bs_bs_banner
The Geographical Journal, 2015, doi: 10.1111/geoj.12150
Commentary Decentralised forest management as utopia: a response to Asiyanbi (2015) EMMANUEL O NUESIRI Geography and Geographic Information Science, 237 Computing Applications Building, 605 East Springfield Avenue, Champaign, IL 61820, USA E-mail:
[email protected] This paper was accepted for publication in June 2015
A
siyanbi (2015) responds to my article in The Geographical Journal (Nuesiri 2014) by refuting the argument that decentralised forest resource management is influenced by a utopian impulse. In my article, following Nozick (1974), I defined utopia as a longing for the best of all possible, imaginable worlds. Following Nozick (1974), I also note that there is no uniform utopian vision commonly shared by all members of society. This implies that my utopian yearning might just be my neighbour’s worst nightmare. I note that attempts to build society following a utopian blueprint invariably end in failure (Levitas 1990), partly because utopia elicits loyalty and opposition all at once (see Harvey 2000). To manage the tension between loyalty and opposition while attempting to operationalise a utopian vision for society, I argue that Giddens’ (2010) concept of ‘utopian realism’ is a useful guiding principle. Utopian realism posits that our imagining of a best of all possible worlds should be grounded in the very real challenges facing society; should expect to face opposition and the very real possibility of failure; but should not lose its creative spark in the face of setbacks (Crook 2000). In my article (Nuesiri 2014), I assert that decentralised forest management is seeking to create the best of all possible worlds for forest-dependent peoples and communities. I use the case of the adoption of decentralised forest management in Cameroon to show how the pursuit of a ‘best of all possible worlds’ for forest-dependent people has met with significant opposition from the government. Asiyanbi (2015) disputes that the impulse behind decentralised forestry is utopian, and argues that to regard the motivations behind decentralised forestry as ‘utopian’ is to homogenise the different covert aims and objectives of the various actors involved in such interventions. Using the case of the establishment of
the Cross River National Park (CRNP) in Nigeria, Asiyanbi (2015) shows how the various actors involved, including the Nigerian government, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the European Commission (EC) developed a project which ended up being more responsive to the interests of the WWF and the EC than to the needs of the local communities. This is in a context where WWF rhetoric included promises to improve the socio-economic conditions of local communities in lieu of their collaboration in setting up and managing the CRNP. These promises came to naught (Ite 1998; Schoneveld 2014). Asiyanbi (2015) argues, and I agree, that the EC and WWF used their financial and technical muscle to ensure that the final CRNP project document responded substantively to their ecological interests, rather than to the social development interests of the Nigerian government or the local community. Accordingly, this illustrates that there was no overarching utopian intent that connects the interests of the EC, WWF, Nigeria government and local communities. In my original piece, however, I did show that the American and European origins of interventions to protect biodiversity included the utopian desire for pristine nature (see Adams 2004). WWF and efforts to create national parks have their roots partially in that utopian discourse. Thus the actions of the EC and the WWF can be linked, however tenuously, to a utopian discourse of a different kind from the longing of the Nigerian government and local communities for social development to accompany the creation of the CRNP. The proposition that a utopian impulse informs decentralised forestry initiatives does not negate the additional proposition that there are actors in the forestry sector whose driving ambitions may have no utopian pretensions behind them.
The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG). © 2015 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers).
2
Commentary
Thus Asiyanbi (2015) is correct to assert that there is no overarching motivation behind decentralised forestry initiatives. If my previous article (Nuesiri 2014) gives the impression that there was, and that this is a utopian impulse, that would be an over-generalisation; instead the utopian impulse should be viewed as one of many competing impulses driving decentralised forestry initiatives worldwide. It would be illogical to think that the utopian impulse which was evidently part of the motivations of biodiversity conservation pioneers such as George Catlin (see Boime 2012), has been completely superseded by rationalist considerations as the only motivations behind biodiversity conservation projects today. Utopian realism asks us to examine our motivation if there is a utopian impulse; and also asks us to cherish the utopian impulse, while acknowledging it as one among other competing blueprints for sustainable and decentralised forest management. References Adams W M 2004 Against extinction: the story of conservation Earthscan, London Asiyanbi A P 2015 Beyond utopia and a ‘power-full’ state: a reply to Nuesiri. The Geographical Journal doi: 10.1111/geoj.12146
The Geographical Journal 2015 doi: 10.1111/geoj.12150 © 2015 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)
Boime A 2012 George Catlin’s wilderness utopia in Patin T ed Observation points: the visual poetics of national park University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis 207–28 Crook S 2000 Utopia and dystopia in Browning G, Halci A and Webster F eds Understanding contemporary society: theories of the present Sage, London 205–18 Giddens A 2010 We need a radicalism of the centre Heinrich Boll Stiftung (www.boell.de/en/navigation/ecology-societyanthony-giddens-radicalism-of-the-centre-9114.html) Accessed 18 May 2015 Harvey D 2000 Spaces of hope Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh Ite U E 1998 New wine in an old skin: the reality of tropical moist forest conservation in Nigeria Land Use Policy 15 135–47 Levitas R 1990 The concept of utopia Syracuse University Press, Syracuse NY Nozick R 1974 Anarchy, state, and utopia Basic Books, New York Nuesiri E O 2014 Decentralised forest management: towards a utopian realism The Geographical Journal doi: 10.1111/ geoj.12104 Schoneveld G C 2014 The politics of the forest frontier: negotiating between conservation, development, and indigenous rights in Cross River State, Nigeria Land Use Policy 38 147–62
