Recilient Livelihoods

As international development agendas respond to environmental crises and a growing market for access to ‘wild’ places, conservation enclosures in the form of biodiversity reserves, parks, heritage sites, etc., have become contentious in many countries. They often sharpen intra- and inter-communal conflicts and/or hasten the displacement of indigenous groups. Yet, alternatives exist in community-based conservation and protected area approaches, recognizing traditional inhabitants as integral to ecosystems and affording space for customary and alternative livelihoods. We investigate conditions across this spectrum of outcomes for indigenous peoples, and the circumstances enabling community-based approaches.
Our research addresses the broad theme of conservation governance – spanning the range from top-down highly centralized approaches of the State to locally designed community-based alternatives. Our investigations, particularly of participatory forms of conservation governance, inevitably overlap with the interests and concerns of other research themes.
The concept of food sovereignty is a concept and a movement that emerged in reaction to the global concept of food security promoted by international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nation. It emerged as an alternative to the form of development, and more specifically of food systems, designed by those institutions. The Via Campesina is the major organisation that promoted it, with the support of a number of NGOs. The concept was critically debated during the Food Sovereignty Colloquium held at Yale in 2013. On that occasion, the definition given was: “the right of peoples to democratically control or determine the shape of their food system and to produce sufficient healthy food in culturally appropriate and ecologically sustainable ways in and near their territory.” Access to healthy, safe and culturally significant food is presented as a human right. Through the concept of food sovereignty, the purpose is to challenge the theory of the former concept – i.e. food security - and to promote new political models which are supposed to be sustainable, local, and democratic. Whereas food security comprises mainly economic criteria, food sovereignty is respectful to cultural diversity and the environment. The latter is concerned with issues such as production, land distribution, international trade system, and biodiversity conservation. As these topics are very diverse, they often enter in contradiction one with another, posing obvious trade-offs in the process of decision making. Food sovereignty embraces a moral understanding of the economy, and it questions the ethical basis for our economic decisions and our current legal system. The beneficiaries of the food sovereignty movement are often marginalized peoples: small-scale peasants, landless farmers, rural workers, as well as hunters and fishers, women, youth, and indigenous people. This means that the movement considers a plethora of views and rationalities altogether. Food sovereignty promotes an alternative view of development. For instance, the Andean concept of Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir in Spanish, or Living Well in English) appears to be one of the most widely known examples within this movement. Collectiveness and reciprocity are integral components of alternatives to food security, assuming that those social values should be prioritized and maintained. The activist part of the debate about food sovereignty is to propose new policies, at a national and international level, that will enable an articulation of the main alternatives to food security. Such an agenda should empower indigenous communities, and it should provide practical means to resolve complex issues for all different kinds of actors.

 

The researchers in this theme's projects are asking questions about neo-liberalism and self-determination. For instance:

  • What are the main ways by which neo-liberalism is manifest in indigenous communities?
  • Are there other alternative ways of thinking local economy than well-being?
  • As food security is supposed to be centered on human rights but failed to do so in an appropriate way, could the recognition of indigenous rights promote the right to self-determine what livelihood might look like?

Theme Leaders: Jon Altman, Treena Wasonti:io Delormier, Nicholas Kosoy

Theme Contributors

Caroline Archambault
Janelle Baker
Elena Bennett
Peter Brown
Caroline Desbiens
Sabrina Doyon
Jackson Efitre
James Ford
John G. Galaty
Ingrid Hall
Andrew Hendry
Gordon Hickey
Timothy Allan Johns
Carole Lévesque
Hugo Melgar-Quiñonez
Catherine Potvin
François Roch
Thierry Rodon
Colin H. Scott
Evodia Silva
Jon Unruh
George Wenzel