WHAT THE GRINGOS BROUGHT: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF A PRIVATELY PROTECTED AREA IN CHILEAN PATAGONIA

Neoliberal ideology increasingly underscores many mainstream efforts to conserve biodiversity. This research explores this convergence through an in-depth case study of a privately owned park located in Chilean Patagonia. In two complementary chapters, I assess the social and cultural impacts of the project, and examine the role of discourse in the process of communicating and constructing the park. In the first chapter I draw from interview data collected from September through December of 2016 and explore the perspectives of local people with a variety of relationships to the project. In the second I employ a critical discourse analysis of park promotional materials to examine ways in which representations of the project highlight the heroic role of Northern actors while concealing the projects relationship to neoliberal capitalism. Through my analysis, I show that the project has precipitated a host of deleterious social impacts: local people expressed feelings of loss, powerlessness, and concern that their way of life is being eroded by outside forces. Conjoined, the two chapters display how the complex experiences of local people are rendered illegible in discourses produced for global audiences. I argue that apparently matter-of-fact park discourses extend the legitimation of capitalist modes of conservation, and play a critical role in silencing the dissent of local people

Four guiding principles for choosing frameworks and indicators to assess research impact

Selecting a framework for assessing research impact can be difficult, especially for interdisciplinary studies and research in fields that do not have established forms impact assessment. In this post, Elena Louder, Carina Wyborn, Christopher Cvitanovic, Angela T. Bednarek, outline four principles for researchers designing impact assessment criteria for their work and suggest how a closer appreciation of how assessment frameworks are dependent on particular forms of knowledge production and dissemination is critical to making the right choice

How Methods for Navigating Uncertainty Connect Science and Policy at the Water-Energy-Food Nexus

As the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus becomes an increasingly common framework for bridging science and policy, there is a growing need to unpack and make explicit many of the methods and assumptions being used to operationalize the nexus. In this paper, we focus on two common approaches to nexus research, quantitative modeling and futures thinking, and the ways that each set of methodological tools address uncertainty. We first review the underlying assumptions of each approach with a focus on sources of and ability to measure uncertainty, and potential complementarities. Quantitative modeling takes a probabilistic approach to predicting the likelihood of a specific outcome or future state based on estimates of current system dynamics. In contrast, futures thinking approaches, such as scenario processes, explore novel changes that cannot be fully predicted or even anticipated based on current understandings of the nexus. We then examine a set of applied nexus projects that bridge science and policy-making contexts to better understand practitioner experiences with different methodological tools and how they are utilized to navigate uncertainty. We explore one nexus case study, LIVES Cambodia, in-depth, to better understand the opportunities and challenges associated with participatory modeling and stakeholder engagement with uncertainty in a policy-making context. Across the cases, practitioners identify the complementarity between modeling and futures thinking approaches, and those projects that integrated both into the planning process experienced benefits from having multiple angles on uncertainty within the nexus. In particular, stakeholder engagement provided critical opportunities to address some types of uncertainties (e.g., data gaps) through the use of local knowledge. Explicit discussions of model uncertainty and use of scenario processes also enabled stakeholders to deepen their understandings of uncertainties and envision policy pathways that would be robust to uncertainty. In many senses, models became boundary objects that encouraged critical thinking and questioning of assumptions across diverse stakeholders. And, for some nexus projects, confronting uncertainty in explicit and transparent ways build capacity for policy flexibility and adaptiveness. We conclude with a discussion of when and how these benefits can be fully realized through the strategic use of appropriate approaches to characterizing and navigating nexus uncertainty

Ten Considerations for Research Funders Seeking to Enhance Knowledge Exchange and the Impact of Marine Science on Policy and Practice

Research funders can play an important role in supporting the integration of marine science into policy and practice to enable evidence-informed decision-making. However, to date, there is a paucity of guidance available to help research funders understand the specific actions they can take to support knowledge exchange among the researchers that they fund and relevant stakeholders, particularly within marine contexts. This Brief Research Report aims to begin to fill this gap through an in-depth case study of the Lenfest Ocean Program (LOP). Specifically, through qualitative interviews with 32 participants across eight LOP funded research projects (i.e., case studies) we sought to: (i) understand the types of impacts that have resulted from the LOP funded research, (ii) determine which activities undertaken by the LOP enabled funded research projects to achieve these impacts, and (iii) synthesize findings to articulate the core lessons that have emerged from our examination of these research projects. Results show that the concept of “research impact” is complex and can be interpreted in a number of ways including: (i) raising awareness of research among end-users, (ii) development and expansion of social networks, (iii) the provision of information to decision-makers, (iv) the development of decision-support tools, and (v) a direct contribution to policy change. We highlight the ways by which the LOP has supported the attainment of these impacts, as well as 10 general considerations that research funders should consider when seeking to enhance the impact of the research that they fund on marine policy and practice.Funding for this research was provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts

Dams Versus Conservation: The Politics of Scale in Southern Chile\u27s Aysen Region

HydroAysén is a controversial megaproject that aims to build five hydroelectric power plants in southern Chile’s Aysén region. The proposed dams would generate up to 20% of the country’s electricity. Most of this would be destined for transport to mining operations in the north, a pillar of the national export economy. The project was approved in 2011 but placed on hold in 2012 due to protests from environmental NGOs. HydroAysén is supported by the country\u27s conservative president and many interests from Chile’s business sector, but has received harsh criticism for its possible environmental effects. The project will flood national parks, reserves, wetlands, privately owned conservation areas, and may negatively affect local residents including small eco-tourism operators. Using the geographic tool of scale analysis, this paper takes a spatial look at the controversy. The research draws upon social theory, where scale is considered to be socially constructed, to interrogate the Chile case. Data about the case is drawn from news media and personal communications. Arguments for the project often cite Chile’s national economic interests, while arguments against it often cite regional interests of the Aysén residents, and simultaneously global conservation and tourism goals. This paper will look at how arguments made at local, national and global scales interact, are pitted against each other, and align in surprising ways. This investigation may help inform how scales are created and navigated strategically by different environmental actors, and how this may affect the physical landscape in the Aysén

Transforming Patagonia: A critical discourse analysis of Patagonia National Park

In recent years, critical geographers have examined how neoliberalism, or political economic ideology oriented to promote private property rights, maximize entrepreneurial freedom, and ensure free trade and unencumbered markets, has become increasingly intertwined with efforts to conserve biodiversity. One expression of the rise of neoliberal conservation is the development of privately protected areas (PPAs), or pieces of land purchased by wealthy individuals via the market for the purposes of conservation. Although literature on this topic is theoretically rich, empirical examinations of this type of conservation are few. Due to its long and institutionalized engagement with neoliberalism since the 1970s, Chile presents a perfect context in which to study this phenomenon. Given its reduced role of the state in terms of conservation, the sanctity of private property rights and its powerful incentives for foreign investment, Chile has witnessed an explosion of PPAs in the past two decades. Two of the main drivers of this trend are Doug and Kris Tompkins, wealthy North Americans who made fortunes in the outdoor gear and garment industry. Working under the auspices of various NGOs, the Tompkins have purchased over 2.2 million acres in Southern Chile, making them one of the largest land owners in the region. The Tompkins receive praise by some as selfless and visionary preservationists, and criticism by others as neocolonialists or land-grabbers. Their most recent project, Patagonia National Park (PNP) has been particularly controversial: what is now a North American style park formerly operated as a sheep ranch where many local residents earned their livelihoods. Removing fencing, eliminating grazing, and establishing tourism infrastructure are among the park’s main goals, and many locals have been outspokenly resistant to the changes in both land use and livelihood. To understand the interaction between the global force of neoliberalism and changes in local reality around PNP, I take a discourse analysis approach. Through the study of discourse, or language, stories and images, this approach explores how different actors construct narratives surrounding PNP, and how language can be a tool for some groups to maintain power over others. To understand the role of discourse surrounding PNP, I conducted interviews with former ranchers who lost their jobs, former ranchers who now work for the park and park administrators. I also analyzed park websites, blogs, and videos in order to capture the park discourses that reach a global audience. My research reveals two very distinct discourses. Many local residents expressed feelings of a loss of culture, erasure of history, domination by foreign elites, and frustration at the transformation of a working landscape to one of spectacle. Meanwhile, park discourses present two conflicting stories: one of saving a threatened landscape from destructive practices of the locals, and a second of a beautiful wilderness, Eden with altitude. Importantly, they present the park as the only option to conserve Patagonia. By close examination of discourse, my research suggests that park narratives obscure the political and economic nature of the project, and reinforce the hegemonic power of neoliberalism to transform local realities

What the Gringos Brought: Local Perspectives on a Private Protected Area in Chilean Patagonia

Privately Protected Areas (PPAs) are a growing trend in conservation and have been promoted by global environmental institutions such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as an essential component for achieving conservation targets. PPAs are on the rise worldwide and particularly in Chile, where neoliberal reform has created new spaces in conservation management for private individuals and civil society. However, little empirical research examines their effects on local people. Drawing from critiques of the neoliberalisation of nature and the intertwining of capitalism and conservation, this research explores the case of a particular PPA in Chile, Patagonia Park; asking specifically: what are the impacts of this particular PPA on local residents? Based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews, this research finds that the park has been detrimental to local livelihoods, disrupted systems of production, and elicited emotional responses of pain, sadness, and loss. The relation between the park and community has been characterised by a lack of information and understanding, and reveals deeply contrasting views of nature held by park administrators and local residents. We find that, in this case, the social impacts of the PPA are similar to those that have long been documented and criticised in state-run, 'fortress conservation' models. When we look closely at the history of many state-run protected areas, we see that private capital has always played a central role in conservation. This research suggests then that there may be little truly novel about PPAs in terms of both process of development, and the ways that local people experience them

The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation

Literature on co-production is booming. Yet, most literature is aspirational and methodological in nature, focusing on why co-production is important for environmental governance and knowledge production and how it should be done, and does not address the question why these processes often fail to achieve stated objectives of empowerment and societal transformation. In this review, we address this gap by reviewing literature on the political and power dimensions of co-production. Our review shows how depoliticization dynamics in co-production reinforce rather than mitigate existing unequal power relations and how they prevent wider societal transformation from taking place. Drawing on literature about participation, deliberative governance, and democracy, the review concludes by emphasizing the importance of (re)politicizing co-production by allowing for pluralism and for the contestation of knowledge