Power and politics in stakeholder engagement : farm dweller (in-)visibility and conversions to game farming in South Africa

Abstract: In this contribution we discuss tensions inherent in multi-stakeholder approaches addressing conflicts over natural resources as well as the involvement of stakeholders in research. The article is built on knowledge generated by extensive research on the impacts of conversions of private farms to game farms in South Africa, where significant increases in farm conversions have been observed since the 1990s. The studies had a particular focus on the consequences for farm dwellers, one of the most marginalised groups in the South African countryside. The research findings challenge the dominant narrative that game farming offers a ‘win-win’ situation for nature conservation as well as rural development. Based on data from the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal provinces, we extended the narrow technical and economic framing of the narrative to include the socio-political meanings of the conversions. In this article we reflect on a series of multi-stakeholder workshops that we organized, partly as a requirement of the funding agency. The aims of the workshops were to disseminate our research findings amongst the stakeholder groups and explore ways to mitigate negative impacts of the conversions. We discuss how we organized the engagement process in ways that sought to address the power differences between game farmers, the State and farm dwellers. The main challenge appeared to be that farm dwellers were not recognized as stakeholders. This ‘invisibility’ has multiple reasons; in particular the historical and current trajectories of land dispossession. It is also linked to the specific institutional and personal relations in the two provinces, resulting in different uses of the workshop spaces. By considering the complexities of stakeholder relations in the farm conversion context, we gained a deeper understanding of the politics of land and belonging in the still unequal post-apartheid rural landscape. Based on the experiences from the research as well as the workshops, we take a critical stance regarding mainstream notions of stakeholder engagement and resilience building. We argue that if we fail to consider power relations and politics explicitly in these processes, we risk neglecting important conflicts and reproducing the invisibility of marginalized stakeholders

A conditional limit theorem for independent random variables

In this paper, we prove a conditional limit theorem for independent not necessarily identically distributed random variables. Namely, we obtain the asymptotic distribution of a large number of them given the sum

The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS)–a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers

Phylogeographic Distribution of Human and Hare Francisella Tularensis Subsp. Holarctica Strains in the Netherlands and Its Pathology in European Brown Hares (Lepus Europaeus)

Sequence-based typing of Francisella tularensis has led to insights in the evolutionary developments of tularemia. In Europe, two major basal clades of F. tularensis subsp. holarctica exist, with a distinct geographical distribution. Basal clade B.6 is primarily found in Western Europe, while basal clade B.12 occurs predominantly in the central and eastern parts of Europe. There are indications that tularemia is geographically expanding and that strains from the two clades might differ in pathogenicity, with basal clade B.6 strains being potentially more virulent than basal clade B.12. This study provides information on genotypes detected in the Netherlands during 2011–2017. Data are presented for seven autochthonous human cases and for 29 European brown hares (Lepus europaeus) with laboratory confirmed tularemia. Associated disease patterns are described for 25 European brown hares which underwent post-mortem examination. The basal clades B.6 and B.12 are present both in humans and in European brown hares in the Netherlands, with a patchy geographical distribution. For both genotypes the main pathological findings in hares associated with tularemia were severe (sub)acute necrotizing hepatitis and splenitis as well as necrotizing lesions and hemorrhages in several other organs. Pneumonia was significantly more common in the B.6 than in the B.12 cases. In conclusion, the two major basal clades present in different parts in Europe are both present in the Netherlands. In hares found dead, both genotypes were associated with severe acute disease affecting multiple organs. Hepatitis and splenitis were common pathological findings in hares infected with either genotype, but pneumonia occurred significantly more frequently in hares infected with the B.6 genotype compared to hares infected with the B.12 genotype

The programme on ecosystem change and society (PECS) – a decade of deepening social-ecological research through a place-based focus

The Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) was established in 2011, and is now one of the major international social-ecological systems (SES) research networks. During this time, SES research has undergone a phase of rapid growth and has grown into an influential branch of sustainability science. In this Perspective, we argue that SES research has also deepened over the past decade, and helped to shed light on key dimensions of SES dynamics (e.g. system feedbacks, aspects of system design, goals and paradigms) that can lead to tangible action for solving the major sustainability challenges of our time. We suggest four ways in which the growth of place-based SES research, fostered by networks such as PECS, has contributed to these developments, namely by: 1) shedding light on transformational change, 2) revealing the social dynamics shaping SES, 3) bringing together diverse types of knowledge, and 4) encouraging reflexive researchers

Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations

Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas

Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations

Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas