Elina Andersson

'Because of poverty, we had to come together': collective action for improved food security in rural Kenya and Uganda

Agricultural productivity in East African smallholder systems is notoriously low and food production faces multiple challenges, including soil degradation, decreasing land availability, poor market integration, disease burdens and climate change impacts. However, recent evidence from an in-depth study from two sites in Kenya and Uganda shows signs of new social dynamics as a response to these multiple stressors. This paper focuses on the emergence of local social institutions for collective action, in which particularly women farmers organize themselves. Although previous research on collective action has largely focused on common-pool resource management, we argue that collective action is one potential pathway to livelihood and sustainability improvements also in a setting of private land ownership. Trust building, awareness raising and actions to improve livelihood security through risk sharing and pooling of labour and other limited assets have given people more time and resources available for diversification, preventative activities, experimentation and resource conservation. It thereby strengthens farmers’ capacity to cope with and adapt to change, as well as contributes to the agency at the local level.

Sand Waves and Human Tides: Exploring Environmental Myths on Desertification and Climate-Induced Migration

In spite of the growing attention to climate-induced migration, a coherent understanding of the matter is lacking—as any articulated governance strategy. Although such an impasse relates to the unprecedented socioecological processes involved, we argue that many of the challenges posed by climate-induced migration are not unique in the history of global environmental governance. Proceeding from this, we compare climate migration with the issue of desertification. Drawing upon the concept of environmental myth developed in Political Ecology, we identify common themes such as scientism, vagueness, and ambiguities in the definitions, and a tendency to envision one-fits-all solutions that overlook the multiscalar phenomena involved. We discuss how these traits have contributed to the failure of the desertification regime. Consequently, we propose that climate migration debates should move beyond such deficiencies, to avoid the consolidation of policy responses reproducing the same problems that have characterized the regime on desertification.

Where Forest Carbon Meets Its Maker: Forestry-Based Offsetting as the Subsumption of Nature

ABSTRACT The “subsumption of nature” framework focuses on productivity increases and extractive innovations in nature-based industries. In this article, we argue that it can also be employed beyond that context in order to capture the convoluted dynamics of market environmentalism. To substantiate our argument, we draw on recent fieldwork on “Trees for Global Benefits,” a forestry-based offsetting project in western Uganda. Like industrial tree plantations, this project relies on the subsumption of carbon sequestration to market imperatives in order to guarantee the quality of its carbon credits. The ecological and socioeconomic difficulties this process engenders give rise to unintended consequences and set in motion the disciplining of the carbon offset producers themselves. The application of the subsumption framework to nonindustrial sectors in this way calls attention to the interlinked socioecological dynamics involved in the subsumption of nature, and highlights potential synergies with previous work on the subsumption of labor.

Recognizing Carbon Forestry’s Uneven Geography: A Response to Purdon and the Structure-Agency Dichotomy That Never Was

Abstract We here respond to the critique by Purdon of an article on carbon forestry that we published in this journal last year (Carton and Andersson). While we welcome critical engagements with our work, Purdon’s argument is wide of the mark and appears based largely on misconceptions regarding our theoretical entry point and empirical findings. Underlying this are fundamental disagreements about the nature of carbon forestry, structure-agency dynamics, and how to understand environmental interventions in the global South more broadly. We argue that we are unlikely to “find common ground” in our respective analyses of the Trees for Global Benefits project unless we share a common understanding of the unequal power relations and fundamental geographical unevenness within which carbon projects operate. Contrary to what Purdon argues, this position has nothing to do with ignoring local benefits, nor with denying the agency of the smallholder farmers who participate in the project. We see no contradiction between an analysis that does justice to the various structural conditions that frame carbon forest projects, and a recognition of local agency.