Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transformative Participation in Agrobiodiversity Governance: Making the Case for an Environmental Justice Approach

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper makes the case for an environmental justice approach to the practice and study of participation and effectiveness in agrobiodiversity governance. It is argued that, in order to understand the conditions under which participation leads to improved outcomes, the concept has to be rethought, both from a political and a methodological perspective. This can be done by applying an ex-ante environmental justice approach to participation, including notions of distribution, recognition and representation. By exploring the approach through empirical examples of participation in biodiversity and environmental governance, a research framework is outlined, attempting to bridge normative and practical approaches to environmental justice, and tested on two cases of agrobiodiversity governance in Western Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this article, participation is understood as the involvement of non-state actors in environmental governance processes, whether state-led or community-based.

  2. For more information see http://ejatlas.org/.

  3. Author’s interview with a staff member of the BESH, 28 February 2014.

  4. Author’s interview with a staff member of ABP, 11 December 2013.

References

  • Agyeman, J., & Evans, B. (2006). Justice, governance and sustainability: Perspectives on environmental citizenship from North America and Europe. In S. Neal & J. Agyeman (Eds.), The new countryside? Ethnicity, nation and exclusion in contemporary rural Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M., & Nicholls, C. I. (2012). Agroecology scaling up for food sovereignty and resiliency. In E. Lichtfouse (Ed.), Sustainable Agriculture Reviews (Vol. 11, pp. 1–29). Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5449-2_1.

  • Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2000). Values, conflict and trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 587–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierlee, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environmental and Planning C, 19, 515–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(2000), 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. (2004). Case study methods: Design, use, and comparative advantages. In D. F. Sprinz & Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias (Eds.), Models, numbers, and cases: Methods for studying international relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., et al. (2009). Earth system governance: People, places and the planet. Science and implementation plan of the earth system governance project. Earth system governance report 1, IHDP report 20 Bonn, IHDP: The earth system governance project.

  • Bocci, R., & Chable, V. (2009). Peasant seeds in Europe: Stakes and prospects. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, 103, 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, S. (2008). Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of local plans based on the principles of collaborative ecosystem management. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, G., Blöschl, G., & Loucks, D. P. (2012). Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review. Water Resources Research, 18, W11401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corburn, J. (2003). Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making. Improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, 420–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeulenaere, E., & Bonneuil, C. (2011). Des semences en partage. Construction sociale et identitaire d’un collectif “paysan” autour des pratiques semencières alternatives. Technique and Culture, 57, 202–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelen, E., Keulartz, J., & Leistra, G. (2007). European nature conservation policy making. In J. Keulartz & G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy: Case studies in multilevel governance. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2015). Key farm variables: area, livestock (LSU), labour force and standard output (SO) by agricultural size of farm (UAA), legal status of holding and NUTS 2 regions (online data code: ef_kvaareg). Retrieved from http://www.ec.europa.eu/eurostat

  • Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere. MIT press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 3, 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2001). Social justice in the knowledge society. Keynote lecture at the conference ‘Knowledge Society.’ Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation.

  • Fraser, N. (2005). Reframing justice in a globalizing world. New Left Review, 36, 69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalising world. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political–philosophical exchange. London/New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In A. Fung & E. O. Wright (Eds.), Deepening democracy. Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., & Svedin, U. (2008). The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: Insights and emerging challenges. In O. R. Young, H. Schroeder, & L. A. King (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 147–186). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: Assessing the transformative possibilities. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation: From tyranny to transformation. Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London/New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2010). So what difference does it make? Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. IDS Working Papers, 2010(347), 1–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán, E., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2006). New rural social movements and agroecology. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), The handbook of rural studies (pp. 472–484). London: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Participation. From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London/New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendrick, A. (2003). Caribou co-management in northern Canada: Fostering multiple ways of knowing. In F. Berkes, J. Colding, & C. Folke (Eds.), Navigating social-ecological systems, building resilience for complexity and change (pp. 241–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leipprand, A., Görlach, B., & Schlegel, S. (2006). Case study Schwäbisch-Hällisches Qualitätsschweinefleisch (Schwäbisch-Hall quality pork). Ecologic.

  • Newell, P. (2007). Trade and environmental justice in Latin America. New Political Economy, 12(2), 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance, participatory, multi-level—And effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautasso, M., et al. (2013). Seed exchange networks for agro-biodiversity conservation. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33, 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Popa, F. (2015). Motivations to contribute to public goods: Beyond rational choice economics. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(4), 230–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer, et al. (2009). Examining processes or/and outcome? Evaluation concepts in European governance of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C., Blackstock, K., & Carter, C. (2004). Practical approaches to participation. Socio-Economic Research Group (SERG) Policy Brief 1.

  • Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology and Human Values, 29(4), 512–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandström, A. (2011). Social networks, joint image building and adaptability—the case of local fishery management. In Ö. Bodin & C. Prell (Eds.), Social networks and natural resource management: Uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance (pp. 288–321). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, D. (1999). Environmental justice and the new pluralism: The challenge of difference for environmentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk, A., Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (2007). Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures—A qualitative study in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Management, 83, 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature (p. 2007). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sikor, T. (2013). The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. London/New York: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, et al. (2001). A framework for analyzing participatory plant breeding approaches and results. Euphitica, 122, 439–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, G. D. (2007). Agricultural deskilling and the spread of genetically modified cotton in Warangal. Current Anthropology, 48(1), 67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, L. C., Twyman, C., & Gibbs, L. M. (2008). Learning from the South: Common challenges and solutions for small-scale farming. The Geographical Journal, 174, 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suiseeya, K. R. M., & Caplow, S. (2013). In pursuit of procedural justice: Lessons from an analysis of 56 forest carbon project designs. Global Environmental Change, 23, 968–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaller, J., & Bühler, R. (2010). Das Beste vom Schwäbisch-Hallischen Landschwein. Meßkirch, Germany: Gmeiner Verlag.

  • Timmermann, C., & Felix, G. F. (2015). Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agriculture and Human Values, 32, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippet, J., Handley, J. F., & Ravetz, J. (2007). Meeting the challenges of sustainable development—A conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning, 67, 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout, E., Bloomfield, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J., & Wynne, B. (2012). Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience. Nature, 488, 454–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Ploeg, J. D. (1993). Potatoes and knowledge. In M. Hobart (Ed.), An anthropological critique of development: The growth of ignorance. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanloqueren, G., & Baret, P. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38, 971–983. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.008.

  • Visvanathan, S. (2005). Knowledge, justice and democracy. In M. Leach, I. Scoones, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Science and citizens: globalization and the challenge of engagement (pp. 83–94). London/New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G. (2012). Environmental justice. Concepts, evidence and politics. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenz, P. S. (1988). Environmental justice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for Public Participation in Environmental Policy and Governance: Practitioners’ Perspectives. Environment and Planning A, 43(11), 2688–2704. doi:10.1068/a44161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, A., Joshi, K. D., et al. (1996). Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture, 32, 445–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. C., Jordan, A., Searle, K. R., Butler, A., Chapman, D. S., Simmons, P., & Watt, A. D. (2013). Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biological Conservation, 158, 359–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. O., King, L. A., & Schroeder, H. (2008). Institutions and environmental change. Principal findings, applications and research frontier. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Adrian Martin, Tom Dedeurwaerdere and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. I acknowledge funding from the European Commission, under the FP7 project GENCOMMONS (European Research Council, grant agreement 284).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Philosophy of Law, UCLouvain, Collège Thomas More, Place Montesquieu, 2 bte L2.07.01, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Brendan Coolsaet

Authors
  1. Brendan Coolsaet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brendan Coolsaet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coolsaet, B. Transformative Participation in Agrobiodiversity Governance: Making the Case for an Environmental Justice Approach. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 1089–1104 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9579-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9579-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation