Project Status | Full Research (FR) |
Duration | Apr. 2019 - Mar. 2026 |
Research Program | Program 2: Fair use and management of diverse resources |
Project No. | 14200149 |
Project Title | Fair for whom? Politics, power and precarity in transformations of swidden social-ecological systems in Southeast Asia |
Abbreviated Title | FairFrontiers |
Project Leader | Grace Wong |
URL | http://www.fairfrontiers.sakura.ne.jp/home/ |
Keywords | Forest frontiers; equity; politics and power; agency; social-ecological systems; comparative analysis |
Research purpose and content
1) Objectives and background
Forest-agriculture frontiers are rapidly being converted in many parts of the tropics, leading to radical changes in multifunctional landscapes and livelihoods, and smallholder and customary practices such as swidden are being transformed to agro-industrial practices and commodity agriculture. These frontiers of agriculture, fallow and forest mosaics provide multiple ecosystem services and support diverse social, cultural and livelihood needs. These are also areas where indigenous people and local communities have traditional rights to land and resources (Li, 2020; Peluso, 2005). Loss of these complex systems to increasingly homogenous landscapes is a global environmental problem – and a social-ecological crisis.
This is not a simple trajectory of change. Land use intensification in frontiers – often pursued under the guise of ‘sustainable development’ – have not led to expected win-win social and ecological outcomes (Rasmussen et al., 2018), and its benefits are often reaped by more powerful and capital-rich actors (and the State) who are remote from these changing landscapes (Ndi et al., 2022; Pemunta, 2014; Schoenberger et al., 2017). Despite these outcomes, similar practices of land use intensification continue unabated. We argue that these outcomes are mainly a result of contextual institutional factors and underlying politics and power structures across different levels of governance and society (Brockhaus et al. 2014, Hardin, 2011; Windey, 2020). They reflect the many ways in how local people are able (or not) to navigate access to forests and land, and exercise agency to pursue their own development aspirations (Hall et al., 2015; Masterson et al., 2019). These different outcomes may also reflect policy preferences, when policy decisions prioritize particular ecosystem services (and associated human wellbeing outcomes) over others, creating trade-offs and conflicts.
Many studies that focus on social or ecological outcomes of frontier change tend to be disciplinary analyses and are thus limited in its perspectives of ‘solutions’ that are required to enable sustainability. Our project applies a holistic and transdisciplinary approach to assess the multiple and interconnected social and ecological outcomes and trade-offs in changing frontier landscapes (see Figure 1: An illustration of ecosystem services and human wellbeing changes and trade-offs). Further, we examine the critical histories, and political and institutional dynamics underlying outcomes in the different geographies, and their equity consequences. We believe that this is a necessary approach to understanding complex social-ecological systems (Biggs et al. 2021, Liu et al. 2007). The overall objective of this research is thus to generate grounded contextual understandings of the social and ecological effects of transformations in forest-agriculture frontiers in Central Africa and Southeast Asia, and to identify options for equitable and sustainable development.
2) How does the research contribute to the solution of the global environmental problems?
The project contributes towards deeper and nuanced understandings of the underlying drivers of loss of diverse multifunctional landscapes and local injustices of dispossession occurring throughout the Global South. The causes of this global social-environmental problem are various, but broadly they have been stimulated by the search for new investment opportunities by transnational companies, and a boom in transnational investments and development collaborations anchored in global supply chains (Cons & Eilenberg, 2019; Kelly & Peluso, 2015; Mosseau et al., 2020). But how do these events take hold and unfold in frontier landscapes
We argue that the political-histories of place matters in how frontier spaces are imagined, territorialized and made investible by the State, in collaboration with global corporate and development actors, and in how local people are engaged, displaced or ‘ignored’ in these processes (Bastos Lima & Kmoch, 2021; Brockhaus et al., 2021; Li, 2014; Wong et al., 2022). We also argue that transformational change towards equitable and sustainable development is only possible if there are shifts in power relations, discursive practices, and incentive structures that are currently propping up business-as-usual exploitation in forest frontiers in the Global South (Brockhaus and Angelsen 2012). Our research thus aims to contribute towards such shifts by applying a novel inter- and transdisciplinary approach to examine the underlying histories, institutions and political factors in the case study regions and use a comparative approach to identify factors that are hindering, or may support transformations to equitable and sustainable development (further details in Methods section below).
3) Methodology, structure and schedule
We are carrying out research in different social-political contexts to examine trajectories of change that are occurring in forest-agriculture frontiers. Our case study regions are Sabah and Sarawak (Malaysia Borneo), Laos in mainland Southeast Asia, and Cameroon and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in Central Africa. In addition, we are also collaborating with Universitas Hasanuddin to apply the FairFrontiers research methods in case study sites in Sulawesi, Indonesia. These regions are unique laboratories for our study of transformations in the forest-agriculture frontiers along different ecological, social and institutional gradients such as forest cover, fallow diversity, inequality and human wellbeing, institutional/political control, and democracy and civil society engagement in policy processes. We combine various sources of data and knowledge, including spatial data and observations at local levels, local and indigenous knowledge, policy documents, national census and trade transactions
The project adapts an integrated human wellbeing and ecosystem services approach (Masterson et al., 2019, Sen 1999), towards understanding socio-ecological changes in frontiers, and builds on the IPBES conceptual frame on diverse values and valuation of nature (IPBES 2022). A novel aspect of the project’s analytical framework is its critical examination of the underlying politics and discursive power that underlies frontier change, both from the view of institutional path dependencies of (colonial and post-colonial) development (Cochrane & Andrews, 2021; Lees, 2017; Peluso & Vandergeest, 2001) and everyday politics (Kerkvliet, 2009; Scott, 1986). We take inspiration from recent innovative research of politics, interests and access in frontiers (Cons & Eilenberg, 2019; Ishikawa, 2018; Li and Semedi, 2021; Peluso, 2017; Tsing, 2005). To carry out empirical assessments of equity, we draw on theories of social and environmental justice and examine equity through a multi-dimensional lens (Fraser, 2010; Schlosberg, 2013; Schlosberg & Carruthers, 2010; Sikor et al., 2014).
The project is organized into five interlinked modules in a structure that enables interdisciplinary and collaborative work. The first module focuses on critical analyses of development in forest-agriculture frontiers through studies of the histories of colonial and post-colonial policies, actor-networks and discourses in policy and media. The second and third modules address respectively the changing bundles of ecosystem services and well-being experienced in everyday life in frontiers, and how local communities are adapting and responding to such changes. The fourth module is specifically aimed at engagement and co-production of knowledge at local and regional levels, using creative approaches such as photovoice, art and film for visioning futures. Last, but not least, the fifth module will carry out integrative and comparative analyses across modules, scales and countries to identify barriers and opportunities for more just and sustainable development. The project emphasizes interdisciplinary analyses as researchers work collaboratively across modules with in-country partners. We have developed a structured protocol for data collection and management to enable comparability, and data collection activities will be co-led by the in-country research partners.
4) Expected results
We are building our data corpus using a portfolio of research methods across all sites. This data corpus will allow for a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) approach that ‘learns’ from the different contexts of the selected case study regions (Mello 2021). Using computational analysis, the QCA approach allows us to identify both the enabling and hindering conditions for more equitable and sustainable development pathways for the hundreds of thousands of people who still depend on these diverse landscapes for their livelihoods.
With new interdisciplinary collaborations amongst the team members and close working relationships with country partners, we expect to collectively achieve the following project outcomes: 1) advance theory and empirical methods for assessing equity, ecosystem services and wellbeing, and the complexities of transformations in an integrated manner; 2) contribute towards transformative policy change through robust approaches to co-production, dialogues and engagement with diverse actor groups. In 2023, we are already working on new conceptual frameworks on examining distal flows and inequalities, as well as on empirical analyses of equity, ecosystem services and wellbeing.
5) Project organization and membership
The complexity of this social-ecological problem requires a transdisciplinary approach. We are fortunate to have a committed core team of project members, who will collaborate in different aspects of the research cycle based on their interests and disciplinary and geographic expertise. Rather than individual researchers working in isolation in their cases and coming together for synthesis at the end as is often the norm in projects of this nature, we have structured our project implementation to mix teams of project researchers and members to inject fresh perspectives, enable true interdisciplinary collaboration and harness the deep experience with the group.
Our in-country partners are key to the overall project achievements. We practice a decolonial and collaborative approach to research which entails a co-production process in project design and planning (selection of sites, adapting participatory methods, etc.), diversifying expertise to account for, and give credit to different knowledges and the setting up of inclusive teams. Outside of the core team, we engage with diverse actor groups and stakeholders on co-production of knowledge in each of the case study regions, and engage with selected ‘boundary partners’ who will help to translate and bring our research results to relevant policymakers, development implementers and other key societal actors.
Challenges and achievements for this year
In FR3, the project team and collaborators have made significant progress in field data collection, and we have completed 80% of all anticipated field activities. In the latter half of this year, our efforts have focused on data management and analyses, and writing up results. We published 7 journal articles and 4 book chapters, and have submitted 4 papers. In addition, we are co-editing a special section in Forest & Society journal. Further, the project team and core members have participated in 4 international conferences, and supported the organization of 1 new conference (with Universitas Hasanuddin) and 1 regional knowledge sharing event (with Borneo Institute for Indigenous Studies). The table below highlights some of the key achievements relative to the project’s proposed plan for FR3:
FR3 Plan |
Achievements |
Manuscripts |
Key publications: 1) Wong et al., When policies problematize the local: Social-environmental justice and forest policies, Forest & Society 2) Brockhaus et al., Data and information in a political forest, Forest Policy & Economics 3) Brockhaus, Obeng-Odoom & Wong, Forest-related finance landscape and potential for just investments, International Forest Governance, IUFRO World Series Vol. 43 4) Kan et al., Fatal attraction to win-win-win? Debates and contestations in the media on Nature Conservation Agreement in Sabah, Malaysia, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 5) Koh, Wong & Hahn, Radical incrementalism: hydropolitics and environmental discourses in Laos, Environmental Politics Special section in Forest & Society “Centering equity and justice in land use transformation in the Global South”. Submitted, in review: - In the Name of Development: The problem of ‘unfree’ business represented in the Omnibus Law in Indonesia (Moeliono et al.) - Can REDD+ finance compete with established and emerging land investments? The case of Mai-Ndombe, Democratic Republic of Congo (Koh et al.) - Scientific knowledge and commercial practices in the forests of Democratic Republic of Congo (Ville et al.) - Perceived ecosystem service bundles across forested landscapes in transition: A case study in Southern Cameroon (Hepp et al.) |
Historical and critical discursive analyses (Module 1) |
- Analysis of 2022 Indonesia Omnibus Law completed and paper submitted (Moeliono et al.) - Analysis of the 2022 DR Congo Law on Protection of Indigenous Pygmy Rights completed and paper in process (Nkongolo et al.) |
Telecoupling analyses (Module 1) |
- Data collected and analysis of finance and commodity flows in Northern Laos ongoing (Wong et al.) - Data analysis on the financialization of plantations in Southeast Asia (Laos, Malaysia) ongoing (Barney, Wong et al.) |
Field research on ES-HW (Modules 2-3) |
- Field research 80% completed - Ongoing management of database - Data is being used in at least 3 PhD and 8 MSc theses |
Data analyses (Modules 2-3) |
- Carrying out a series of analyses on ecosystem services-human wellbeing linkages in DRC, Laos and Sabah (Sidibe et al., Wai et al., Metaragakusuma et al.); with Write in Arial 10.5 Research Project FR3 preliminary findings already presented at conferences and workshops - Carrying out an extended literature review of studies on ecosystem services, relational values and non-material human wellbeing (Kan, Wong et al.) - Carrying out land use and land cover change analysis across field regions; comparative paper on land cover classification in preparation (Sujaswara et al.) |
Knowledge co production (Module 4) |
- Implemented photovoice approaches in Sabah and Sulawesi, and data analysis and paper writing ongoing (Sahide et al., Wong et al.) - A photovoice exhibition was held in Sulawesi, July 2024 |
Comparative analysis (Module 5) |
- Theory- and framework-building on infrastructures of inequality for comparative analysis (Wong and Brockhaus) - Preparing data for Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) |
Science and policy events, communications |
- Organized 2 panels and presented a total of 12 papers in the following scientific conferences: - 5th International Forest Policy Meeting (April) - IUFRO World Forestry Congress (June) - Program on Ecosystem Change and Society: Open Science Meeting (Aug) - Global Land Programme: Open Science Meeting (Nov) - Co-organized knowledge sharing seminar in Sabah (Jan) - Supported the 1st Forest & Society International Conference, Sulawesi (July) - Produced 6 blogs on experiences and insights from the field |
Partnerships and collaboration (Cross-module) |
Total MOUs established: 7 Number of project members: 19 Number of in-country collaborators: 78 (*36 Female) Researchers: 25 Civil society actors/ Practitioners: 12 Government: 2 Students (PhD): 8 Students (BSc/MSc): 25 Community members: 6
|
Future tasks
Our achievements across the first 3 years of the project have met the expected plan of work and in many ways, also exceeded expectations. However, there are several desired activities around knowledge co-production and engagement with diverse stakeholders in-country that we will not be able to carry out simply because we are running out of time and resources as a 4-year project. Our initial aims to hold 3-H participatory visioning workshops and Photovoice exhibitions in all research sites will not be possible as they require careful planning and extensive preparatory work to develop trust across multiple stakeholders from policy, business, civil society and communities to ensure a productive, and not contested, exercise. These would have been ideal activities for Year 5. In any case, we remain highly confident of the relevance of our research, and will work hard to ensure that our country partners have the knowledge and the data to move forward with their agendas for more sustainable and equitable development pathways.