Exam rev SD

What is liberal multilateralism and how does it differ from climate emergency framing

Liberal multilateralism refers to the intergovernmental process of negotiation and treaty-making that has dominated the last 30 years, multilateralism facilitates cooperation between states and powerful economic interests. Its primary function has been to develop international law, set globally-agreed goals, and promote transparency (Kinley et al.) It provides clear thresholds like 1.5 degrees and global net zero. This allowed three universal treaties, UNFCC, Kyoto, Paris within their deadlines to negotiate.

Despite success in collaboration and action, implementation is a weakness, with 30 years of talks, global CO2 emissions are 65% higher today than in 1990. This is because a system based on state sovereignty, multilateralism can "deliver commitments but not their implementation.

Whereas climate emergency framing is used to contest this traditional system. The climate emergency framing arises from the scientific reality that the world is on course for a "disastrous 2.7°C warming"

Discuss what the conveyor belt is, how does it contest multilateralism?

Hale suggests that no single governance tool is enough, we need a governance ecosystem where ideas move from voluntary action to mandatory law. It is not enough to be voluntary because while soft governance leverages market and reputational power, it cannot reach sectors like oil, gas, and cement nor can it force change in jurisdictions like Texas or Saudi Arabia.

 This perspective identifies an ecosystem which includes:

• Private Voluntary Initiatives (e.g., SBTI): These are for experimentation. They are flexible and push the "frontier of best practice" because they are led by "first movers".

• Orchestrated Campaigns (e.g., Race to Zero): These consolidate best practice, using the UN’s legitimacy to weed out greenwashing and align different initiatives.

• Standards (e.g., ISO): These scale best practice globally. While slow and consensus-based, they influence trade rules and provide a framework for auditing.

• Regulation: This makes best practice binding. It can "compel laggards," but it is vulnerable to local political capture and lobbying

Discuss orchestration, give a real world example and critique

Hale discusses The UN Race to Zero. Its main goal is to promote "upward convergence" toward the highest standards of rigor. To be part of this orchestrated campaign, actors must meet strict "starting line" criteria: they must pledge to reach net zero by 2050, have interim targets for 2030, and not use offsets to delay real decarbonisation.

Even though it’s voluntary, it has "soft power." For example, a Dutch court recently used consultations from the Race to Zero campaign to justify a ruling that forced the oil company Shell to increase its climate action.

However, Chan et al highlights how this perspective is not a magic wand strategy. Despite more summits and campaigns, output performance is not improving over time. Initiatives from earlier summits, like the 2014 UN climate summit performed better than more recent ones. There is a risk of "summit fatigue," where the same actors are asked to join too many different campaigns, leading to a drop-off in actual results. As well as campaign only works if it has "institutional robustness"—specifically a secretariat, a budget, and monitoring arrangements. Campaigns that have these are 15% more effective than those that don't.

Describe method of orchestration

Global climate governance increasingly relies on ‘orchestration’ through data transparency, as institutions like the UN lack the authority to directly enforce action on non-state actors.

Mai et al highlights that UNFCCC Secretariat uses data to “orchestrate” global climate governance through platforms like the Global Climate Action (GCA) Portal. Data orchestrates global climate governance because the UN Secretariat lacks the legal authority to "command" or "police" non-state actors like businesses and cities. Because the international system is based on state sovereignty, "policing" is difficult; therefore, accountability often relies on "public shaming" made possible by transparent data.The central argument of this article is that the role of data has shifted from being a tool to pressure negotiators (pre-Paris) to a tool for animating and tracking actual implementation (post-paris).

·       Pre-COP21 (Negotiation Phase): The database, then called NAZCA, acted as a "recognition platform". Its goal was to showcase the "breadth of non-state actor commitments" to "inject momentum" into the Paris negotiations by proving to governments that businesses and cities were ready and willing to act,.

·      Post-COP21 (Implementation Phase):The platform was rebranded as the GCA Portal and is now intended to be a "tracking tool",. It aims to move beyond "good intentions" to provide accountability, showing exactly how much progress is being made on voluntary pledges to help governments formulate better national policies

This transition shows a shift in how negotiation goes to implementation in global governance.

The authors note that the portal is currently "very centered in the Western hemisphere," with massive data gaps in the Global South, which threatens the platform's legitimacy and universal applicability

Who is responsible in the global governance perspective?

Power in global climate governance is fragmented across multiple actors, rather than held by a single authority, due to the lack of a central enforcing body.

While nation-states retain formal sovereign power, as only they can translate voluntary commitments into binding domestic law, this power is unevenly distributed, with major emitters such as the US and China holding disproportionate influence.

However, states often fail to implement these commitments effectively, creating a persistent gap between negotiation and action. In this context, organisations such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat exercise orchestrational power through soft mechanisms, using legitimacy, visibility, and data platforms to coordinate and “nudge” non-state actors rather than compel them.

Power is also held by technical actors and data providers, who shape governance by defining metrics and determining what counts as credible climate action, demonstrating that knowledge itself is a form of authority. Additionally, corporations and financial actors possess significant economic power, as they control investment flows and a substantial share of global emissions, often resisting transformative change due to vested interests.

Finally, regulatory and standard-setting bodies contribute to governance by scaling and institutionalising best practices across the global economy. Overall, this fragmented distribution of power creates accountability gaps and raises questions about the effectiveness of global climate governance.

explain the role of large corporations in global governance?

Kinley et al shows that responsibility for climate action in global governance is increasingly distributed beyond nation-states to include corporate and financial actors.

Large corporations control a significant share of global emissions, meaning that meaningful economic transformation depends heavily on changes in private sector behaviour and investment decisions. This highlights the growing responsibility of business and finance in driving the transition to net zero.

At the same time, responsibility is differentiated at the international level, with developed countries and multilateral financial institutions expected to provide financial support to the Global South, exemplified by the $100 billion annual climate finance commitment. However, the failure to consistently meet these obligations raises concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of global governance arrangements.

According to the global governance perspective, how do we move from climate negotiation to implementation?

The shift from negotiation to implementation requires moving from voluntary, ambiguous commitments to accountable, regulated, and institutionalised action.

The Suggestion: We do not need new treaties; we must focus on the "full implementation" of agreed commitments. Implementation has been the "biggest failure" of the last 30 years—evidenced by CO2 emissions being 65% higher today than in 1990.

Use a governance ecosystem to move voluntary innovations into mandatory law
Platforms like the GCA Portal must shift from:

• “recognition” (good intentions)
  → to “tracking” (real progress)

• Enables transparency + learning + pressure

What is the mainstream ideas in food world hunger issues?

Holt-Giménez argues that the mainstream corporate food regime constructs the problem of hunger as one of scarcity. This scarcity narrative suggests that because of population growth, we must double food production through industrial and technological means like GMOs and Chemicals. This is a "smokescreen"; in reality, we already produce 1.5 times more food than is needed to feed everyone on the planet

The corporate food regime cares more about finding new markets to sell products than they do about actually ending hunger.

This is proven through Africa as a "Wide-Open Market": Global institutions and corporations—such as the World Bank, the Gates Foundation, and Monsanto—frequently use expressions like "Africa needs a new green revolution" or "It's Africa's turn". It is argued that this is because Africa represents a "wide-open market" where there is "substantial money to be made" selling the chemicals and high-yielding seeds that have already been sold to the rest of the world.

Asia is "Saturated": While the majority of the world's hungry population actually lives in Asia and the Pacific, that region has already undergone its Green Revolution. Consequently, it is already "saturated with chemical fertilizers, GMOs, and modern farming machinery". Because the market for these industrial inputs is full, there is less room for large corporations to grow their profits there.

Thus, from a mainstream perspective, there is an underlying norm that the market is the only available solution to food problems. This has led to the privatisation of the "public sphere," where community-based decision-making is lost in favour of market logic.

the Green Revolution in Asia did not eliminate hunger, yet the same model is being pushed in Africa as the only solution. This illustrates a key Power dynamic where the "corporate food regime" uses the "scarcity narrative" (the idea that we must produce more to feed the world) as a "smokescreen" to expand its market share and generate profit

How does food sovereignty challenge the mainstream agenda?

What is the Big 4, are they powerful, and how are they targeted/contested?

Just four agrochemical companies control almost 70% of the global pesticide and seed markets, according to Wittman. This concentration allows a tiny number of corporate interests to dictate the rules for the global food system and effectively set the price of grain for the world

These corporations, alongside institutions like the World Bank, argue that we must double food production through industrial means (GMOs and chemicals) to feed a growing population, adding to the scarcity narrative.
Radical movements like La Via Campesina argue that the responsibility for a just food system lies in dismantling these oligopolies and taking agriculture out of the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Wittman).

What is the radical alternative on food systems

Food sovereignty according to Wittman, moves beyond the corporate food regime to focus on human rights. Food sovereignty is constructed as a rights-based framework where people have the right to define their own food and agricultural systems. It defines sustainable food as that which is culturally appropriate, produced through ecologically sound methods, and focused on planetary health.

This perspective challenges the techno-fix norm. It argues against the assumption that simplified, industrial production systems (like those from the Green Revolution) are the only way to feed the world.

What is La Via Campesina, how can it promote sustainability?

Nicholson and Borras Jr. A conversion with Paul Nicholson, a founding member of la via campesina, providing a first-hand account on food sovereignty.

La Via Campesina (LVC) as the primary example of the "Radical" perspective on food and agriculture. LVC is the international movement that coined the term "Food Sovereignty" to contest the mainstream "Food Security" paradigm.

LVC constructs sustainability as a rights-based framework. It is not just about "producing more" but about the "right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound methods". They also construct a specific peasant class identity, defining them not just as workers but as a social class with a spiritual relationship to the land

LVC takes the responsibility of being the "voice of the peasants" in international spaces like the UN and FAO. A key part of their power is putting women peasant leaders into primary leadership positions

It promotes sustainability by suggesting that solving hunger requires political and economic restructuring.

How does LVC challenge mainstream narrative?

Nicholson and Borras Jr. promotes sustainability by suggesting that solving hunger requires political and economic restructuring.

primary suggestions include:

• Dismantling Corporate Oligopolies: They advocate for dismantling the "Big 4" and other agrochemical giants that control 70% of the seed and pesticide markets.

• Removing Agriculture from the WTO: LVC argues that food is a human right, not a mere commodity, and should therefore be removed from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and free trade agreements that favor subsidized industrial dumping. This directly opposing the mainstream reliance on global markets

• Redistributive Land Reform: They suggest that land should be a "common inheritance" rather than "real estate". They demand policies that take land from owners who "sit on it" for profit and give it to the peasants and aspiring landworkers who will actually work the soil for the community. Challenges the idea of land as private property, instead framing it as a common resource that should be accessible to those who produce food.

• National Legislation: LVC has successfully pushed for constitutional amendments and laws in countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nepal that formally recognise food sovereignty as a state goal . EXAMPLE > Bolivia (2009 Constitution): The law priorities the production and consumption of agricultural foods produced within Bolivia. Crucially, Article 255 prohibits the importation and production of GMOs and toxic elements to protect health and the environment.
  
  

How does OrganicLea challenge the mainstream food regime?

The paper by Peyton, discusses OrganicLea which proves radical Food Sovereignty is a practical possibility in the Global North, not just a "utopian fantasy".

OrganicLea is based in the northeast corner of London, specifically on the Hawkwood nursery site in the Lea Valley.

OrganicLea is constructed by the motto "plant care, people care, and planet care". Sustainability here is relational, involving communal lunches, "brain and manual work" integration, and caring for the soil. This is challenging the mainstream norm, which separates human from earth, with the introduction of more heavy machinery, AI, vertical farm.

They contest the mainstream scarcity narrative, in one year, they produced over 12,000kg of food for their local borough while increasing yields and keeping prices stable (only one increase in six years). This proves that agroecology—specifically using "green manures" to fix nitrogen instead of synthetic chemicals—is productive and sustainable. Thus, this strategy feeds the world, while mainstream heats the world, pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Not only has OrganicLea provided food, but it is not just a farm; it’s an educational hub with 261 learners and 369 volunteers. It provides "graded-out" food for free to those who need it, treating food as a necessity rather than a commodity.

Overall, OrganicLea challenges the mainstream food regime by showing that hunger can be addressed through local, community-based, and ecologically embedded systems rather than through globalised, profit-driven production.

Give an example how hunger is politically measured

Holt-Giménez highlights how hunger is politically constructed and measured, By setting the "hunger threshold" at 2000 calories—which is suitable for someone sitting at a computer—international institutions grossly underestimate the actual hunger of farmworkers in the developing world who need up to 5000 calories a day.

This example also highlights that international institutions that set these boundaries have the power and define what hunger means.

How is community defined in mainstream?

According to Agrawal and Gibson, large global institutions—including the World Bank, USAID, and the WWF—have "found" community and now direct enormous sums toward "community-based conservation".

From a mainstream perspective, community is used as a tool for decentralization and efficiency. It is often viewed as a "spatial unit" (a village) or a "social structure" that can manage local resources better than a distant government.

The authors argue that many advocates and policy makers construct "community" as a "mythic" entitydefined by three characteristics: a small spatial unit, a homogeneous social structure, and shared norms. This construction presents community as a unified, organic whole where harmony reigns.

However, this fails to capture the reality of internal differences. They argue that communities are not static or unified but are composed of multiple actors with divergent interests such as elites vs marginalised groups or men vs women, who are constantly negotiating for power.

What assumptions are made in the mainstream view of community as a vehicle for sustainable development?

The mainstream approach to community-based natural resource management is underpinned by a series of simplifying assumptions about how communities function, which are critically challenged by Agrawal and Gibson.

One key assumption is the spatial assumption, which suggests that small, territorially fixed communities are better able to manage resources due to close interactions; however, this overlooks the fact that many environmental resources, such as forests or watersheds, extend beyond local boundaries.

Similarly, the homogeneity norm assumes that communities with shared identities will naturally cooperate, ignoring internal inequalities and social divisions. The shared norms myth further assumes that conservation-oriented values can be easily introduced, despite the reality that local norms may conflict with environmental goals and are resistant to external change.

Finally, the idea of the “ecologically noble savage” romanticises indigenous communities as inherently sustainable, disregarding historical evidence of environmental modification.

Together, these assumptions construct a simplistic and idealised vision of community, which fails to account for complexity, power, and conflict, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of community-based approaches.

How is there power imbalances in participation through community

The mainstream idea that participation leads to better, fairer outcomes is flawed because it ignores power inequalities both between and within groups.

Larson et al. argue that a place at the table is not enough, inviting indigenous people and local communities to a meeting does not guarantee they have a voice to influence outcomes, as powerful actors always find ways to dominate the conversation, treating inclusion as a technical checkbox rather than a transfer of power.

This is clear through Agarwal (2001) who argues that even when a community is "included," women are often systematically excluded from decision-making. For example, in community forestry, men often attend meetings while women, who are the primary users of the forest, are "invisibilised.

MSFs are often constructed as "invited spaces"—imagined arenas for collaboration among equals where "we are all in this together" to solve the climate crisis. Sustainability is framed as a goal that can be achieved through consensus and dialogue between different "stakeholders".

how do top-down approaches undermine community as a vehicle for sustainability?

Loft et al shows how sustainability is not a neutral technical issue, but is contested between top-down economic framings and local understandings of fairness and labour.

The limitations of market-based approaches to sustainability are illustrated by Vietnam’s Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services (PFES) scheme, which constructs sustainability as an incentive-based governance problem. The state uses technical metrics, such as “K-coefficients,” to determine payments based on forest quality, assuming that financial incentives will encourage conservation. However, this approach overlooks existing inequalities, as forest quality is often shaped by earlier, unequal land allocations, meaning that elites disproportionately benefit from the scheme.

Furthermore, there is a disconnect between national and local understandings of equity. While the state adopts an output-based measure focused on forest condition, local communities emphasise labour and effort, arguing they should be compensated for the “man-days” spent on forest protection.

This demonstrates that sustainability is not simply a technical issue but is socially constructed and contested, and that top-down, market-based solutions can reinforce inequality and fail to reflect local realities.

Discuss how gender links to community

While community-based approaches are often presented as inclusive, Agarwal demonstrates that internal inequalities can significantly limit their effectiveness. Women, despite being primary users of resources such as forests, are frequently excluded from decision-making processes. However, Agarwal also shows that inclusion can be improved through achieving a “critical mass” of participation.

A key limitation of community-based approaches is the presence of underlying social norms that shape who is able to participate in decision-making. As highlighted by Agarwal, one such norm is the “household assumption,” which treats the household as a unified unit represented by a single individual—typically the male head. This assumes that men can adequately represent the interests of all household members, including women, thereby rendering women’s perspectives invisible within community governance.

Drawing on studies of Scandinavian politics, she argues that when women make up around 30% of decision-making bodies, the political dynamic shifts, with reduced stereotyping and greater attention given to their concerns. This suggests that community can function more equitably as a vehicle for sustainability, but only when structural barriers to participation are actively addressed, highlighting that inclusion must involve a genuine redistribution of power rather than symbolic representation.

What is some perspective in flood management, what contests the idea?

Rouillard et al. suggests that a catchment-scale approach to flood risk management promotes rural land use change to reduce flood risk. Measures like restoring wetlands, removing river embankments, and altering farm and forestry practices to provide natural water retention.

However, land managers offer a challenge to this perspective, as well as farmers, who resist abandoning productive land. They fear economic losses. Since Implementing "Natural Flood Management" (NFM) in rural areas is largely voluntary, this makes it more difficult for this approach to work.

Agricultural subsidies frequently require land to remain in active production, creating a structural disincentive to adopt nature-based solutions. As a result, the assumption that land managers will cooperate in implementing sustainable practices is challenged by the reality that their decisions are shaped by economic pressures and livelihood concerns. This highlights a key limitation of the approach, demonstrating that sustainability is not simply a technical issue but is deeply influenced by economic and institutional factors.

Additionally, less likely as this perspective is contested by the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these measures at a catchment-wide scale. Both land managers and implementers are sceptical of moving toward widespread regulation until the "hydrological evidence" is stronger.

What assumptions does the catchment flooding approach make and how does this affect how sustainability is carried out?

Henderson et al. suggest that the catchment-scale approach to flood management is underpinned by the assumption that collaboration between multiple actors will produce more effective and inclusive sustainability outcomes. This perspective moves away from traditional top-down governance toward a “partnership system,” which is framed as egalitarian and cooperative.

However, this assumption is challenged in practice, as collaboration often remains superficial.

For example, in Glasgow’s Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP), decision-making was found to be fragmented, with institutions such as local councils and water agencies pursuing their own strategic agendas.

This resulted in “siloed adoption” and limited public engagement, suggesting that the language of partnership can mask underlying institutional divisions. As a result, sustainability is not carried out in a coordinated or inclusive manner, but instead becomes disjointed and ineffective, highlighting a gap between the theoretical promise of collaboration and its practical implementation.

Discuss rational choice institutionalism, how does this effect NFM?

According to Henderson et al. Rational Choice Institutionalism (RCI) frames institutions as the rational outcome of decisions made by actors to ensure the survival of their organisation. It proposes that self-interest motivates individual actors within these institutions to act for their own benefit or for the perceived benefit of their department—within the constraints of existing strategic structures. This perspective suggests that a policy may not be implemented as intended if it negatively impacts an actor’s subjective interpretation of what is required to protect the institution, such as protecting limited staff resources or severely constrained budgets.

In the context of flood risk management (FRM), RCI poses a significant challenge to the effectiveness of modern, egalitarian policies.

This is illustrated in the Garrowhill Bowling Club case, where the council denied responsibility for flooding by citing a lack of formal evidence linking their developments to the issue. From an RCI perspective, this can be understood as a strategic attempt to avoid financial and legal liability, as accepting responsibility would require costly intervention. Instead, blame was shifted onto residents, demonstrating how institutional self-interest can undermine collaborative approaches. As a result, NFM may struggle to be effectively implemented, as actors prioritise organisational protection over collective sustainability goals.

Another example is Cluny Drive (Paisley/West Glasgow conurbation): A resident reported decades of flooding where the Council blamed Scottish Water's sewers, and Scottish Water blamed the Council's road drainage

What is the purpose of SuDs, how do they add to the flood management perspective?

Bastien et al, In Scotland, SuDS have been made compulsory for virtually all new developments. They are integrated into the planning system to ensure new buildings do not worsen neighbor flooding.

The implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) in Scotland highlights important limitations in how sustainability is operationalised within mainstream flood management approaches, including Natural Flood Management (NFM). SuDS are designed as integrated “treatment trains,” combining features such as green roofs, permeable paving, and swales to manage both water quantity and quality at the source, reflecting a techno-managerial belief that holistic design and modelling can deliver sustainable outcomes without halting development.

However, in practice, their implementation reveals significant constraints. Higher-performing systems can cost up to 5 times more and require up to 7 times more land than traditional solutions, creating direct tensions with development priorities such as housing provision, particularly in regeneration areas like the 20-hectare Clyde site.

Furthermore, site-specific conditions, such as contaminated land, can limit the feasibility of infiltration-based approaches, undermining the effectiveness of “natural” solutions. Despite being mandatory, SuDS are therefore often only partially implemented due to cost, land availability, and long-term maintenance concerns. This demonstrates that while NFM and related approaches frame sustainability as achievable through design and planning, in reality it is shaped by economic, spatial, and institutional trade-offs, challenging the assumption that technical solutions alone can deliver sustainable development.

Describe some benefits of SuDs

Bastien et al. SuDS can be constructed as a social benefit rather than just a technical one, supporting the mainstream view that sustainability can be integrated into development through technical design. Treatment trains treat pollutants closer to the source, reducing the shock load on regional systems. This provides a stable habitat that enhances local biodiversity

This approach aligns with Ecological Modernisation, or the "greening of business as usual," where clean technologies (like SuDS) allow for continued economic growth and development

By making drainage infrastructure visible rather than buried in pipes, pollutant spills (such as oil leaks or accidental dumping) can be detected and managed much more efficiently before they reach major rivers like the Clyde

While initial construction is expensive, the whole-life-cost argument has positive dimensions:

• Green Roofs: Beyond drainage, green roofs provide better insulation, which can significantly reduce building heating and cooling costs over time.

• Offsetting Infrastructure: The implementation of swales can be partly offset by economies on infrastructure costs, as they reduce the need for expensive underground pipe networks

Green–blue links are specifically associated with Linear Wetlands (LW) or "enhanced swales". Unlike traditional drainage that is hidden in underground pipes, these links are visible public amenities that form part of the urban landscape.

Promoting Sustainable Transport

A primary goal of these links is to reduce car use by providing sustainable and safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists. They essentially turn drainage corridors into green corridors that connect different parts of a city.

What is river Clyde?

The Clyde Gateway is a priority regeneration area for the Scottish Government.
Planners aim to transform this area into a "sought-after" location, which requires a forward-looking surface water management plan to handle runoff from new developments.

Flood risk along the Clyde is managed by the Metropolitan Glasgow Sustainable Drainage Partnership (MGSDP).

• Structure: It is a partnership of all institutional water stakeholders, including Glasgow City Council, Renfrewshire Council, SEPA, and Scottish Water.

• The Critique: While cited as "best practice" for collaborative working, reviews have highlighted fragmented decision-making, residual silo thinking, and poor public engagement. The sources note that even during hyperlocal flooding events in the Clyde conurbation, the MGSDP is often not even mentioned by the impacted residents or the media, suggesting it is "invisible" to the community

Discuss the Eddleston Water Case Study, how does this add to sustainability perspective?

While projects like Eddleston prove that Natural Flood Management (NFM) is a scientifically viable "whole-catchment" alternative to expensive "grey" infrastructure, it faces a major implementation gap. This gap exists because the mainstream perspective constructs NFM as "low-cost" for the government, but ignores the fact that it is prohibitively expensive for land managers who bear the "double burden" of losing productive land while grants fail to cover their capital losses

Construction of Sustainability:

• • Mainstream: Framed as a "whole-catchment" nature-based solution (NBA) that uses the environment to solve human problems.

  • Co-benefits: Delivers biodiversity, pollution prevention, drought resilience, and wildlife habitat restoration beyond simple flood protection.

• Technique – Re-meandering: A "physical reset" of the river’s morphology to reverse historical straightening, slowing flow and diversifying habitats.

  • Note: While 1.6km was re-meandered, sources suggest 5–10km reaches are needed for significant flood impacts.

• Quantitative Success (The "Proof"):

  • Increased "lag time" (delay between rain and peak flood) by 2.6 to 7.3 hours in treated headwater catchments.

  • Proven more effective at "slowing the flow" as event magnitude increases.

• The "Cost" Conflict (The Critique):

  • Institutional view: Seen as "low-cost" and "flexible" compared to multi-million pound concrete defences.

  • Land Manager view: High "opportunity cost." Leads to loss of capital value, decline in productive capacity, and impacts on future farm succession.

  • Grants: Government funding often fails to cover actual income losses.

• Key Source: Black et al. (2021) for hydrological data; Costaz-Puyou et al. for morphology; Rouillard et al. for land manager responses

Was the Eddleston project collaborative?

The Eddleston project is a perfect example of the "on the fence" nature of this perspective. It was "collaborative" in a very specific, institutional way:

• Inter-Agency Collaboration: It was a "partnership initiative" involving the Scottish Government, SEPA, local councils, and the Tweed Forum (an NGO). These groups collaborated effectively to share data and expertise.

• Negotiated (Not Co-Created) with Farmers: The project "worked with 20 farmers" and "negotiated with land managers" to implement measures.

• The Critique: From a radical perspective, this isn't true collaboration because the farmers were invited into "predetermined schemes". They didn't define the system; they were offered "economic carrots" (grants) to allow the government to use their land for a technical solution

Discuss Institutional Power and the "Cycle of Externalisation"

River Clyde/Glasgow conurbation case studies to show how institutions use their power to avoid action.

Power is held by public sector organisations like SEPA, Scottish Water, and Local Councils who have the "formalised institutional expertise and hierarchies

The "Blame Game": These institutions use their power to engage in the "Cycle of Externalisation". Because policy language regarding responsibility is often "ambiguous" or "opaque," institutions rationally choose to "pass the buck" to protect their own limited budgets (Rational Choice Institutionalism)

How does Ecofeminism challenge mainstream SD, and explains how it fails.

Ecofeminism challenges mainstream sustainable development (SD) by arguing that environmental degradation is rooted in deeply embedded systems of power, including patriarchy, capitalism, and colonialism, rather than simply technical or managerial failures.

As argued by Banerjee and Bell, achieving sustainability requires a “transformative praxis,” moving beyond tokenistic inclusion toward dismantling the hierarchical structures that drive both social and environmental exploitation. This critique highlights a key limitation of mainstream approaches such as ecological modernisation, which focus on “green growth” and technological innovation without addressing underlying inequalities.

Historical ecofeminist scholars such as Carolyn Merchant further illustrate this failure by tracing how the Scientific Revolution redefined nature as a mechanistic resource to be controlled, replacing earlier relational understandings of humans and the environment. From this perspective, mainstream SD reflects this “reductionist” worldview by treating environmental problems as technical issues that can be solved through improved technologies, rather than recognising the need for a fundamental shift in human–nature relationships. As such, ecofeminism argues that mainstream SD fails because it does not challenge the structural and ideological roots of environmental degradation.

What is social scientific ecofeminism?

Social scientific ecofeminism is a transformative and analytical framework that explores the interconnections between the domination of women and the domination of nature through a sociological lens.

Unlike other strands of the movement, it specifically positions itself as a critique of historical and spiritualist ecofeminism by rejecting essentialism, the sacralisation of nature, and the romanticisation of non-Western traditions

Social scientific ecofeminists reject the "homogenizing tendency" of earlier strands that assumed all women have a biological or mystical connection to nature. Instead, they focus on the diversity of contexts and the varied nature of oppression along class, race, and gender lines. It moves away from "romanticizing" indigenous traditions or treating Third World women as authorized "experts" on nature, instead analyzing their experiences within their specific geographical and material histories.

How does ecofeminism challenge neoliberal SD?

Neoliberal SD assumes that environmental problems can be solved through market and individual choices, such as sustainable consumption or green lifestyles. Instead of holding corporations or states accountable for pollution, it constructs the individual consumer as the primary agent of change. Ecofeminism challenges this, saying it ignores the power hierarchies that cause environmental destruction in the first place.

Because mainstream environmentalism targets the household, it relies on domestic labour to enact change. Since the "reproduction of life"—tasks like cooking, cleaning, and waste management—is historically and socially constructed as women’s work, the burden of "saving the planet" through the home falls disproportionately on them.

·       Time and Effort:Adopting a "green lifestyle" often requires more time-consuming manual work, such as sourcing local produce, preparing "slow food," or managing complex recycling systems.

·      Unpaid Labour:In many societies, women engage in largely unpaid farm and domestic work, which is effectively devalued by neoliberal models that only prize the "paid economy"

From this perspective, neoliberal sustainable development fails because it individualises responsibility while leaving the structural drivers of environmental harm—particularly corporate power and economic systems—largely unchallenged.

How does macgregor support the claim that ecofeminism challenges mainstream

The most important point is that MacGregor contests the claim that the "everyday turn" (focusing on food, energy, and clothing) is "new". She argues that ecofeminism has "never not been grounded" in these material issues.

Mainstream environmentalism used to dismiss household actions as "low-hanging fruit" or "depoliticizing". Now that they’ve realized these actions are important, they’ve rebranded them as "sustainable materialism" without acknowledging the women who have been doing this work for decades

Discuss masculinist green agendas

Macgregor discusses how

Ecofeminist perspectives critique “masculinist green agendas” by arguing that mainstream sustainability policies prioritise technological solutions and job creation in male-dominated industries, such as renewable energy infrastructure, while marginalising the importance of unpaid domestic and care work.

This reflects a broader norm within capitalist systems that values the “paid economy” of production over the “unpaid economy” of social reproduction. As a result, everyday practices that are essential to sustainability—such as managing household consumption, waste, and care—are framed as individual “lifestyle choices” rather than recognised as forms of labour.

This allows the state to avoid responsibility for supporting or redistributing this work. Ecofeminism challenges this by arguing that true sustainability requires recognising and valuing care work as central to both social and environmental wellbeing, rather than treating it as invisible or secondary.

How can feminist energy challenge the mainstream perspective to keep developing

Bell et al. takes a feminist approach to energy, what keeps us stuck in unsustainable energy cultures.

We are seeing energy additions rather than a transition. New fuel sources have not replaced old ones but have increased the total quantity of energy consumed globally. Within a profit-driven market, renewables often facilitate the continued growth of overall consumption rather than displacing fossil fuels.

The paper reinforces the idea that "pink-collar jobs are green jobs". It argues that an economy centered on social reproduction (caring for people and the earth) is inherently low-carbon and more sustainable than one focused on industrial production.

Real-life work like teaching, nursing, elder care, and community art are inherently low-carbon. A "feminist energy system" would see a state investing in Universal Basic Income (UBI)—as seen in pilot projects in Stockton, California, and Finland—to allow people to spend more time on these caring activities and less time in high-pollution, "production-heavy" industrial work.

This offers a much more radical approach to sustainability, as instead of prioritising ecological modernisation, and the continued growth, we reduce our energy and focus on things such as care, which are not money-making in our current system. It is about changing our daily routines—working less, sharing more, and ensuring that our energy systems protect the most vulnerable (like the "asthmatic grandbaby") rather than just increasing the Gross Domestic Product

Discuss the Energywise trial and how it links to ecofeminism

Johnson paper focuses on the Energywise trial (2014–2018), piloted Demand Side Response (DSR) products with 500 households to see if they could "flex" their electricity use in response to grid signals. Energywise is empirical evidence to critique the mainstream "Ecological Modernisation" paradigm and to support an ecofeminist argument regarding the "unpaid economy" of care.

Unlike most DSR trials which see a majority of male participants, over 60% of Energywise consentees were women, and all were from low-income or vulnerable backgrounds.

The products include:

• HomeEnergy FreeTime: A Time of Use (ToU) tariff for credit meters offering free electricity for eight hours on one weekend day,.

• Bonus Time: A Critical Peak Rebate (CPR) for prepayment meters, rewarding users with financial credits for reducing use during weekday evening peaks (5 pm–11 pm)

Households didn't just "behave"; they managed domestic labour. Success depended entirely on the ability to shift chores like laundry and cooking.

·       In the Energywise trial, when women successfully shifted energy, they were rewarded with credits. This validated and valued the skill of domestic labour that is usually unvalued by society.

·       The "applause" one woman received from her family for her energy-saving skills shows how smart meter data can translate domestic management into social recognition

From an ecofeminist perspective, this demonstrates that energy transitions are not purely technical or market-driven processes, but are deeply embedded in social relations, relying on unpaid care work that remains structurally unacknowledged..

What is the resource man

The energy wise trial directly challenges the resource man, in Johnsons study. Concept of "Flexibility Woman": a person who uses her intimate knowledge of family schedules and chores to generate value for the energy system. Whereas…

‘Resource man’ a consumer archetype created by the male-dominated fields of engineering, economics, and computer science. He is imagined as someone who micro-manages his energy through high-tech gadgets and "smart" technologies.

Mainstream SD assumes everyone has the time, tech-interest, and money to be an "active market participant". This ignores the realities of domestic labour and assumes that a "smart" future is just about tech, not about who does the chores. However this is far from reality and resource man assumes:

• It assumes a "Rational Economic Actor": Resource Man is expected to micro-manage energy through apps and gadgets in response to market prices. However, the sources show that real people often operate in a "Mother-multiple" mode, making decisions based on the "needs, habits, and preferences" of their family rather than just financial rewards.

• It Erases Domestic Labor: The Resource Man model assumes that chores either don't exist or are handled effortlessly by "feminized AI assistants". In reality, the Energywise trial showed that shifting electricity use depends entirely on "Flexibility Woman"—the person (usually female) who has the embodied knowledge to manage laundry, cooking, and family schedules.

• It Penalizes the Vulnerable: Because the system is designed for someone with "flexible" time and high-tech tools, people who cannot afford "AI surrogate wives" or who have heavy caring burdens—like an asthmatic grand-baby or sick relatives—are often excluded from accessing cheaper electricity.

• It Leads to System Failure: The sources argue that ignoring gender doesn't just hurt individuals; it risks undermining the entire energy transition. If policy-makers design systems that don't account for the "litany of domestic obligations" that real people face, those systems will never achieve the large-scale demand-shifting they hope for

• The "Resource Man" lens helps argue that if SD is built only for this high-tech archetype, it will exclude or penalise those who don't fit it—specifically low-income women who cannot afford "substitute AI wives" (like Alexa or Siri) to manage their chores for them.

Discuss the concept of “pluralism” in feminist energy

Drawing on an ecofeminist perspective, Bell et al. use the example of night-time lighting to challenge the universal, efficiency-driven assumptions of mainstream sustainable development. Rather than viewing energy use as something that should be minimised according to standardised metrics, ecofeminism emphasises pluralism, arguing that energy practices should reflect the specific needs and values of different communities.

For instance, while a neighbourhood in Lima may choose to brightly light public spaces to promote safety and social interaction, a rural community may prioritise darkness to preserve natural environments and cultural practices. This illustrates that there is no single “correct” way to use energy. Instead, sustainability is reframed around well-being and collective choice, rather than efficiency alone. In this sense, ecofeminism critiques top-down energy governance by arguing that it overlooks local knowledge and lived experience, and instead calls for more participatory, context-specific approaches to sustainability.

Power Dynamics & the "Vacuum of Responsibility" (Ecofeminist Perspective)

• The Core Conflict: Mainstream Sustainable Development (SD) relies on a "Disavowed Dependency". It uses its power to treat nature and reproductive labor as "free resources" while ignoring the structural hierarchies (sexism, capitalism, racism) that allow this exploitation.

• Institutional Power vs. Everyday Labor:

  • Institutions: Use the power of "Ecological Modernisation" to focus on tech-fixes, thereby avoiding structural changes that would hold corporations accountable.

  • The "Everyday Turn": A strategic power-move by the state to "externalise responsibility" for carbon reduction onto the household.

• The "Resource Man" Bias: Power is embedded in the "Smart Ontology" of design. Systems are built for a rational, tech-savvy male archetype, which results in the financial penalization of those with "inflexible" care duties (e.g., the "asthmatic grand-baby" or "sick mother-in-law").

• Analytical Lens – "Transformative Praxis": Analysis isn't just about inclusion; it's about asking if a policy facilitates a "transformative praxis" that dismantles hierarchies or if it merely adds "unpaid environmental labor" to an already burdened class.

• Key Evidence:

  • MacGregor (2021): Critique of "Citational Politics" and the erasure of reproductive labor.

  • Johnson (2020): "Flexibility Woman" as the exploited but invisible engine of the smart grid.

  • Banerjee & Bell (2007): Rejection of "value-neutrality" in favor of exposing institutional domination.

Discuss plum wood, how this links to ecofeminism

Val Plumwood argues that Western rationalism is built on hierarchically ranked dualisms, such as Culture/Nature, Reason/Emotion, and Production/Reproduction.

In this system, the "superior" side (Culture, Reason, Production) is seen as the only thing with value, while the "inferior" side (Nature, Emotion, Reproduction) is treated as a passive, "invisible" resource that is there to be used.

This creates a "disavowed dependency," where the state and market pretend they are independent while actually relying entirely on the "free" labor of nature and domestic care work.

FROM MACGREGOR

how does macgregor contest nature/culture dualism?

MacGregor contests the Nature/Culture dualism by centering the concept of social reproduction. She defines this as the material and ecological work required to maintain human life and communities on a daily basis—things like cooking, cleaning, and caring for others

Her key argument is that "all environmental issues are reproductive issues". While mainstream sustainable development stays on the "Culture" side by focusing on "masculinist green agendas"—like high-tech industrial production and building windmills—it ignores the "Nature/Reproduction" side. By labeling household sustainability as a "lifestyle choice" rather than "domestic environmental labour," the state uses the logic of domination to externalise the responsibility of saving the planet onto the unpaid work of women

What is WFO and how does it differ from LVC

World farmers organisation, aligns more clearly with corporation interests and big agricultural lobbies unlike LVC, which has a “peasant class” - a shared cosmovision and a spiritual connection with the land. Identity being expressed by mystics, a performance at the beginning of meetings that binds members together around issues like seeds or land.

What is the first contradiction of capital (Holt-Giménez, 2019) and how does it shape the global food system?

The first contradiction of capital is the tension between capital and labour, where firms suppress wages to maximise profit, limiting workers’ ability to buy what they produce. This leads to overproduction, falling prices, and market crises.

In agriculture, farmers respond by producing more (“farming out of debt”), worsening oversupply and driving corporate concentration (e.g. Big 4).

Globally, surplus food is dumped in the Global South, undermining local farmers and contributing to hunger despite surplus (≈1.5× food produced). This reveals that the food system is driven by profit and power, not scarcity.

Explain Brazil example, how does it lead to exclusion in participation

"a seat at the table is not enough" to guarantee equality.

In these states, the forums were "captured" by "ordinarily powerful actors" like the agro-industrial lobby.

In Mato Grosso, the powerful players were able to delay the production of zoning maps to hide wealth concentration and illegal land grabbing.

One participant called it a "Machiavellian action" to maintain the status quo. I

n Pará, the forum was accused of "greenwashing"—acting like a "wolf in a green sheepskin" by focusing on technical solutions to avoid discussing the actual land rights of Indigenous peoples

(Larson et al)

discuss flexibility women

In energywise trial, women’s intimate knowledge of family schedules, like when school uniforms had to be washed or when meals had to be eaten, physically moveing these chores to green or cheap times.

A real example from Johnsons study:

Constance from the Energywise trial, who used a thermos flask to store hot water before peak electricity hours so her husband could still have tea without using the high-energy kettle.

Agrawal and Gibson, characteristics, homogeneity critique , solution

1. The Three Characteristics of the Myth Agrawal and Gibson argue that the "mythic community" is constructed using three specific assumptions:

• Small Spatial Unit: The belief that smallness naturally leads to better management.

• Homogeneous Social Structure: The assumption that everyone has the same assets, ethnicity, or religion.

• Shared Norms: The hope that everyone agrees on conservation goals.

2. The Critique of "Homogeneity" You mentioned hierarchies; the sources specifically highlight that communities are composed of multiple actors with divergent interests (e.g., elites vs. marginalized, or men vs. women) who are constantly negotiating for power. A small, "unified" group might fail because its members have different material needs—for example, an elite might want to sell timber while a poor family needs the forest for grazing.

3. The Solution: Focus on Institutions This is the ultimate "gold nugget": The authors argue we should stop focusing on "community" as a vague block and instead focus on local institutions (defined as sets of rules). These institutions must have the authority to make rules, monitor them, and resolve disputes locally

Benefit of GCA tool

The "Public Shaming" Logic: Because international governance respects state sovereignty, there is no global "climate police". Instead, transparent data allows for "public shaming"; it gives civil society and courts the evidence needed to hold actors accountable. For example, a Dutch court used such data to rule that Shell must increase its climate action

What does orchestration assume how does FOF contest this?

The Function–Output–Fit (FOF) metric serves as a critical measure for assessing the effectiveness of voluntary climate initiatives worldwide. It ensures that there is a benchmark for evaluating whether these initiatives are achieving their intended outcomes. Since orchestration strategies depend on persuasion rather than authority, the FOF metric is necessary to determine if these efforts to engage non-state actors effectively lead to real climate action.

What did FOF metric show, in chan et al (hint.. FOF scores higher when?)

The metric allows researchers to compare different orchestration processes (summits) to see which ones are the most effective at generating results. For example, by using FOF scores, Chan et al. were able to prove that earlier orchestration efforts like the 2014 UN Climate Summit were actually more successful (higher FOF scores) than more recent ones like the One Planet Summits. This provides empirical evidence that the current orchestration strategy may be suffering from "summit fatigue" or "diminishing returns

what is institutional robustness

institutional robustness refers to the specific organizational features and internal capacities that enable a climate initiative to move from a "voluntary pledge" to the delivery of actual results.

The research by Chan et al. (2022) identifies three specific requirements that define a "robust" institution:

1. A Dedicated Secretariat: Having a professional staff or administrative body to manage the day-to-day operations of the initiative.

2. An Assigned Budget: Having secured financial resources to fund the initiative’s work and projects.

3. Monitoring Arrangements: Having a formal framework in place to track progress, collect data, and report on whether goals are being met

Which is important as study found that initiatives possessing these features see a 15% increase in their "output performance"

What is the metabolic rift called

Holt-Giménez identifies this metabolic rift as the second contradiction of capital, which is specifically an ecological contradiction. It refers to how the capitalist food system ruins the very environment it depends on for future production. To fix the fertility problem caused by the rift, the system relies on the Green Revolution model, which uses synthetic, fossil-fuel-based fertilizers to temporarily boost production. This creates further environmental degradation, including global loss of soil-based ecosystem services (costing up to US$10.6 trillion annually) and the creation of "dead zones" in the ocean from agricultural runoff.

What’s a critique of NFM? and how was this contested by eddleston water project

A common critique of Natural Flood Management (NFM) is that nature-based solutions only work for small, "puddly" floods and get "overwhelmed" when a real storm hits.

Black et al. (2021) proved the opposite:

• The Findings: In the Eddleston Water, the lag time (the delay between rain falling and the river peaking) actually increased as the flood magnitude increased.

• The Reason: Measures like leaky wood structures become more effective as water levels rise because they push water out into "expandable field storage" (the floodplain), which is only used during larger events

What is suggested by black et al paper about eddleston water, what did results find about small headwater catchments?

• The Depth: Significant results were found in small headwater catchments (up to 26 km²) but were not statistically significant in larger downstream areas.

• Exam Use: This allows you to argue for "spatial prioritisation". You can argue that governance should focus on the "flashiest" parts of a catchment (the top) to get the most "bang for your buck"

Role of NAZCA

Before the Paris Agreement, NAZCA was used as a "recognition platform" to showcase the massive breadth of voluntary commitments made by businesses and cities.

The UN's strategy was to use this data to "inject momentum into the negotiation process".

By showing hesitant national governments that the private sector was already willing and ready to act, it discredited the argument that climate action would destroy the economy, thereby giving state leaders the "confidence" to sign a bolder, more ambitious Paris Agreement. It was essentially about generating the right "mood music" for the negotiations

What are some solutions to a seat at the table not being enough?

1. A single local community cannot fight a transnational agro-corporation on its own. They must build "scaled up social organizations," such as second-level ethnic federations or networks that unite multiple communities, so they have the size and resources to negotiate on more equal terms.

2. Instead of just inviting one or two local representatives to act as tokens, forums must ensure a "critical mass" of marginalised representatives who form a real constituency. Furthermore, these groups need their own separate spaces to learn, debate, and self-organise before they sit down at the table with powerful actors.

3. The most successful groups do not rely solely on the MSF. You can use the Madre de Dios case study as In that case, the Indigenous movement is strong because they use the MSF as just one part of a broader strategy—they participate in the forum when it serves them, but they rely heavily on grassroots social action and protest when it doesn't.

Securing Structural Rights Finally, true accountability requires the forum to move away from just "technical" fixes and focus on securing structural rights—specifically pushing for collective land titling for communities

Bolivia and Gene Giant

By legally banning GMOs at the state level, Bolivia is actively dismantling the power of the "Gene Giants" (the transnational corporations that control 70% of the global seed market). Under the Corporate Food Regime, seeds have been privatised through patents and "suicide seeds" to generate corporate profit. Therefore, national GMO bans are a profound act of Seed Sovereignty, returning the power and legal right to freely save and exchange native seeds back to the peasant class

Why didn't they just re-meander 10 km and let the river flood naturally

Because of the spatial constraints and political economy. The planners could not fully reconnect the river to its natural floodplain because they had to protect local infrastructure (the A703 main road, power line poles, and the Cringletie bridge), as well as the farmers' productive grazing fields. Because of these human constraints, the river wasn't given enough space to "overspill," drastically limiting its ability to store floodwater. (Costa-Puyou et al).