Political ecology (PE) has been described as a “riotously diverse” (T. Perreault, Bridge, & McCarthy, 2015, p. 3) analytical approach and academic subfield. We suggest that this diversity makes PE uniquely fit to address the overlapping socio-ecological crises of our times, while also exposing ‘cracks’ in existing narratives and analyses, where rays of hope, resistance, […]

El pensamiento nuestroamericano ha profundizado la crítica al pensamiento único, como conocimiento acabado y perfilamiento del espíritu, incapaz de devolver a sus dueños las propias alas del saber. Es la crítica al conocimiento puro que no ha permitido el reconocimiento del sujeto nuestroamericano como sujeto cognoscente y transformador de su propia realidad (socioambiental) que, en su devenir, procura el desarrollo de un pensamiento otro que conquiste la muerte con la Vida y rompa con los vicios de una filosofia de retorno que vuelve ineludiblemente sobre sí misma y dificulta al sujeto hallarse a sí mismo en los moldes prestablecidos que crea. Tales perspectivas ético-gnoseológicas hoy constituyen fundamentos epistémicos imprescindibles en todo intento por definir una transición socioambiental efectiva.

The relationship between humans and nature in Uttarakhand’s mountain regions has long been governed by stark dualisms, such as human versus nature and local versus outsider. These dualisms, deeply embedded in the fabric of environmental policy, have perpetuated ecological degradation and social marginalization, particularly of women. Drawing upon eco-feminist critiques, this essay explores how integrating community rights and eco-feminism can transform environmental governance in Uttarakhand. This approach not only addresses historical injustices but also aligns with the themes of just and plural political ecologies, advocating for a future where governance is both inclusive and equitable.

A name can change everything. As in the case of Small Island Developing States which are some of the most vulnerable regions globally with regards to the consequences of the ecological crisis. However, this categorisation – having been assigned to them by the International Community – seems to be outdated. Recently, a new concept has made its way to the international audiences, namely the self-denomination as Large Ocean States. The essay looks into this change of name and associated concepts related to the sustainable energy transition and their contestations within the field of Political Ecology.

We focus on scholarly publishing in political ecology and the possibilities for reform. Currently, publishing for articles and books is highly unequal, expensive in different ways, and therefore discriminatory. Scholarly social science publishing is dominated by metrics, high expectations, and outlets that favour the commercial academic publishers despite a welcome shift to Open Access (OA). Political ecologists are passionate people, but they are commonly part of this system. A serious consideration of alternatives is needed. Alternative venues for academic work have emerged requiring our support.

En la página web de la sección Grassroots del Journal of Political Ecology se han publicado 14 declaraciones breves de alrededore de 1000 palabras. Estas declaraciones son provocaciones para pensar en las tradiciones y futuros justos y plurales de la ecología política. Para esta iniciativa, el Journal of Political Ecology se unió a otras dos revistas: Ecología Política (Barcelona) y el Journal of the Geographical Association of Tanzania. Se trata de un primer esfuerzo para motivar reflexiones sobre la amplitud y pluralidad de la ecología política; un ejercicio que esperamos continúe alrededor de las reuniones de POLLEN 2024.

My research contributes to the broad and plural field of Political Ecology. More specifically, I study the mutual shaping of water and society that takes place within, around, and against development interventions in irrigation and water governance in selected countries of sub-Saharan Africa and South East Asia. I work for the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (https://en.ird.fr/node/8), whose stated aims is to develop equitable research partnerships with higher education and research organizations in the Global South. This tends to involve posting (mostly) French researchers in national universities and research centers for several years during which time we design and implement research projects together. This specific positioning raises many questions in terms of legitimacy and ethics, which are not easily answered. I am also part of an epistemic community designing and implementing participatory research that often involves ‘modeling with stakeholders’. The vocabulary used by this community may be less oriented to the ‘political’ than the one used by political ecologists, but the two communities share the same aspiration: broadly speaking, to support and increase the clout of marginalized social groups, and redress existing environmental and development inequalities.

There are 14 short 1000-word statements published on the webpage of the Grassroots section of the Journal of Political Ecology. These statements are provocations to think about traditions and futures of just and plural political ecologies. The Journal of Political Ecology joined two other journals in soliciting these statements– Ecología Política (Barcelona) and the Journal of the Geographical Association of Tanzania. This is an initial step of an effort to publish a collection of reflections on the wide and plural field of political ecology as it takes shape in and around the 2024 POLLEN meetings.

Political ecology is still grappling with epistemological and pedagogical issues: How do we do political ecology without a standardized methodology? How do we teach, learn, and research political ecology if it is praxis and a radical pedagogy? And how do we reconcile different approaches to political ecology pedagogy in the Global North and South? (Batterbury & Rodríguez 2023, Jarosz 2004, Sultana 2023). This commentary does not offer answers to all of these debates, but as a pedagogue and political ecologist committed to knowledge decolonization–who learned political ecology by engaging with resistance movements and grassroots organizations, I argue there is much we can learn from the transformational pedagogies practiced by these movements toward enacting the just and plural ecologies we are concerned with.

The ‘political ecology of the South’ is rooted in the colonial legacy’s intricacies, simultaneously embedded in struggles for resistance and emancipation (Leff, 2015b). Though sharing commonalities with the political ecology of the North (Bryant & Bailey, 1997; Peet & Watts, 1996; Blaikie & Brookfield, 1987; Hecht & Cockburn, 1989/2010; Peluso, 1994), primarily theoretical and methodological and embrace a joint political commitment (Wolford & Keen, 2015), the political ecologies that have emerged and keep emerging in/from Latin America are traced in particular genealogies and carry a deep-rooted commitment with struggles for emancipation and long-standing anti-colonial resistance movements (Leff, 2015a, 2015b, Alimonda, 2017; Escobar, 2017). This ‘political ecology of the South’ builds upon postcolonial theories and the politics of difference, intertwined with a broader political project of emancipation and decolonization.

In the forthcoming introduction to a Special Issue we edited for Geoforum (Bluwstein and De Rosa, forthcoming), we argue that while the flourishing of imaginative political ecologies around alternative, just and emancipatory futures is a welcome and a much needed antidote to “capitalist realism”, the envisioning of just futures is not enough for a political ecology of the future. Given that the intersections of capitalism, (neo)colonialism, patriarchy and racism continue to shape the state and corporate responses to multiple and compounding socioecological crises, a political ecology of the future must critically analyze bio- and necropolitical ecological futures already in the making today.

By bringing fields of observation, reception and translation studies of climate change into close conversation, pluralizing climates offers a way to work through the tension between upholding scientific integrity and being open to other cultural readings of climate change, and to explore their empowering potential as knowledges grounded in lived experience and ways of being in the world.

In this essay, we will delve into the injustices within urban environments, exploring how environmental justice principles can illuminate and address these pressing issues. Through an examination of the interconnected factors contributing to environmental injustices in urban settings, we will highlight the importance of adopting a holistic approach to tackle these challenges effectively. By analysing case studies and drawing on scholarly research, we will elucidate the critical role of environmental justice in promoting equity, sustainability, and resilience in urban landscapes.

Political ecology has significantly shaped the discourse surrounding energy systems, infrastructure, and their transition away from fossil fuels. While political ecology had some unpromising beginnings in the field of energy, as it was usually presented as ‘just another resource’, the understanding of energy as a relational-metabolic concept has come a long way (Cederlof, 2021). Concurrently, energy justice (EJ) has garnered considerable attention over the past decade, evidenced by a proliferation of scholarly articles. However, much of this literature remains entrenched within a Western-modern framework, predominantly emphasizing the principles of environmental justice: distribution, recognition, and procedural fairness with some advocating for a cosmopolitan or a restorative approach (Heffron, 2022). The prevailing majority overlooks the profound influence of colonialism-coloniality, capitalist modernity, and patriarchy on the formulation of energy as a concept and its infrastructural character. Political ecology is well placed to address these problems within EJ.

Political ecology has significantly shaped the discourse surrounding energy systems, infrastructure, and their transition away from fossil fuels. While political ecology had some unpromising beginnings in the field of energy, as it was usually presented as ‘just another resource’, the understanding of energy as a relational-metabolic concept has come a long way (Cederlof, 2021). Concurrently, energy justice (EJ) has garnered considerable attention over the past decade, evidenced by a proliferation of scholarly articles. However, much of this literature remains entrenched within a Western-modern framework, predominantly emphasizing the principles of environmental justice: distribution, recognition, and procedural fairness with some advocating for a cosmopolitan or a restorative approach (Heffron, 2022). The prevailing majority overlooks the profound influence of colonialism-coloniality, capitalist modernity, and patriarchy on the formulation of energy as a concept and its infrastructural character. Political ecology is well placed to address these problems within EJ.

With an open conversation on the “Just and Plural Political Ecologies: Traditions and Futures,” there is so much to discuss. The structural, political and epistemological violence of academia,[1] as it intertwines with enchanting technologies and addictive habits, boils to the surface. Because the “injustice” or sustained multi-faceted forms of coercion, socioecological degradation and psychological harm are systemic within academia and accepted as a matter of practice is why, following Fredy Perlman (2017[1969]): “I Accuse This Liberal University of Terror and Violence.” This violence is particularly relevant to political ecology as Bridge and colleagues (2015: 8) remind us: “[P]olitical ecology is not merely to understand the world; the point is to change it.” Political ecologist, instead of documenting violence and injustice in faraway lands, has the more challenging obligation to stop this violence where we dedicate so much of our time: The University.