alternatives that carries the greatest dangers. Seen in instrumental terms, if green
approaches ignore the perspectives, values and interests of those involved, they will
not be robust – they will fail to gain traction with stakeholders or be resisted. Seen
in justice terms, approaches focused narrowly on singular green goals may prove
undemocratic and unfair, ignoring people’s rights to knowledge, identities, livelihoods and aspirations, thus denying the fundamental meanings of green that embed
social justice within their definition (cf. Stirling, this book). Seen in terms of
transformation, approaches that ignore alternatives may be most limited of all, either
because they become fixated on ‘fixes’ that ignore the need for deeper transformative change, or because they presume a single green transformation where actually
multiple transformations, respecting diverse identities and contexts, are required.
Fostering a plural, democratic politics of knowledge is therefore key to defining
and achieving green transformations. Here, concepts like planetary boundaries and
the two-degree climate change barrier, as well as particular concepts of green
economy, need to be treated as means rather than ends. They should not be seen
as closing down debate, but rather as boundary objects around which debate can
open up: around questions such as whose boundaries and safety, whose goals, which
pathways, who gains and loses, who bears costs and risks. This requires not just a
polycentric and adaptive approach to politics and governance, but also a deliberative
approach (e.g. Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003) that can recognize, and debate inclusively, diverse, contested goals, values and ideas of the future, and negotiate among
these.
How and by whom such a deliberative politics might be fostered will vary
according to scale and issue. Participation and representation of diverse social groups,
including local people, in global fora around climate, biodiversity and sustainable
food and energy offers one route, enabled by international agencies and often
facilitated by civil society organizations. At regional and local scales – for instance,
in deliberating over the futures of particular forests or food systems – collaborative
approaches that bring communities, government, NGOs and sometimes business
representatives together will be key. There are always dangers that ‘invited’ participation becomes tokenistic or co-opts participants into powerful pre-set framings
of the issue. Yet awareness of the power relations that pervade deliberative exercises
provides a basis to counter these in explicit design features (Leach et al., 2010). In
other circumstances, it may be activism and mobilization that most effectively opens
up debate and deliberation, as activist groups protest singular perspectives and
highlight alternatives (see Leach and Scoones, this book).
Notions of green limits have value in this process, but we must see these concepts
for what they are: as constructed by people, institutions and societies, as part of a
contested politics of knowledge. Seen that way, they can become valuable foci for
debate about societal and environmental futures. We should treat these meanings
of green, along with alternatives, as ways to foster an inclusive, democratic and
therefore transformative politics of knowledge that can and must be central to the
politics of achieving green – and just – transformations.
38 Melissa Leach
approaches ignore the perspectives, values and interests of those involved, they will
not be robust – they will fail to gain traction with stakeholders or be resisted. Seen
in justice terms, approaches focused narrowly on singular green goals may prove
undemocratic and unfair, ignoring people’s rights to knowledge, identities, livelihoods and aspirations, thus denying the fundamental meanings of green that embed
social justice within their definition (cf. Stirling, this book). Seen in terms of
transformation, approaches that ignore alternatives may be most limited of all, either
because they become fixated on ‘fixes’ that ignore the need for deeper transformative change, or because they presume a single green transformation where actually
multiple transformations, respecting diverse identities and contexts, are required.
Fostering a plural, democratic politics of knowledge is therefore key to defining
and achieving green transformations. Here, concepts like planetary boundaries and
the two-degree climate change barrier, as well as particular concepts of green
economy, need to be treated as means rather than ends. They should not be seen
as closing down debate, but rather as boundary objects around which debate can
open up: around questions such as whose boundaries and safety, whose goals, which
pathways, who gains and loses, who bears costs and risks. This requires not just a
polycentric and adaptive approach to politics and governance, but also a deliberative
approach (e.g. Hajer and Wagenaar, 2003) that can recognize, and debate inclusively, diverse, contested goals, values and ideas of the future, and negotiate among
these.
How and by whom such a deliberative politics might be fostered will vary
according to scale and issue. Participation and representation of diverse social groups,
including local people, in global fora around climate, biodiversity and sustainable
food and energy offers one route, enabled by international agencies and often
facilitated by civil society organizations. At regional and local scales – for instance,
in deliberating over the futures of particular forests or food systems – collaborative
approaches that bring communities, government, NGOs and sometimes business
representatives together will be key. There are always dangers that ‘invited’ participation becomes tokenistic or co-opts participants into powerful pre-set framings
of the issue. Yet awareness of the power relations that pervade deliberative exercises
provides a basis to counter these in explicit design features (Leach et al., 2010). In
other circumstances, it may be activism and mobilization that most effectively opens
up debate and deliberation, as activist groups protest singular perspectives and
highlight alternatives (see Leach and Scoones, this book).
Notions of green limits have value in this process, but we must see these concepts
for what they are: as constructed by people, institutions and societies, as part of a
contested politics of knowledge. Seen that way, they can become valuable foci for
debate about societal and environmental futures. We should treat these meanings
of green, along with alternatives, as ways to foster an inclusive, democratic and
therefore transformative politics of knowledge that can and must be central to the
politics of achieving green – and just – transformations.
38 Melissa Leach