The authors highlight how the Indian state increasingly views adivasis (=indigenous people) as a possible ethno-environmental fix for conservation, and how non-adivasis project their environmental subjectivities to claim that they, too, belong.
This paper uses data from a long-term ethnography of both the local people and the conservation agenda in the Pantanal wetland, Brazil, to discuss how environmentalists used the National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Traditional Peoples and Communities (PNDSPCT) to justify the displacement of local people.
Manish Chandi reviews the book Conservation from the Margins, edited by Umesh Srinivasan and Nandini Velho.
Megan Youdelis reviews the book In Defense of Public Lands: The Case against Privatization and Transfer by Steven Davis.
Erin Ryan shares her work on negotiated federalism, exploring how good multiscalar governance is often the product of intergovernmental bargaining among decision makers at various levels of government.
This article tells the epic tale of the fall and rise of Mono Lake— the strange and beautiful Dead Sea of California—which fostered some of the most important environmental law developments of the last century.
Schur Petri demonstrates how local health workers can effectively communicate climate risks on the ground.
In the United States, debate over the responsibilities of different levels of government are framed within our system of constitutional federalism, which divides sovereign power between the central federal administration and regional states. Dilemmas about devolution have been erupting in all regulatory contexts, but environmental governance remains uniquely prone to federalism discord because it inevitably confronts the core question with which federalism grapples—“who gets to decide?”— in contexts where state and federal claims to power are simultaneously at their strongest.
Erin Ryan argues that environmental law is uniquely prone to federalism discord because it inevitably confronts the core question with which federalism grapples—who gets to decide?—in contexts where state and federal claims to power are simultaneously at their strongest.
