233
10
of citizen involvement in conservation, and we explain this situation through an
analysis of power exercised at various levels.
In 7 Chap. 7, we show how Norway’s policy towards pastoralists cannot be
said to be any more favourable to livestock-keepers than what we find in various
African countries. There is a large literature demonstrating how African livestock
policies are based on misconceptions of pastoral systems, which lead to ill-informed
restrictions on these systems and further marginalization of pastoralists including
loss of access to key pastures.
This situation is, however, the same in Norway, if not worse, because the modernization pressure on pastoralists is perhaps even more advanced, and the view
that pastoralists do not have a place in a modern society is at least as widespread in
Norway as it is in Mali or Tanzania. When we have interviewed officials in the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture in Norway about Sámi reindeer herding and for
instance officials in the Ministry of Agriculture in Tanzania about Maasai pastoralism, we have received more or less identical answers; the pastoralists have too
many animals, which leads to overstocking and land degradation, poor economic
performance and increasing land-use conflicts. 7 Chapters 7 and 8 question such
views.
We also show how research, policy-formulation and governance related to Sámi
reindeer husbandry are in urgent need of decolonization. The Ministry of Food
and Agriculture has for the last 20 years given large funds to ecological research on
Sámi reindeer herding, which has been a much-needed source of income for
researchers and their institutes. Regardless of what their data actually show, they
have presented conclusions stating that there are too many reindeer in proportion
to available pastures. This has given a false legitimacy to the continued policy of
reducing the number of reindeer and reindeer owners. At the same time, the practical knowledge of the reindeer herders, acquired over generations, is at best briefly
mentioned in policy documents, but neglected in practice, and at worst treated as
irrelevant or merely as vested in unscientific folklore and superstition.
In 7 Chap. 9, we present the example of Norwegian capital investments in forest plantations and large-scale agriculture in Tanzania. The cases demonstrate how
‘modernization’ through such big capital investments may have detrimental effects
on sustainability and local livelihoods. These cases also illustrate some concepts
drawn from Marxist political economy such as commodity fetishism, accumulation by dispossession and spatial fix.
Although political ecology has developed in different directions during the last
couple of decades, we believe our approach is ‘mainstream’ in the sense that it is
rooted in empirical case studies at the local level relying mostly on qualitative
methods, but sometimes also including the analysis of quantitative data. It is based
on the idea that one can study the global in the local by first getting a good grasp
of what is happening locally meaning what are the ongoing environmental processes and what are their main causes.
When one believes to have a fair understanding of the local situation, the next
step would be to move ‘upwards’ through chains or networks to identify the factors
at other levels that influence the local situation. This can be state bureaucracies
through laws, policies and discourses and it can be global markets or international
10.1 · The Approach in This Book
10
of citizen involvement in conservation, and we explain this situation through an
analysis of power exercised at various levels.
In 7 Chap. 7, we show how Norway’s policy towards pastoralists cannot be
said to be any more favourable to livestock-keepers than what we find in various
African countries. There is a large literature demonstrating how African livestock
policies are based on misconceptions of pastoral systems, which lead to ill-informed
restrictions on these systems and further marginalization of pastoralists including
loss of access to key pastures.
This situation is, however, the same in Norway, if not worse, because the modernization pressure on pastoralists is perhaps even more advanced, and the view
that pastoralists do not have a place in a modern society is at least as widespread in
Norway as it is in Mali or Tanzania. When we have interviewed officials in the
Ministry of Food and Agriculture in Norway about Sámi reindeer herding and for
instance officials in the Ministry of Agriculture in Tanzania about Maasai pastoralism, we have received more or less identical answers; the pastoralists have too
many animals, which leads to overstocking and land degradation, poor economic
performance and increasing land-use conflicts. 7 Chapters 7 and 8 question such
views.
We also show how research, policy-formulation and governance related to Sámi
reindeer husbandry are in urgent need of decolonization. The Ministry of Food
and Agriculture has for the last 20 years given large funds to ecological research on
Sámi reindeer herding, which has been a much-needed source of income for
researchers and their institutes. Regardless of what their data actually show, they
have presented conclusions stating that there are too many reindeer in proportion
to available pastures. This has given a false legitimacy to the continued policy of
reducing the number of reindeer and reindeer owners. At the same time, the practical knowledge of the reindeer herders, acquired over generations, is at best briefly
mentioned in policy documents, but neglected in practice, and at worst treated as
irrelevant or merely as vested in unscientific folklore and superstition.
In 7 Chap. 9, we present the example of Norwegian capital investments in forest plantations and large-scale agriculture in Tanzania. The cases demonstrate how
‘modernization’ through such big capital investments may have detrimental effects
on sustainability and local livelihoods. These cases also illustrate some concepts
drawn from Marxist political economy such as commodity fetishism, accumulation by dispossession and spatial fix.
Although political ecology has developed in different directions during the last
couple of decades, we believe our approach is ‘mainstream’ in the sense that it is
rooted in empirical case studies at the local level relying mostly on qualitative
methods, but sometimes also including the analysis of quantitative data. It is based
on the idea that one can study the global in the local by first getting a good grasp
of what is happening locally meaning what are the ongoing environmental processes and what are their main causes.
When one believes to have a fair understanding of the local situation, the next
step would be to move ‘upwards’ through chains or networks to identify the factors
at other levels that influence the local situation. This can be state bureaucracies
through laws, policies and discourses and it can be global markets or international
10.1 · The Approach in This Book