Search results

ABSTRACTThis article explores a great contradiction in rural land debates in India: on the one hand, explosive political contestation that is often able to halt proposed land acquisition; on the other, an unprecedented urban‐industrial expansion that is appropriating rural land. The authors argue that land grabbing for mining proceeds in an incremental manner, yet its cumulative effect leads to territorial transformation. To investigate this incremental appropriation, a temporal study of the North Karanpura coal mining tract in eastern India was conducted, combining remote sensing, interviews and official land‐use data. The results reveal a cumulative land grab of thousands of hectares from the late 1980s to the present day as open‐cut coal mines swallow up vast swathes of agricultural fields and forests. The political economy mechanism behind this immense land grab, which to date has gone undetected, consists of three phases: the reservation of the land as a coalfield with multiple coal blocks; the division of the blocks into separate mines; and the flexible expansion of individual mines wherever reduced resistance to land acquisition is encountered. This research indicates that an aggregate analysis of land dynamics can more robustly place the dramatic rearrangements of the Indian countryside within the international land grabbing debate.

This article explores a great contradiction in rural land debates in India: on the one hand, explosive political contestation that is often able to halt proposed land acquisition; on the other, an unprecedented urban‐industrial expansion that is appropriating rural land. The authors argue that land grabbing for mining proceeds in an incremental manner, yet its cumulative effect leads to territorial transformation. To investigate this incremental appropriation, a temporal study of the North Karanpura coal mining tract in eastern India was conducted, combining remote sensing, interviews and official land‐use data. The results reveal a cumulative land grab of thousands of hectares from the late 1980s to the present day as open‐cut coal mines swallow up vast swathes of agricultural fields and forests. The political economy mechanism behind this immense land grab, which to date has gone undetected, consists of three phases: the reservation of the land as a coalfield with multiple coal blocks; the division of the blocks into separate mines; and the flexible expansion of individual mines wherever reduced resistance to land acquisition is encountered. This research indicates that an aggregate analysis of land dynamics can more robustly place the dramatic rearrangements of the Indian countryside within the international land grabbing debate.

Adaptation research and practice too often overlooks the wider social context within which climate change is experienced. Mainstream approaches frame adaptation problems in terms of the consequences that flow from biophysical impacts and as a result, we argue, ask the wrong questions. A complementary approach gaining ground in the field, foregrounding the social, economic and political context, reveals differentiation in adaptation need, and how climate impacts interconnect with wider processes of change. In this paper, we illustrate how this kind of approach frames a different set of questions about adaptation using the case of Nepal. Drawing on fieldwork and a review of literature, we contrast the questions that emerge from adaptation research and practice that take climate risk as a starting point with the questions that emerge from examination of contemporary rural livelihoods. We find that while adaptation efforts are often centred around securing agricultural production and are predicated on climate risk management, rural livelihoods are caught in a wider process of transformation. The numbers of people involved in farming are declining, and households are experiencing the effects of rising education, abandonment of rural land, increasing wages, burgeoning mechanisation, and high levels of migration into the global labour market. We find the epistemological framing of adaptation too narrow to account for these changes, as it understands the experiences of rural communities through the lens of climate risk. We propose that rather than seeking to integrate local understandings into a fixed, impacts-orientated epistemology, it is necessary to premise adaptation on an epistemology capable of exploring how change occurs. Asking the right questions thus means opening up adaptation by asking: 'what are the most significant changes taking place in people's lives?', along with the more standard: 'what are the impacts of climate change?' Viewing adaptation as occurring between and within these two perspectives has the potential to reveal new vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation practice to act upon.

Adaptation research and practice too often overlooks the wider social context within which climate change is experienced. Mainstream approaches frame adaptation problems in terms of the consequences that flow from biophysical impacts and as a result, we argue, ask the wrong questions. A complementary approach gaining ground in the field, foregrounding the social, economic and political context, reveals differentiation in adaptation need, and how climate impacts interconnect with wider processes of change. In this paper, we illustrate how this kind of approach frames a different set of questions about adaptation using the case of Nepal. Drawing on fieldwork and a review of literature, we contrast the questions that emerge from adaptation research and practice that take climate risk as a starting point with the questions that emerge from examination of contemporary rural livelihoods. We find that while adaptation efforts are often centred around securing agricultural production and are predicated on climate risk management, rural livelihoods are caught in a wider process of transformation. The numbers of people involved in farming are declining, and households are experiencing the effects of rising education, abandonment of rural land, increasing wages, burgeoning mechanisation, and high levels of migration into the global labour market. We find the epistemological framing of adaptation too narrow to account for these changes, as it understands the experiences of rural communities through the lens of climate risk. We propose that rather than seeking to integrate local understandings into a fixed, impacts-orientated epistemology, it is necessary to premise adaptation on an epistemology capable of exploring how change occurs. Asking the right questions thus means opening up adaptation by asking: 'what are the most significant changes taking place in people's lives?', along with the more standard: 'what are the impacts of climate change?' Viewing adaptation as occurring between and within these two perspectives has the potential to reveal new vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation practice to act upon.

Adaptation research and practice too often overlooks the wider social context within which climate change is experienced. Mainstream approaches frame adaptation problems in terms of the consequences that flow from biophysical impacts and as a result, we argue, ask the wrong questions. A complementary approach gaining ground in the field, foregrounding the social, economic and political context, reveals differentiation in adaptation need, and how climate impacts interconnect with wider processes of change. In this paper, we illustrate how this kind of approach frames a different set of questions about adaptation using the case of Nepal. Drawing on fieldwork and a review of literature, we contrast the questions that emerge from adaptation research and practice that take climate risk as a starting point with the questions that emerge from examination of contemporary rural livelihoods. We find that while adaptation efforts are often centred around securing agricultural production and are predicated on climate risk management, rural livelihoods are caught in a wider process of transformation. The numbers of people involved in farming are declining, and households are experiencing the effects of rising education, abandonment of rural land, increasing wages, burgeoning mechanisation, and high levels of migration into the global labour market. We find the epistemological framing of adaptation too narrow to account for these changes, as it understands the experiences of rural communities through the lens of climate risk. We propose that rather than seeking to integrate local understandings into a fixed, impacts-orientated epistemology, it is necessary to premise adaptation on an epistemology capable of exploring how change occurs. Asking the right questions thus means opening up adaptation by asking: 'what are the most significant changes taking place in people's lives?' along with the more standard: 'what are the impacts of climate change?' Viewing adaptation as occurring between and within these two perspectives has the potential to reveal new vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation practice to act upon.

Small ruminants support the livelihoods of millions of poor pastoralist and sedentary households around the world. While pastoralists are generally not amongst the poorest in terms of assets, they are frequently marginalised in terms of their access to political power, health and education. This study was undertaken among pastoralist households keeping small ruminants in four regions of the country of Georgia. Small ruminants are an important cultural, social and economic asset in Georgia and are mainly managed in a transhumant pastoralist system. Georgia suffered its first, and so far only outbreak of peste des petits ruminants (PPR) in 2016. This qualitative interview study was designed to acquire contextual understanding of local small ruminant husbandry and the livelihood situations of the participating pastoralists, and to detect historical, unreported PPR outbreaks. Focus group discussions comprising participatory epidemiology tools and other forms of interviews were used to explore small ruminant management, disease spectrum and management, and animal health priorities. The participants had experienced a wide variety of animal health constraints, with intestinal worms, braxy, piroplasmosis, pasture-related problems, predators and lameness emerging as priorities. No historic, unreported PPR outbreak was detected in this study, and PPR was not a priority for participants. Instead, the day-to-day reality of animal health for the pastoralists was characterised by co-infections of mainly endemic pathogens, and problems related to other challenges such as access to land, feed and genetic resources. The rationale behind the participants' prioritisation of animal health problems was supported by the need to pay extra attention to animals in order to avoid risk factors, keep animals healthy and minimise the negative impact of diseases or management problems; the various epidemiological and clinical parameters of the prioritised diseases; the economic impact of the specific problems and the zoonotic potential of diseases and predation. Even within regions, and within seemingly socially and culturally homogenous groups, there were important local differences in the problems faced by pastoralists that affect their livestock management. This study underlines the importance of a contextualised understanding of the local disease panorama and complexities in the livelihood situations of rural people when designing actions to improve animal health in general or, more specifically, passive surveillance as well as prevention or control measures. Finally, it is concluded that to achieve such an understanding, there is a need for participatory, scoping-style studies that specifically acknowledge diversity and power relations.

Small ruminants support the livelihoods of millions of poor pastoralist and sedentary households around the world. While pastoralists are generally not amongst the poorest in terms of assets, they are frequently marginalised in terms of their access to political power, health and education. This study was undertaken among pastoralist households keeping small ruminants in four regions of the country of Georgia. Small ruminants are an important cultural, social and economic asset in Georgia and are mainly managed in a transhumant pastoralist system. Georgia suffered its first, and so far only outbreak of peste des petits ruminants (PPR) in 2016. This qualitative interview study was designed to acquire contextual understanding of local small ruminant husbandry and the livelihood situations of the participating pastoralists, and to detect historical, unreported PPR outbreaks. Focus group discussions comprising participatory epidemiology tools and other forms of interviews were used to explore small ruminant management, disease spectrum and management, and animal health priorities.The participants had experienced a wide variety of animal health constraints, with intestinal worms, braxy, piroplasmosis, pasture-related problems, predators and lameness emerging as priorities. No historic, unreported PPR outbreak was detected in this study, and PPR was not a priority for participants. Instead, the day-to-day reality of animal health for the pastoralists was characterised by co-infections of mainly endemic pathogens, and problems related to other challenges such as access to land, feed and genetic resources. The rationale behind the participants' prioritisation of animal health problems was supported by the need to pay extra attention to animals in order to avoid risk factors, keep animals healthy and minimise the negative impact of diseases or management problems; the various epidemiological and clinical parameters of the prioritised diseases; the economic impact of the specific problems and the zoonotic potential of ...