingly prominent in environmental and
development policy discourse as a so-called win-win solution. While there
is no consensual definition of MBIs and they encompasses heterogeneous
types of programmes that do not always use markets in their conception and
implementation, a utilitarian rationale and the use of financial incentives
remain central elements of their design (Pirard, 2012). Therefore, beyond
the material outcomes of MBIs and regardless of actual commodification or
marketization processes taking place, much of the critical scholarship on
MBIs denounces this overarching rationale as part of a hegemonic neoliberal
governmentality that primarily serves the capitalist agenda. Accordingly,
this form of environmental management would lead to a detrimental
modification of socio-ecological relations through the promotion of
productivist/individualistic socio-cultural attitudes towards the
environment at the cost of more intrinsic motivations (e.g. Brockington and
Duffy, 2010; Büscher et al., 2012; Castree, 2003; Corbera, 2012; Fletcher
and Büscher, 2017; McAfee, 2012; Sullivan, 2006; Van Hecken and
Bastiaensen, 2010). At the same time, an increasing number of empirical
studies have also shown precisely how these dominant narratives behind MBIs
are constructed, contested and (re)negotiated at multiple levels (e.g.
Benjaminsen, 2014; Büscher, 2014; den Besten et al., 2013; Evans et al.,
2014; Leggett and Lovell, 2012; McElwee, 2014; Milne and Adams, 2012;
Pasgaard, 2015; Shapiro-Garza, 2013a, 2013b; Van Hecken et al. 2015a). In
fact, these models do not necessarily unfold on the ground as intended and
rather result in a hybridization between different worldviews, everyday
practices and ways of valuing ‘nature’ through actors’ agency and power
relationships (Cleaver, 2012; Van Hecken et al., 2015b).

While it is important to critically examine the ideologies and power
structures underlying MBIs along with micro scale analysis (e.g. Fletcher &
Büscher, 2017), we argue that these debates often remain somewhat trapped
within binary frames between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’, ‘market’ and ‘no
market’, ‘capitalist’ and ‘non-capitalist’, ‘resistance’ and ‘consent’,
that still convey the idea of an imposition of the global
neoliberal/capitalist economy to powerless non-capitalist local communities
and agents (Gibson-Graham, 2002; Hart, 2006). Individual agents and
communities hence appear as a “site of economic impact and never as a
constituent of the economic” (St Martin, 2006: 182) which conveys the idea
that there is an a priori structural power, i.e. neoliberalism, and an a
posteriori agency/actor that is always the site of its hegemonic impact.
Through this lens, the tendency is to dismiss theory-practice entanglements
and various human-nature relationalities and discursive formations that
continuously emerge, but which fall outside of these dialectic ontologies,
hence paradoxically risking reinforcing a neoliberal performative act “that
limits our political imaginations and sense of agency” (Burke and Shear,
2014: 129; Kolinjivadi et al., 2017). Crucially, these outcomes are not
framed as alternatives in response to an imposition by the hegemonic
tendencies of neoliberalism or a capitalist economy. Instead, they emerge
as theory-practice entanglements, consciously or unconsciously, in relation
to a muddle of ideologies, social norms, power relations, actors’ agencies,
path dependencies and geographic scales (Van Hecken et al., 2017).

To further challenge conventional discursive polarizations and to enlighten
and rethink diverse identities and practices (Gibson-Graham, 2002), we
believe that the analysis of how so-called MBIs are formed and then enact,
are (re)informed and contested in interaction with hybrid socio-ecological
configurations is a crucial area of exploration. In other words, examining
these programmes in praxis requires a stronger relational understanding of
humans-in-nature and nature-in-humanity in order to ground MBI design and
implementation within historical and often unruly geographical conditions.
We are therefore interested in bringing together a collection of
presentations that look at the dynamic processes of MBIs’ (re)configuration
that can potentially shape the formation of a new episteme. We thus invite
conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions that consider but are
not limited to the topics below:

- ‘Politics of knowledge’: performativity of policy and academic discourses
on MBIs; theory-practice entanglements; how discourses are constructed and
translated into practice;

- Diverse and historically-situated values, institutions, agencies,
knowledge practices, skills and traditions related to natural resources
management and how they interact with MBIs’ as narrative and practice;

- Dynamics of power (e.g. ‘power-knowledge’, access and use of natural
resources, etc.), role of the State and unruly green governmentalities
surrounding MBIs;

- Going beyond capital-logics as imposed from above: contingent
human-nature histories as debunking neoliberalism’s so-called “success”.

Please send *abstracts of no more than 300 words to
catherine.win...@uantwerpen.be <catherine.win...@uantwerpen.be> before 6
December 2017*. Feel free to contact us should you have any questions or
ideas about this session. If accepted to this paper session, applicants
will still need to register through the POLLEN website.


Benjaminsen, G. 2014. Between Resistance and Consent: Project–Village
Relationships When Introducing REDD+ in Zanzibar. Forum for Development
Studies, 41*, *377-398.

Brockington, D., and Duffy, R. 2010. Capitalism and Conservation: The
Production and Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation. Antipode 42(3),

Büscher, B. 2012. Payments for ecosystem services as neoliberal
conservation: (Reinterpreting) evidence from the Maloti-Drakensberg, South
Africa. Conservation & Society, 10, 29-41.

Büscher, B., Sullivan, S., Neves, K., Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. 2012.
Towards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation.
Capitalism Nature Socialism, 23, 4-30.

Büscher, B. 2014. Selling Success: Constructing Value in Conservation and
Development. World Development, 57, 79-90.

Burke, B. & Shear, B. 2014. Introduction: engaged scholarship for
non-capitalist political ecologies. Journal of Political Ecology, 21,

Castree, N. 2003. Commodifying what nature? Progress in Human Geography,
27, 273-297.

Cleaver, F. 2012. Development as Bricolage. London: Earthscan.

Corbera, E. 2012. Problematizing REDD+ as an experiment in payments for
ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4,

den Besten, J. W., Arts, B. & Verkooijen, P. 2014. The evolution of REDD+:
An analysis of discursive-institutional dynamics. Environmental Science &
Policy, 35, 40-48.

Evans, K., Murphy, L. & de Jong, W. 2014. Global versus local narratives of
REDD: A case study from Peru's Amazon. Environmental Science & Policy, 35,

Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., 2017. The PES Conceit: Revisiting the
Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal
Conservation. Ecological Economics 132, 224-231.

Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2002. Beyond Global Vs. Local: Economic Politics
Outside the Binary Frame. In: Herod, A. & Wright, M. (eds.) Geographies of
Power: Placing Scale. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Hart, G. 2006. Denaturalizing Dispossession: Critical Ethnography in the
Age of Resurgent Imperialism. Antipode, 38, 977-1004.

Kolinjivadi, V., Van Hecken, G., Vela Almeida, D., Kosoy, N., Dupras, J.,
2017. Neoliberal performatives and the “making” of payments for ecosystem
services (PES). Forthcoming in Progress in Human Geography. DOI:

Leggett, M. & Lovell, H. 2012. Community perceptions of REDD+: a case study
from Papua New Guinea. Climate Policy, 12, 115-134.

McAfee, K. & Shapiro, E. N. 2010. Payments for Ecosystem Services in
Mexico: Nature, Neoliberalism, Social Movements, and the State. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 100, 579-599.

McElwee, P., Nghiem, T., Le, H., Vu, H., Tran, N., 2014. Payments for
environmental services and contested neoliberalisation in developing
countries: A case study from Vietnam. Journal of Rural Studies 36, 423-440.

Milne, S. & Adams, B. 2012. Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of
Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia.
Development and Change, 43, 133-158.

Pasgaard, M. (2015). Lost in translation? How project actors shape REDD+
policy and outcomes in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 56(1), 111-127.

Pirard, R., 2012. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem
services: A lexicon. Environmental Science and Policy 19-20, 59-68.

Shapiro-Garza, E., 2013a. Contesting the market-based nature of Mexico's
national payments for ecosystem services programs: Four sites of
articulation and hybridization. Geoforum 46, 5-15.

Shapiro-Garza, E., 2013b. Contesting market-based conservation: Payments
for ecosystem services as a surface of engagement for rural social
movements in Mexico. Human Geography 6(1), 134-150.

St Martin, K. 2006. The impact of “community” on fisheries management in
the US Northeast. Geoforum, 37, 169-184.

Sullivan, S., 2006. Elephant in the room? Problematising ‘new’ (neoliberal)
biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies 33(1), 105-135.

Van Hecken, G. & Bastiaensen, J. 2010. Payments for Ecosystem Services in
Nicaragua: Do Market-based Approaches Work? Development and Change, 41,

Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., Huybrechs, F., 2015a. What’s in a name?
Epistemic perspectives and Payments for Ecosystem Services policies in
Nicaragua. Geoforum 63, 55-66.

Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J. & Windey, C. 2015b. Towards a
power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem
services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecological
Economics, 120, 117-125.

Van Hecken, G., Kolinjivadi, V., Windey, C., McElwee, P., Shapiro-Garza,
E., Huybrechs, F., & Bastiaensen, J., 2017. Silencing Agency in Payments
for Ecosystem Services (PES) by Essentializing a Neoliberal ‘Monster’ Into
Being: A Response to Fletcher & Büscher's ‘PES Conceit’. Forthcoming in
Ecological Economics. doi:*https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.023

*Elizabeth Shapiro-Garza*
Associate Professor of the Practice of Environmental Policy & Management
<http://fds.duke.edu/db/Nicholas/esp/faculty/es159> &
Director of the Certificate Program in Community-Based Environmental
Management <http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/communitycertificate/>
Director for Community Engagement, Duke University Superfund Research Center
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
4013 Environment Hall (physical)
P.O. Box 90328 (mailing)
Durham, NC, 27708-0328
Tel: (919) 681-7781 (USA)
Skype: e.shapiro.duke
Email: elizabeth.shap...@duke.edu

Reply via email to