Natural Sciences – DDRN

Climate Change and the Risk of State Extinction: A Challenge for International Law

Sofia Kiryttopoulou — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 11:50:20 +0000

Climate change is usually discussed as an environmental or economic problem. For some countries, however, it represents a far more fundamental challenge: a threat to their continued existence as states. Rising sea levels, coastal erosion and environmental degradation are already affecting several low-lying island countries, particularly in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

For states such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Kiribati, climate change is not a distant scenario but a present reality. If sea levels continue to rise during the twenty-first century, parts of their territory may become uninhabitable or even disappear entirely. This possibility raises a primary legal question: what happens to a state if it loses its territory?

The Crisis of Traditional Statehood

International law has traditionally assumed that states are stable territorial entities. Under traditional international law, a state is defined by the criteria established in the 1933 Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Modern legal theory further emphasizes independence and the effective exercise of authority over a specific geographic area.

The climate crisis challenges this assumption. International law has historically dealt with the disappearance or transformation of states in political contexts such as war, annexation or state succession. The idea that a state might disappear due to environmental change is largely absent from existing legal frameworks. If a state were to lose its entire territory, it is unclear whether it could continue to exist as a subject of international law.

Small Island Developing States at Risk

The states most exposed to this risk belong largely to the group of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), a coalition of island and coastal countries that face structural vulnerabilities due to their small land area, geographic isolation and strong dependence on coastal ecosystems. According to the United Nations Office of the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, these states are among the most vulnerable to climate change despite contributing minimally to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Many SIDS consist of coral atolls or low-lying islands where the highest elevation is only a few meters above sea level. As a result, even relatively modest sea-level rise can lead to coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies and the loss of habitable land. These pressures are already affecting communities in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and are expected to intensify throughout the century.

Because their territory is so limited, SIDS often have few options for internal relocation. This makes them particularly vulnerable not only to environmental degradation but also to the legal uncertainties that may arise if territorial loss accelerates.

Survival Strategies for Vulnerable States

In response to these risks, governments and scholars have begun exploring a range of potential strategies aimed at ensuring the survival of states threatened by climate change. These strategies generally fall into three broad categories: territorial adaptation, population relocation and legal innovation.

Territorial Adaptation

One approach focuses on preserving habitable territory through large-scale adaptation projects. These measures include coastal defenses, land reclamation and the construction of artificial islands designed to withstand rising sea levels.

Some island governments have already invested heavily in such initiatives. In the Maldives, for example, extensive land reclamation has been used to expand and elevate artificial islands such as Hulhumalé, a reclaimed island developed as a climate-resilient urban hub and built roughly two meters above sea level to reduce flooding risks. Experimental floating infrastructure projects have also been proposed as potential long-term solutions.

While these engineering solutions may help maintain habitable land and delay environmental pressures, they require significant financial resources and technical capacity. For many vulnerable states, implementing such large-scale projects remains a major challenge.

Planned Relocation and Mobility

A second strategy focuses on the relocation of populations as environmental conditions gradually deteriorate. Relocation may take place within national territory where possible, but in some cases it may involve migration to other states through bilateral agreements.

Some governments have already begun exploring long-term relocation options. Kiribati, for instance, has pursued policies aimed at preparing its population for international mobility through education and labor migration programs, often described as a strategy of “migration with dignity.” These initiatives aim to ensure that mobility occurs gradually and voluntarily rather than as a sudden humanitarian crisis.

Although relocation strategies can help protect affected populations, they raise complex questions about citizenship, political identity and the continued functioning of state institutions.

Even when relocation is carefully planned, it exposes a critical gap in International Law: individuals forced to leave their homes due to climate-induced territorial loss currently lack clear legal protections, because they do not meet the criteria set by the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention requires a “well-founded fear of being persecuted” on grounds such as race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, a standard that neither environmental disasters nor rising sea levels satisfy. This is why the term “climate refugee” has no formal status in international law.

As a result, individuals displaced by the physical disappearance of their home states are denied the same legal protections or rights to asylum as political refugees, leaving their fate subject to the discretionary policies of host nations. This legal invisibility reflects a broader “crisis of identity” in the field: while the physical reality of displacement is undeniable, formal legal structures remain rooted in a pre-climate era, failing to provide a collective security framework for populations whose sovereign bond to their land has been severed by nature rather than politics.

Legal Continuity Without Territory

A third strategy involves the development of legal frameworks that would allow states to maintain their international legal personality even if their territory becomes uninhabitable.

Recent diplomatic initiatives suggest that such ideas are beginning to enter international practice. In 2023, Tuvalu signed the Falepili Union Treaty with Australia, which includes provisions recognizing the continuing statehood and sovereignty of Tuvalu despite the long-term risks posed by sea-level rise.

In parallel, scholars have proposed additional legal approaches, such as preserving existing maritime boundaries even if coastlines retreat. These discussions are closely linked to the interpretation of maritime rights under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which governs the establishment of maritime zones.

Such proposals seek to ensure that vulnerable states retain control over their maritime resources and maintain their status within the international community even under changing environmental conditions.

Rethinking Statehood in the Age of Climate Change

None of these strategies alone provides a complete solution. Territorial adaptation may only delay environmental pressures, relocation raises difficult political and social questions, and legal innovations still require broader international recognition.

What the experience of vulnerable island states demonstrates is that climate change challenges some of the most basic assumptions on which the international legal system has historically been built. The traditional link between territory, population and sovereignty may no longer be as stable as previously assumed.

For this reason, the growing risk of climate-induced state extinction is not only a concern for a small group of island states. It represents a broader challenge for international law and the international community as a whole.

As sea levels continue to rise, the central question may not simply be whether certain territories will disappear, but whether international law can evolve quickly enough to ensure that the states and populations affected by these changes are not erased from the global order.

Sofia Kiryttopoulou is studying for a Bachelor’s Degree in Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies. Specialization: Politics and Law, at University of Macedonia | Thessaloniki, Greece.

Wasted at Both Ends: How the Global Food System Discards from Farm to Shelf

Sofia Kiryttopoulou — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 11:08:33 +0000

At a plantation in coastal Ecuador, a crate of bananas is set aside, not because it is spoiled, but because it is slightly curved in the wrong way, too small, or marked by minor blemishes. Thousands of kilometers away, in a Paris supermarket, sealed yogurt containers are emptied into a bin at the end of the day, discarded not for contamination, but because they have passed their “best before” date. Neither is unsafe. Yet both are destined for waste.

This contrast is not incidental. It reflects a deeper structural reality within the global food system, where food is routinely discarded both before and after it reaches the market. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, roughly one-third of all food produced globally is lost or wasted, while the European Commission reports over 58 million tonnes discarded annually in Europe alone.

What emerges is not a broken system, but a coordinated one: production and retail practices that generate surplus on one end and enforce selectivity on the other. The result is a continuous flow of food that is grown, transported, and ultimately discarded at different stages of the same supply chain. To understand how this dynamic takes shape, it is necessary to begin at the source: the conditions under which food is grown, selected, and often discarded long before it ever reaches global markets.

The Producer’s Burden: Invisible Waste in Peru

In export-oriented regions such as Latin America, food waste is not primarily the result of poor farming practices or environmental conditions. It is shaped by the requirements of international trade.

Global supply chains operate under strict grading systems in which the value of produce is determined by standardized criteria of size, color, and shape. Retailers in high-income markets impose detailed specifications that define what is considered marketable. Produce that deviates from these parameters, even slightly, is excluded from export channels regardless of its nutritional quality. This system effectively prioritizes visual uniformity over edibility.

For producers these requirements create a structural dilemma. Because even minor imperfections can lead to rejection, farmers are compelled to overproduce as a form of risk management. To fulfill a contract for a fixed quantity of “Class A” produce, growers must account for the proportion of their harvest that will not meet these standards.

Evidence from Peru illustrates the scale of this dynamic. A case study from the REFRESH Project documents how cosmetic specifications imposed by export markets generate substantial losses at the farm level. In some crops, rejection rates range from 10 to 40 percent depending on quality requirements. In one instance, more than 3,500 tons of edible onions were discarded in a single year because they did not meet size or shape criteria. Citrus producers face even higher levels of uncertainty, with exportability rates for certain fruits dropping to around 50 percent. When local markets are unable to absorb this surplus, rejected produce is often left to decompose or is buried, as the cost of transport exceeds its potential value.

Price volatility further intensifies these losses. Agricultural markets are highly sensitive to fluctuations in supply and demand. Periods of overproduction can lead to sharp declines in prices, making it economically unviable to harvest or distribute crops. In such conditions, farmers may leave produce in the fields, not because it lacks demand in absolute terms, but because it cannot be sold at a price that covers production and distribution costs. This reflects a broader imbalance in which producers bear the risks of market instability while operating within constraints set by distant buyers.

The environmental implications of this upstream waste are significant. Food that is never consumed still embodies the full cost of its production. Water, fertilizers, land, and labor are expended regardless of whether the crop reaches the market. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, agriculture accounts for a substantial share of global freshwater use, meaning that production losses translate directly into resource waste.

This is particularly evident in regions such as the Ica Valley in Peru, where large volumes of water are used to produce export crops that may ultimately be discarded due to market standards. Studies highlight that water-intensive food is wasted in areas already facing severe water stress, illustrating how food loss translates directly into inefficient use of scarce water resources.

The result is a system in which a significant share of food is filtered out at the very beginning of the supply chain. This upstream waste remains largely invisible to consumers, yet it forms a foundational part of the global food economy and sets the stage for further losses at the retail level.

The Retail Gatekeeper: Why Good Food Dies on the Shelf

While part of the global food waste crisis occurs on distant farms, it also continues in the climate-controlled aisles of supermarkets. In these regions, food waste is not caused by a lack of technology or storage capacity. Rather, it is the result of retail strategies that prioritize brand image, visually appealing displays, and risk avoidance over the actual consumption of food. Supermarkets function as the ultimate gatekeepers of the supply chain, and internal policies often mandate the disposal of large quantities of perfectly edible products.

One of the most significant drivers of this waste is the “aesthetic of abundance.” Retailers operate on the principle that overflowing shelves encourage purchases. This leads to a cycle of overstocking, particularly in produce, bakery, and deli sections. To maintain the appearance of abundance until closing time, stores stock more than they can reasonably expect to sell. In one case study of a supermarket in Poland, a single store generated 3.3 tonnes of food waste in just two weeks, with meat, fruits, and vegetables comprising more than half of the discarded volume. Often, it is cheaper for retailers to discard surplus than to risk a half-empty shelf affecting customer perception.

Date-label practices further exacerbate the problem. “Use By” dates indicate food safety, while “Best Before” dates refer only to quality. Many retail policies fail to distinguish between the two. Once a product reaches its “Best Before” date, it is frequently removed and discarded, even if it remains safe to consume. Research by WRAP shows that consumer confusion over date labels drives significant household waste, but the cycle begins with retailers, whose policies often prevent discounts or donations of items approaching these thresholds. Products such as yogurt, cheese, and bread are routinely disposed of despite being perfectly edible.

Policy interventions provide important examples of how this dynamic can be addressed. In 2016, France passed the Loi Garot, making it illegal for supermarkets over a certain size to destroy unsold food. Large grocers are now required to establish donation contracts with charities. Before the law, many stores destroyed edible products to prevent “dumpster diving.” While the legislation has increased food donations, over-ordering and waste at the retail level persist.

The retail system treats food as a high-volume, low-margin commodity where disposal functions as a routine inventory management tool. When a supermarket discards a crate of aged produce, it is not only wasting food. The energy, labor, water, and transportation that brought it to the shelf—including scarce water from Peru’s Ica Valley—is lost. The retail gatekeeper completes a cycle that began thousands of miles away, linking upstream overproduction to downstream disposal. By prioritizing a flawless shopping experience over resource efficiency, the system guarantees that millions of tonnes of food are grown, transported, and ultimately discarded.

Environmental Costs and Pathways Forward

The cumulative effect of waste at both ends of the supply chain is staggering. Globally, if food waste were a country, it would rank as the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely due to methane released from decomposing organic matter in landfills. Each discarded item carries the embedded energy, water, and labor that went into its production, transport, and storage. In regions like Peru’s Ica Valley, water scarcity is severe, yet millions of cubic meters are used annually to grow crops that never reach consumers. Similarly, fuel, fertilizer, and packaging invested in overproduced or rejected food in Latin America and the energy used to ship it thousands of miles to Europe or North America are effectively wasted, amplifying both carbon and resource footprints.

Addressing this dual-hemisphere crisis requires structural change. Shortening supply chains through direct-to-consumer models or subscription services for “ugly” produce allows farmers to sell imperfect but nutritious crops that would otherwise be discarded. Reforming cosmetic standards can significantly reduce waste at the production stage and ensure more food reaches markets while protecting both revenue and resources. On the retail side, clearer guidance on date labels and mandatory donation policies, such as France’s Loi Garot, can prevent edible food from being thrown away unnecessarily. Greater transparency in contracts between retailers and producers could reduce overproduction and distribute risk more evenly across the chain.

Reducing food waste is not a matter of isolated fixes but of rethinking the value of food. Each discarded item represents lost labor, water, energy, and land, resources concentrated in producing regions but wasted globally. Combining supply chain reforms, policy interventions, and consumer education can shift the system from a cycle of disposal to one that respects the true cost of food production. Tackling this challenge benefits both the environment and the communities that grow the food, creating a more equitable and sustainable global food system.

Sofia Kiryttopoulou is studying for a Bachelor’s Degree in Balkan, Slavic and Oriental Studies. Specialization: Politics and Law, at University of Macedonia | Thessaloniki, Greece.

Whose Arctic? Indigenous Agency in Regional Policy Formation

Florin-Madalin Nicu — Tue, 21 Apr 2026 13:00:16 +0000

The Arctic region has increasingly gained prominence not only as an area of environmental and strategic significance but as one of the most instructive arenas for examining the limits and possibilities of inclusive international governance. At the center of this examination stands a question that is both institutional and normative: to what extent do Arctic Indigenous peoples hold genuine agency in shaping the policies that govern the region they have inhabited for millennia? This article analyzes the role of Indigenous Permanent Participants (PPs) within the Arctic Council framework, the normative foundations of their participation rights under international law, the post-2022 institutional disruptions caused by the conflict in Ukraine, and the trajectory of Indigenous Arctic governance under Denmark’s 2025–2027 Chairship.

The Permanent Participant Framework

The Arctic Council, established by the Ottawa Declaration of September 19, 1996, introduced a governance innovation that remains unique in the landscape of intergovernmental institutions: the Permanent Participant (from now on it will be abbreviated as PP) category, which accords Indigenous peoples’ organizations formal and continuous participation rights alongside the eight Arctic member states. Six organizations currently hold this status, as detailed in Table 1 in the sidebar. Together, they represent approximately 500,000 Indigenous people across the Arctic, constituting a significant share of the region’s total population of four million.

The rights conferred by PP status are substantive. The Arctic Council’s Rules of Procedure specify that PPs may address all meetings, that their consultation must precede the adoption of meeting agendas, and that they may propose cooperative activities and projects. The Ottawa Declaration stipulates that decisions are taken by consensus of the Arctic States, with full consultation and involvement of the Permanent Participants, a formulation that defines both the formal constraint on PP power and the practical leverage it generates. While PPs cannot formally block a state decision, the mandatory consultation requirement creates strong political incentives for states to accommodate PP concerns before decisions are finalized. The Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat (IPS), operational since 1994 and predating the Arctic Council itself, provides the institutional infrastructure that allows PPs to function as genuine governance actors rather than ceremonial participants, through capacity-building, logistical support, and systematic coordination among the six organizations.

The Normative Dimension: UNDRIP and FPIC

The institutional framework of the Arctic Council must be assessed against the broader normative standard established by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007. UNDRIP’s most consequential provisions for Arctic governance concern Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Article 19 requires states to consult and cooperate in good faith with Indigenous peoples through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting measures that may affect them, while Article 32 extends this requirement to projects affecting Indigenous lands, territories, and resources. The OHCHR clarifies that FPIC requires consent given voluntarily, sought sufficiently in advance, and based on complete and accessible information, a standard qualitatively distinct from consultation alone .

The gap between this standard and the Arctic Council’s consultation-only PP framework represents the central normative tension in Arctic Indigenous governance. In practice, however, the mandatory consultation process combined with consensus-based state decision-making approximates a de facto form of influence that provides PPs with meaningful leverage over policy outcomes, even absent formal consent rights. Several Nordic Arctic states, including Norway, Finland, and Denmark, are additionally bound by ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, which creates legally enforceable consultation obligations reinforcing and extending the PP rights within the Council framework.

Policy Influence in Practice

Each of the six PPs exercises policy influence primarily through project leadership within the Arctic Council’s working groups. The ICC co-led the PAME working group project on Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Marine Activities (2021–2023), producing internationally recognized guidelines for sustainable shipping. The Saami Council’s Climate Impacts on Terrestrial Environments (CITE) project, developed with the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), established a digital platform through which Sámi reindeer herders document seasonal landscape changes, integrating traditional knowledge directly into scientific climate models. RAIPON, AIA, and AAC jointly lead the Salmon Peoples of Arctic Rivers project within the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) working group, linking Indigenous subsistence practices to biodiversity monitoring across Arctic river systems. The GCI leads the ArcticFIRE wildland fire monitoring project, addressing the growing threat of climate-driven boreal fires.

These roles reflect a model of Indigenous governance influence that operates through knowledge co-production rather than formal voting rights. Arctic Council assessment reports increasingly credit Indigenous monitoring data alongside conventional scientific sources: Inuit hunters have tracked changes in sea ice thickness and movement for generations, providing data that satellites simply cannot replicate. Sámi reindeer herders have documented shifts in grazing patterns that signal broader ecological disruption long before scientific surveys catch up, making Indigenous monitoring an addition to conventional science. The Council’s Strategic Plan 2021–2030 was explicitly co-developed between Arctic States and Permanent Participants, embedding Indigenous priorities into the Council’s long-term institutional vision.

Post-2022 Disruptions and Institutional Adaptation

The conflict in Ukraine in 2022 represented the most severe test of the Arctic Council framework since its establishment. On March 3, 2022, seven of the eight Arctic states announced a temporary pause in Council meetings and activities, suspending the institutional channels through which PPs exercise their governance roles. PP responses varied significantly, as documented in Table 1. The GCI and Saami Council supported the pause while insisting on continued inclusion in resumption planning. RAIPON’s endorsement of Russian military actions created a rupture in PP unity and raised unresolved questions about the representational integrity of the PP category under conditions of state political pressure.

In August 2023, all eight states reached consensus through written procedure on modalities for resuming working-group-level activities, consulting all six PPs throughout. In February 2024, Working Group meetings resumed virtually, described by ICC Chair Sara Olsvig as a key step in maintaining the full and effective participation of Arctic Indigenous Peoples. The 14th Ministerial Meeting of May 12, 2025 confirmed the Council’s institutional resilience, producing the Romssa–Tromsø Statement which reaffirmed the individual and collective rights of Arctic Indigenous Peoples and called for strengthening the capacity and project leadership role of Permanent Participants.

Denmark’s Chairship and Future Trajectories

The Kingdom of Denmark assumed the Arctic Council Chairship on May 12, 2025, with a program placing Indigenous Peoples as the first of five thematic priorities. Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt serves as Chair and Greenland’s Arctic Ambassador Kenneth Høegh leads the Senior Arctic Officials process, meaning an Indigenous-majority territory is exercising the prerogatives of an Arctic Council Chair for the first time. Høegh has described the Chairship’s approach to Indigenous Knowledge as practical rather than symbolic, arguing that combining Western research and Indigenous knowledge produces a demonstrably better analytical and policy outcome.

The future effectiveness of Arctic governance will depend on whether the adaptations developed during the 2022–2025 crisis can sustain meaningful PP participation across the Council’s full mandate. The weakening of multilateral cooperation in the region has direct implications for SDGs 13, 14, 15, and 17, undermining the scientific collaboration and climate monitoring that underpin global environmental governance. Preserving robust Indigenous participation is not merely a question of rights fulfillment but a practical prerequisite for the legitimate and effective governance of one of the world’s most consequential and fragile regions.

Florin-Madalin Nicu is a student of the BACHELOR’S PROGRAM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS at Eurasian National University “L.N. Gumilyov”, Kazakhstan

Table 1: Comparison of Permanent Participants — Status, Influence, and Post-2022 Positions

Sources: Arctic Council official pages, Ottawa Declaration, Iqaluit and Barrow Declarations, AC Rules of Procedure, and PP organizational websites. Admission years and formal rights from Arctic Council materials. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org

Development Studies in Flux: A field in crisis or in transformation?

Iraide Arcos Fabrega — Sun, 01 Feb 2026 22:06:23 +0000

What is happening to Development Studies? Once conceived as a multidisciplinary field with its own identity, it increasingly resembles a space where researchers hold “double loyalties”: they belong to traditional disciplines but conduct research on development. In Sweden, this trend is especially stark. “Out of more than 100 PhD programmes in Sweden of relevance for development, none were trained purely within Development Studies,” says Professor Fredrik Söderbaum.

Söderbaum is a professor of Peace and Development Research at the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg. In 2021, he initiated a debate as chair of a roundtable session entitled “Development Thinking in Flux – Continuity and/or Change” at the DevRes Conference on Advancing Sustainable Transformation, organised by the Swedish Development Research Network (SweDev). The discussion centred on how “development research” should be defined and where the field is heading.

Four years later, we speak with Söderbaum to revisit those questions and explore the insights shaping the future of Development Studies. In this article, we examine the multiple dimensions of the field, the tensions that define it and the evolving process of decolonising research. We ask: how has the field evolved in recent years, and what might its future look like?

Development studies as a multidimensional (and fragmented) field

A key feature of the current status of Development Studies is the ongoing internal fragmentation. The scholar Andy Sumner describes this reality as ‘unity in diversity’, suggesting that the field can no longer be understood as a homogeneous body of knowledge, but rather as a space divided by at least four major schools of thought. These differ significantly in how they define ‘development’, whether it can be considered a universal process, and what the role of academic knowledge should be in the face of global inequalities. Rather than offering a synthesis, Sumner aims to make these differences visible and encourage dialogue between them.

For Fredrik Söderbaum, this fragmentation is reflected very concretely in academic practice. Most researchers in development do not identify exclusively with Development Studies, but maintain what he calls ‘dual loyalties’: they belong to other established disciplines, such as economics, political science, sociology or peace studies, and approach development issues from these perspectives. In this scenario, Development Studies functions less as an autonomous discipline and more as a meeting place for diverse approaches.

This situation has fed a persistent tension between disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. For years, this debate was framed in almost exclusive terms. However, Söderbaum points out that researchers have begun to accept that both perspectives must coexist. Disciplinary specialisation provides methodological rigour and academic recognition, while interdisciplinary approaches allow for a holistic view of complex processes that cannot be reduced to a single dimension, whether it is economic, political, or social.

The case of Sweden illustrates these tensions well. According to Söderbaum, Development Studies are currently institutionally weak: there is little specific funding, few dedicated academic spaces, and no PhD programmes exclusively identified with the field. These weaknesses are reinforced by the sudden funding scrap in the field due to the current government’s action, which has been remarkable considering the substantial funding that Development research previously received. This situation contrasts with the United Kingdom, where Development Studies continue to be the subject of active debate and have more consolidated institutional structures.

From a critical perspective, it can be argued that Development Studies, at least in Sweden, have become a ‘field without a home.’ Too disciplinary, they risk losing sight of the big picture; too interdisciplinary, their academic rigour may be called into question. The challenge, as Söderbaum suggests, is not to resolve this tension, but to learn to live with it.

“Global South”: A key concept on debate

The concept of the Global South, central to Development Studies, is the subject of ongoing debate. For Fredrik Söderbaum, one of the main difficulties lies in the reality that the term defines. In its most widespread version, the Global South is defined as a geographical category that groups together low-income countries. This interpretation, he warns, is simplistic and obscures the diversity of political, economic and social trajectories that exist between and within these countries.

In contrast to this view, other approaches understand the Global South as a relational category, linked to structural inequalities rather than territorial boundaries. From this perspective, the ‘South’ is not limited to certain countries but can also be found in impoverished regions and communities of developed economies. Söderbaum recognises the analytical value of this interpretation, but points out that, taken to the extreme, it can blur the concept to the point where it becomes difficult to operationalise in empirical research.

This conceptual ambiguity is not an isolated problem, but a reflection of the broader tensions running through Development Studies. When the fundamental categories of the field become unstable, comparing cases, formulating diagnoses, or designing coherent interventions also becomes more complex.

These discussions inevitably open the door to another central debate: who produces knowledge about development and from what perspectives, a question that lies at the heart of efforts to decolonise research.

Decolonising research: despite progress, it remains a utopian ideal

According to Fredrik Söderbaum, the process of decolonising research can be understood in terms of two core dimensions. The first is representation: who produces knowledge about development and from where. The second is perspectives: which theoretical frameworks, concepts and ways of understanding development are considered.

In recent years, progress has been made on both fronts, especially in terms of representation. The presence of researchers from the Global South in international academic debates has increased, and there is greater critical awareness of the extractive dynamics that have historically marked the production of knowledge in this field. The debate on decolonisation is now open and visible and has contributed to questioning assumptions that were previously taken for granted.

Nevertheless, limitations remain profound. Söderbaum points out that many researchers from the Global South continue to pursue their careers at universities in the Global North, which reproduces structural inequalities in access to resources, funding, and academic recognition. Regional differences are marked: while in parts of Asia, such as China, knowledge production has grown significantly, in Africa, changes are slower, and no substantial transformation is expected in the short term.

From this approach, decolonisation appears to be a morally desirable goal, but one that is difficult to achieve fully. Without institutional reforms that modify the structures of funding, publication and academic evaluation, there is a risk that the debate will remain at a symbolic level.

Regarding the perspectives, the issue becomes more complex. Decolonial perspectives exist both in North and South, and they both remain weaker than mainstream. Whereas in the North, they appear to be stronger, they are often appropriated by mainstream actors and not always aligned with development problems and agents in the Global South. In the South, a division is clear: while for some, decolonising perspectives are a priority, for others, it has no importance at all.

A field in crisis or in transformation?

Development Studies is not facing a crisis of relevance, but rather a crisis of identity. Far from disappearing, the field continues to generate research, attract scholars and drive fundamental debates on inequality, power relations and social transformation. However, it does so from a fragmented position, marked by conceptual, institutional and epistemological tensions.

As both Andy Sumner’s proposed framework and Fredrik Söderbaum’s reflections show, this fragmentation is not necessarily a weakness. Rather, it can be understood as the result of a field that resists simplifying complex realities. Development Studies is the only field which, at least potentially, addresses development in a holistic manner. The challenge is not to restore a lost unity, but to create spaces for dialogue between different approaches, diverse disciplines, and unequally represented voices.

In a global context marked by multiple conflicts, abandoning development research is not an option. The task, as Söderbaum suggests, is to continue doing development studies, and it is essential to do so from a critical, conscious, and open approach to diversity.

Here, it is also appropriate to add that this weakness has been reinforced by the fact that the current government suddenly scrapped all funding for development research in Sweden—a field that has previously received rather substantial funding.

Iraide Arcos Fabrega is a Graduate in Political Science with a minor in Environmental Governance. DDRN CORRESPONDENT

Life between Machines and Trees: Local Voices under Deforestation

Nilüfer Khudaykulov — Sun, 09 Nov 2025 07:57:18 +0000

How can a rich forest be protected from illegal logging, while safeguarding the communities who rely on it for survival? Two expert groups from Cambodia and Brazil share how memory, community knowledge and technology can shape sustainability and partnership amid the conflicting interests of resident communities and loggers.

Cambodia and Brazil are two different countries, yet their stories intersect at crucial points by the logging of their abundant forests and the presence of indigenous people living there. These forests are commonly being targeted by governments and private enterprises for commercial interests. It poses a significant threat to the environment and the livelihoods of resident indigenous people.

Prey Lang in Cambodia

Cambodia set a world record for deforestation with which 1.5 percent of the country’s forests disappeared in 2021. Additionally, the country lost 31 percent of trees in protected areas since 2000, equivalent to 2.7 million hectares.

Prey Lang is the largest forest in Cambodia and the last remaining major lowland rainforest in the Southeast Asia. It is home to 250,000 indigenous Kuy people, 530 species of plants and animals. Protecting Prey Lang is vital not only for the ecosystem, but also for Kuy people who rely primarily on the land for survival, as well as 22 threatened species registered in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List.

Prey Lang has incrementally been the victim of illegal logging and deforestation due to its profitable luxury woods, agricultural potential for demanded plantations such as sugar, rubber and cassava, and presence of minerals such as timber. The forest is also aspired for further mining explorations for iron and gold. Considering the profits accrued by concession companies from Prey Lang, the environmental importance of the forest and livelihood of Kuy people has been systematically overshadowed.

The Prey Lang Community Network (PLCN) took place to protect the forest from demolition with voluntary collaboration of indigenous community members. It mainly focuses on collection and dissemination of the information about illegal logging activities. PLCN has been utilizing smartphone technology with the Prey Lang App created in 2013 to collect data such as photographing and pinpointing the location of logging activities. The app also enables recording interactions with authorities, threats, and violence, as well as ascertaining climate-related figures.

The monitoring app is a geographic citizen science application that integrates with satellite GPAs and runs on smartphones. It was designed through a partnership between the University of Copenhagen (UCPH), PLCN, and local and international NGOs.

Besides restraining illegal logging in Prey Lang, the project team also induce advocacy by collection of data through the UCPH. They teach the Kuy people to use a social media platform, so that their reports can be the voice of them to draw public attention, like a citizen journalist.

Territories surrounding Trombetas River in Brazil

In this context, Brazil shares a similar pattern with Cambodia. Mining activities on the Trombetas River, mainly conducted by the fourth largest bauxite producer Mineração Rio do Norte (MRN), have adversely impacted the local quilombolas who face challenges in securing legal rights over the territories Alto Trombetas I and II. They have been neighbours of MRN and experienced firsthand the severe environmental effects of its operations for decades. The mining territories are federally conserved units by the government, which overlap with the territorial rights of quilombola communities.

The territorial conflict between quilombolas and conservation units for mining activities obstructs land titling. Furthermore, the continued distrust between the government and indigenous groups necessitates more time for the hearing process rather than for information and decision steps.

Julia Marques Dalla Costa, who served as deputy coordinator of the National Quilombola Environmental Licensing Team at The Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária – INCRA (National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform): “… it’s a process. We have to believe in the process, and we have to be very mindful with everything, every step on the way. So you became exceptional by time, you know, exempting yourself from the government or the image of the government they built over time by their traumas. Then you build the hearing again. By hearing, you try to understand. So you kind of became the common ground between them.”, she further explains how angry and frustrated quilombola people were initially.

“We are allies of the quilombolas because we are responsible for the titling of their lands. So they were like, you left us, you abandoned us. We were here for 10 years without any notice, without any resources.”, she adds what was crucial that worked for them to build the trust, through consistently being the same people that they can contact to, “we always try to keep with our word. So we have to be very cautious with what we are saying, what we are committing to”.

The indispensable pillars: collaboration and understanding

Community involvement is a highly effective strategy to cope with environmental issues. It is cost-effective, and capable of comprising a sustainable foundation for all parties involved. However, it requires multidimensional approach that incorporates social, institutional and economical aspects. When these aspects are absent, communities encounter problems that endanger their livelihoods and safety. Therefore, it is vital for both Kuy and Quilombola people that the education and peacebuilding process is handled in a multidimensional and sustainable way.

The project team in Prey Lang also facilitates peacebuilding between the community and the government through peace dialogues. They bring the communities into dialogue, both with local authority and moving forward with the national levels. They also held several forums that brought together key actors in this forest sector, including indigenous groups, NGOs, private sector representatives, and officials from the Ministry of Environment to present their priorities and the support they need. The forums were crucially important for relevant key actors to illustrate the issue and reach a common ground.

Integrating faith for biodiversity among the community was another step taken for sustainable peacebuilding and biodiversity protection. Forest is a sacred place for indigenous groups – a place for spiritual practices. Additionally, collaborating with monks and other religious leaders to hold tree ordination and tree planting eased the process for Prey Lang. “Religious leaders hold moral authority, and they are able to mobilize communities for tree planting. For example, if we have reforestations initiatives, they mobilize the community and engage with authority. Authorities are more collaborative when it comes to religious leaders so that they join the efforts. And this kind of initiative also creates more understanding and trust between the communities and authorities.” the project team member explains.

“We hope that at the end of the day, the communities, the states and those who work in the forest sector can understand each other and collaborate to protect the forest.” the team member says.

Indigenous People and Local Communities (LCIPs) hold deep ecological knowledge, and they have great wisdom in forest protection, with a long-standing tradition of passing on their knowledge from one generation to the next. For this reason, it is extremely helpful for researchers and states to integrate the science knowledge with traditional knowledge and recognise the crucial role of LCIPs in forest and biodiversity conservation.

Julia refers to Bronislaw Malinowski’s pioneering quota to approach this particular issue: “We should have the native point of view… it’s very basic but important and core lesson in anthropology that you have to connect to understand why that person or group having that position is making those statements, what is their point of view towards that problem, that institution or someone.”

“A first step for them to trust you. Imposing your own information on them, look, you feel in this way, you need this… As an outsider, you just need to bring their own knowledge, own experiences, values and feelings. Combine and prioritize their own experiences over your solutions.” Julia concludes.

Malinowski’s theory claiming to “grasp the native’s point of view, his relation to life, to realize his vision of his world” sheds light on the path to partnership with local communities in response to the damage caused by mining companies in Prey Lang and the territories surrounding the Trombetas River over the years. It is therefore vital to empower local people, not only for their fundamental rights, but also to facilitate collaborative efforts to preserve the biodiverse landscapes that are home to hundreds of species.

Nilüfer Khudaykulov is a MSc student in International Politics and Governance at Roskilde University and a DDRN intern

Nordic Talks: Fostering Equitable Nordic South Research Partnerships for the SDGs

Yiling Lyu — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 04:37:42 +0000

The Nordic Talks series, funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers, serves as a vital platform for dialogue and knowledge exchange between Nordic and Global South researchers, focusing on practical and policy-oriented solutions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The three sessions provided rich insights into diverse yet interconnected themes: direct cash transfers, research capacity building, and sustainable agricultural practices. These discussions highlight a crucial foundation: that mutual dialogue is a powerful bridge connecting the Global North and South.

The first talk, “Just give all the money to the poor?”, challenges conventional development aid models by exploring the potential of social cash transfers. While this idea sounds promising, the insight is vital: aid must be part of a more concrete, grounded plan. True understanding comes not only from talks but from deeper discourses and shared experiences. This means listening beyond researchers to include youth voices and the perspectives of normal folks, ensuring solutions are co-created and truly responsive to local needs.

The second talk, “Building research capacity for sustainability assessment in Tanzania”, underscores the importance of long-term institutional collaboration. The partnership between the University of Southern Denmark and Sokoine University of Agriculture exemplifies how knowledge transfer can empower Southern institutions to lead sustainability efforts. To build on this, we must encourage more than conversations; we should foster tangible exchange programs. Sending enthusiastic students from the North to study and live in the South, and vice versa, would create a generation of practitioners with firsthand understanding, designing solutions from the ground up rather than from the air.

The third talk, “Reducing pesticides in agriculture in Nepal”, brings together expertise from Nepal and Denmark to tackle the urgent issue of pesticide overuse. This holistic approach shows that environmental sustainability and human well-being are deeply intertwined. It reinforces the idea that achieving a better world requires this kind of practical, cross continental partnership focused on specific challenges.

Together, these talks illustrate the value of Nordic South research partnerships as a model of mutual learning and shared commitment. The way forward must involve expanding these dialogues to include a wider range of voices, especially youth, and creating concrete mechanisms for engagement, such as student exchanges and community-based projects. By doing so, we move beyond theory to foster the deep, practical understanding necessary to achieve the SDGs and create a more equitable and sustainable world for all.

Yiling Lyu is a Master student at University of Copenhagen with a major in African Studies, and a DDRN intern.

CLICK on image below to listen to a Nordic Talk!

Building Research Capacity for Sustainability Assessment in Tanzania

DDRN — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 04:33:44 +0000

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: I work as an Associate Professor, Natural Resources Management, Head of Department, Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences (DAARS), Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), situated in Morogoro, Tanzania. I also work as Deputy Principal for the College of Agriculture in this university. But in relation to the talk we have today, I served as the overall coordinator for the Building Stronger Universities (BSU) program, which ran over 12 years. I served for almost half of this time.

Morten Birkved: I am a professor at University of Southern Denmark. I am also heading the Life Cycle Centre, which is a research unit, where we conduct research on industrial ecology and environmental engineering. Over the years I have been participating in a number of projects in emerging economies, one of which being the BSU III project, where Anthony was acting as the Southern leader. I am also participating in a newer project, ‘Create Green Africa’, which is similar to the BSU program. It is also about improving environmental educational capacities in the South. It is a collaboration between nine African countries, where the exchange of students takes place over a period of three years in order to improve the educational level within environmental engineering and environmental assessment capabilities. During BSU III, I visited SUA quite a number of times. Towards the last part of BSU III, we managed to build a test biogas plant at SUA which started running at the end of the project. The intention with that biogas plant was to improve teaching capacities within novel and sustainable energy conversion technologies.

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: First, I should say that BSU was a unique program for SUA, because before BSU we used to have mainly research projects, and we used to collaborate with our partners in research-related projects. For BSU, it was not really an intervention on research, but rather it was a project on institutional capacity development strengthening the capacity of the institution to undertake quality research. So, it was not really research-oriented like the FFU projects; it was unique and for that matter it was also unique for the SUA community. And for quite long, we had no such kind of projects. In terms of strengths, we thought there were a number of issues for this project. First, this project managed to end while developing three post graduate programs, all of them for PhDs. These programs have been institutionalized in the SUA system; they have been hosted by the departments within SUA. They are enrolling students. That was a tick number one, and a major issue was that everyone at SUA and in Tanzania would keep remembering the existence of the BSU. We had PhD programs in agro-ecology and agrobusiness, these programs exist, and in my department, I have one which is Master of Science in aquaculture. We are training men and women in this program, and aquaculture in particular is a very growing industry in Tanzania, it is a very particular sector because of the need for the protein and fish could be one of the most accessible proteins for the livelihood, safety and food security for community. So that was a big issue. BSU trained six academic SUA staff to the level of PhD in a full funding mode. They were ten months in Denmark. Some achieved double degrees from SUA and from universities in Denmark. They are now a very well workforce in SUA. Some are actually getting higher positions in administration now. So that was really another big issue for BSU. And there were a number of capacity building in innovative pedagogic approaches: How to teach our students and mainly BSU transformed the way of teaching. Mainly we were under the teacher-centered approaches where you just give lectures, students memorize and then do the exams. But we see a transformation through BSU, where people were trained in a number of these pedagogical approaches transforming the thinking from teacher-centered to student-centered approach. And that has helped even for the students to think as they do their education. The other area was actually the capacity of staff to do research and also to write research projects. It was through the training that we had in the BSU. Researchers could even write research projects and get funding from other donors. And we have this program going on now, like we established an agro-ecology hub in Tanzania. It is a hub that coordinates initiatives on agro-ecology in Tanzania and that is hosted by SUA and it is being funded by a foundation from USA. This is a capacity that was built through the BSU and now we have a hub for agro-ecology going on in Tanzania hosted here at SUA and I am one of the secretaries, I work in that hub. And we are continuing with projects through this hub, and we are working with almost all partners in agro-ecology in the country – universities like Nelson Mandela Institute and we work with University of Dar es Salam and University of Dodoma and we have NGOs and research institutes in the hub. And we have farmers who are working in agro-ecology and organic farming. So, you can see that this was a seed that was planted through the BSU. And you can see now that this hub is working and that SUA is coordinating all stakeholders supporting government policies related to agro-ecology and we have reached a stage where we have the strategy for agro-ecology. We don’t yet have a real policy, but we developed a policy in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Livestock and other partners. We are there.

I will now proceed with the weaknesses. When we were in BSU 2, if you remember, we entered into an era of Covid 19, and I can assure you that it reduced our speed of intervention and it impacted a lot on this program. Most of the face-to-face interventions could not be done for almost two years. And we were not prepared for online communications and unfortunately SUA was not very good in that area, if you compare it with other universities. So, it really impacted us a lot, and it reduced the speed of implementation. But in BSU we also worked to develop research groups. And we learned from this process that it was not easy. Before we thought it was just a normal thing. As we talk now, we are still united, we call it BSU family. When there is a call for proposal, what we have been doing in BSU is that all members will get information. So, within this BSU family, we have research teams. If you go to agribusiness, you will find two or three teams working together. I assure you, it was not very easy to reach that, because we are people with different disciplines. That was a new experience. Sometimes before, people on crop science would work by themselves. But today, a crop scientist will work with an animal scientist and somebody in agribusiness. So that is how it looks now. And we reached there with a lot of difficulties. Something that was also a bit delimiting and challenging was the linkages to the industry. Our interventions did not have a very clear link to what is happening in the industry in some cases. And at the end, we realized that it would be an area where we need to be more attentive. So, we are working with farmers, but it was not at a level where we really needed. But also, another weakness that we found was the approval of professors, where we are trying to accredit the programs which we developed. The design was to have this program up and run earlier than was expected, so there was a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of teams had to be made to project the capacity of teaching these courses and lot of logistics issues from the governing bodies. Later, they were approved, but they were approved a bit later than we expected in the project. These were a few issues that I can mention that became limitations in our interventions under BSU.

Morten Birkved: My role in the BSU3 project was to be responsible for teaching academic staff and PhDs in sustainability assessment competences and disseminate sustainability assessment frameworks and so on. It was a substantial travelling I had. It did not amount to as many hours as Anthony has invested in the project by far. I think the framework of BSU has some strengths seen from my engineering perspective, which is quite different from that of most other participants from the North who came from a humanistic and socio-economic and socio-technical background. I felt that through the courses and tools and methods which I was disseminating I got the sense that the receiving Southern partner had the feeling of being empowered by a larger global agenda, which is of course sustainability enabling them to do something active for their own area of research for their own industrial sector within which they were working and got quite positive feedback. Of course, it was quite challenging to disseminate a complicated framework, but I think overall the people received it quite well and they felt empowered because it was facilitating the Southern part to engage in the global sustainability challenge and actually provide decision support for local policy makers and also national policy makers. I got a positive impression of the engagement that was exhibited by the local Southern partner. Overall, I see it as a success, because we have actually disseminated these competencies, and it was received quite well. And of course, it is becoming more and more urgent that South countries participate in the sustainability challenge or green transition challenges. And these tools are requisites for engaging in this challenge in an informed way. I think SUA staff and PhDs have learned quite a lot and some quite useful things. Further, being able to build that biogas plant at SUA also provided a teaching tool which will enable SUA to teach actual technologies that can facilitate green transition. That is what I saw as positive sides to the program. As mentioned earlier, it is a very limited role that I played in the program. On the negative side, in relation to the follow up program, BSU4, I got the sense that the Danish funding bodies suddenly had a change of mind about what they would like to support. It felt discontinuous, so in that way it is a very limited, narrow timeframe that DFC (Danida Fellowship Centre) allocates for focusing on this particular area. In that way, they are not trying to ensure the success of survival in the long term, which was a bit disappointing seen from my side, because I think by supporting what was achieved during BSU3, it would be possible to ensure the survivability of the majority of the competences that were disseminated to the people at SUA. But that was not a priority for the Danish funding parties. The shifted focus and now it is something new, which they are focusing on. And of course, they are free to do that. I just had the impression that we could do a lot more by ensuring survivability of what has been achieved. I think that is it from my limited view of BSU3.

AW: Do you have any specific changes or improvements of the BSU program, which is still on?

Morten Birkved: I don’t think the shift in focus is in the interest of DFC nor the people participating in these large programs. So, building in some continued focus supporting the survivability of what has been achieved is something that DFC should maybe consider.

AW: Dr. Anthony, what is your recommendations for improvements of the BSU program? How do you respond to what Morten has just pointed out?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: Yes, I have more or less similar feelings like what Morten said. At the end, when we heard this announcement that there is no longer funding for BSU 4, we asked for reasons and DFC said that it was about the capacity building and they have a feeling that our universities are now becoming stronger and they would like to go to smaller universities also to build their capacity, and for Tanzania they had to choose the State University of Zanzibar (SUZA), which is a relatively newer and smaller university to SUA, and also other areas in the South; they went to Uganda, Gulu University, and also Somaliland where there is a university. But also we requested, if that is the case maybe if you have a feeling that our capacities are well enhanced maybe we need to take a role to partner now with these new universities and act as mentors. And that could be actually strengthening South to South partnerships and collaborations, but at the same time we could also proceed with the South-North partnerships that were on my view actually somehow strengthened because it was also very easy for Morten I think for this talk to just say ‘well I can have this talk with Anthony just because we have worked together before, he knows me, to mention another person. Like the biogas plant I think Morten worked with the two researchers, David who is in my department, but there is another lady, Amina, who is in a small campus close to where I am. So, already we established very clear working relations and to me I thought we would have taken this much further rather than actually ending at BDU3. If you look at how we implemented BSU3, it was in the same order that there are some issues in BSU1, which started way back in 2011, and we came to develop the programs actually in BSU2 we started it in 2014. So, when we came to 2017, when we initiated BSU 3, actually, the idea was to consolidate our efforts that were made in BSU 1 and BSU2. So, for BSU4, it was the proper time to cement whatever we started in BSU3 like the running of the programs. And we initiated activities like circular economy was more into the BSU3 and almost at the end of it. So, luckily for example that the biogas plant was constructed, it started working, and by the end of the project, it was working and is an area where now can be used by farmers to train, by postgraduate students to do research. So, there were issues now that we needed actually to continue, for example in the area of circular economy, which is very hot today. We needed more time, because it is one of the areas that were not very

much developed under BSU3. So, I have the same feeling that I think it is also good to scale up to other areas. We agree. It is also good to scale up other areas, but I think we were supposed to have some activities going on to cement whatever we initiated in these three phases.

AW: Let me move on to another topic. I mean, the methodology of lifecycle assessment is sort of a key methodology in sustainable development. And it was also taught and promoted in the BSU program. I mean, to what extent is LCA life cycle assessment practiced in Tanzania today? Are there examples of products being, I mean, analyzed with this methodology? Morten, maybe you can start.

Morten Birkved: We were teaching the LCA framework with the, how can I say, the background that this is the default assessment methodology within Europe. And our hopes were that by enabling the Tanzanians to conduct various assessments of products and most formerly food items that could be exported to Europe. Tanzania could gain an upper hand on the export market by becoming aware of what data the European authorities would need for these assessments. The PEF framework, which is this product environmental footprint, which is being promoted in Denmark and Europe in these days for comparing various items. That way, the Tanzanians would have the upper hand by being very familiar with the framework that needed data from the Tanzanian producers and industry sectors in order to assess the products from Tanzania and facilitating a more seamless marketing process of these products in Europe. And that of course I think is in the overall interest of Tanzania to gain an upper hand in the export of products in general. And of course, also over time become, I can say, able to conduct these assessments themselves and at least introduce some decision support in navigating various industry sectors, for instance the food sector, in terms of what products should be promoted nationally and what health slash sustainable nutritional strategies should be promoted within Tanzania. Overall, I sense that there was a great interest in this program, especially in terms of the data part what data were needed by the European authorities and other authorities that was of great interest to the to the locals in SUA in Tanzania and I think the framework as such is not more complicated – it is complicated – but it’s not more complicated than it can be handled by also academics from Tanzania.

So it is, I think, proper preparation to at least become familiar with this framework in order to gain the upper hand in a very competitive export market.

AW: Dr. Anthony, what is your opinion about, I mean, the application of LCA, both for export, but also in the national context of Tanzania.

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: Let me declare the interest that actually this is not a subject of mine, but so far we are discussing issues related to the SDG number 12, which relates to these assessments about responsible consumption and production and i think we understand Tanzania is one of the country where population is also increasing and for that matter there is a need to have methods okay for doing assessment and monitoring like food waste, because we know we are producing a lot of food. Sometimes there are also a lot of waste that are produced, and we are all aware of the global population increase. And if we don’t have clear methods for assessing such issues, then it’s a problem. I think the government needs to have policies. Policies of reducing waste generation but also promoting circularity, circular economic practices, and having sustainable procurement policies and also looking at ways that are sustainable in our lifestyles. So how do we consume our food? How do we choose production? Where we produce with lower environmental impacts? And how can we have activities that lowers carbon footprint and so on? So, I think in my view, all these issues are being currently researched here at SUA. And life cycle assessment is one of the methods that are used in various research, and in so doing, I think we are really tackling this sustainable development goal number 12. Those are my observations. And BSU, I think, as I said before, we started here, but unfortunately it is where we really ended, almost at the end of the BSU3.

AW: Are there any specific examples of LCA applications? I mean, for example, in the form of messages or recommendations, advice to the general public about healthy food and labeling of food products, and similar things in Tanzania?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: I think there are examples because I’m seeing now a lot of initiatives and even in the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries. If you look at the strategy also that has been developed for agroecology and the organic farming, you see a number of activities, but also lifestyle issues that leads to communities, to encourage community to see the need of consuming safe food and also communities or farmers to produce in a sustainable way so that there is local ownership of technologies, production, but also consumption, reducing waste, and consuming health food for sustainability. So, I see some initiatives in this line in Tanzania. Morten, if you can add anything.

Morten Birkved: At least from the literature I see comparison of European production forms and African production forms, especially for pork meat, and especially how the two production forms can benefit from each other and how the expectations are in terms of exporting meat from Africa to Europe within this green transition and what the constraints will be. So, I see some work going on in terms of optimizing the southern production forms in such a way that they fit with the expectations of the European Union as a receiving market. So, there is a focus on empowering the southern producers in assessing the product in such a way that they become competitive with European products. I think it’s very important for the African agricultural industry to be aware and to be capable of conducting these assessments in order to achieve this export upper hand that we talked about before. If they’re not capable and do not understand what it is that the European Union is asking for, they will be helpless.

AW: In the national context of Tanzania, I mean, do you see any scope for an even more advanced application of LCA that is, I mean, to establish circular economy in certain product lines? Can you point out any examples, which might, I mean,

Morten Birkved: That was the whole purpose of this biogas plant, that circular economy, converting organic material into energy. And the purpose of LCA in that context is to explore utilizations of various residual resources, kitchen waste, and I think we had waste from sunflowers and various infield activities. There were plant residues that could be used in various forms either for as direct fuel or for biogas and then also for fertilizers so the question is what route would be the optimal to utilize these resources in and that was something that Amina and David picked up quite fast that, okay, you need LCA to decide which route or route works best seen from a climate perspective, seen from an environmental perspective, seen from a resource perspective, and that there is no, I’m going to say, black and white. You actually need to figure out how to compare climate performance with resource challenges and so on. So in that way, the decision support power of LCA is something that was grasped by the locals at SUA and I hope it’s something that they utilize, especially when they teach biogas production to the academic staff and to the students in such a way that they become aware that the decision to produce biogas is not as simple as, yes, we can do it, that’s why we do it. No, sometimes you have to go through calculations and also figure out which route is the best and whether it actually makes a residual resource for biogas plants.

AW: Dr. Anthony, any comments on this question about the biogas plant and the scope for circular economy?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: Yes, if I talk a bit broadly from what Morten said, you know, at SUA now we have decided to initiate these courses that have a holistic approach like PhD agroecology. At first, we were mainly concentrating on this like conventional agriculture and so on. Now, with the PhD up and running at SUA, we thought it was not enough because sometimes we receive fewer students in that program. Now we have developed the MSc Agroecology. The whole idea is to have trained staff who will go out and work with farmers who will have these skills: How do you handle agriculture on a holistic approach apart from having an MSc and PhD? We have also developed tailor-made courses for in-service extension staff, those who are already working with farmers out there and they have never gone through such holistic thinking of producing crops and livestock. So, we have also done these tailor-made courses for in-service extension staff. And the whole idea is to create awareness for the farmers, the people who are keeping fish, the fisheries, the livestock keepers and so on. To start thinking that there is a better way of producing our products. And the whole idea is the security of the resources and efficient use of the resources in the biosystems. So, at SUA, we have even a plot, a demonstration plot, where we demonstrate how circular economy works on the ground. And only that the biogas plant is designed in let’s say like a hundred meters out of this pilot. We could not find a better place for that plant, but it’s very close to it. So, farmers, students and anyone who wants to learn about it, there is a plot where you could see how you can, for example, produce fish in a sustainable way and how can you use the effluent coming from the fish into the gardens, into the pasture? And how can this pasture also be used to feed livestock? And the livestock will produce manure, manure will come back to the farm, but also livestock will produce manure that will also be the input for the biogas and get the clean energy afterwards. So, we have a demo plot that actually demonstrates how circular economy works.

AW: What is the scope for future research cooperation between the two of you? Have you any specific plans in the pipeline for new projects?

Morten Birkved: We already tried out one GFC application that didn’t work out. We didn’t make it through first round. So of course, there is an incentive to attract new projects that can extend what has already been established in BSU3. Of course, GFC provides funding for that, but to me it also appears that Tanzania is not an easy country to attract funding for. There are projects being launched in Tanzania, that should be said, but it appears that it’s not as easy as it used to be and competitive, quite fierce. But I think with effort we should be able to attract funding for a new smaller project where we could focus on for instance, circular economy and sustainability assessment, even industrial ecology if that is something of interest. So, there is hope for future collaboration, but we haven’t been able to fund these plans yet.

AW: Dr. Anthony, how do you see the situation? What are your priorities for future research and in particular, of course, collaboration with Morten and his team at SDU?

Anthony Zozimus Sangeda: I think when we were trying to train our staff on circular economy particularly, eight young staff from SUA visited Denmark for some two or three months. And when they were in Denmark, other issues that they learned on how to do circular economy projects. And when they came back, they started to design like small research projects. Some of these projects are being implemented by masters students now but the idea was also to develop some of this into researchable research projects and try to work with the Danish partners to implement maybe through funding from Danida or European Union that has not happened yet to reach a point where we have a consolidated project and submitted to EU or Danida. But that has been our thinking. That’s the way we want to enhance our future collaborations and our future partnerships. Although some of these small research projects are developed now, and I’m not very sure but some of these have been submitted to COSTEC, which is the National Commission for Science and Technology which normally provides research funding to institutions so that is another area that we target for such kind of research projects. So, there are some initiatives about the four research ideas were developed out of the trip that was done to Denmark. And we are working to see if these can be developed further to a level that can also be funded in future collaborations. That’s what we have now.

AW: Any concluding remarks from your side, Morten?

Morten Birkved: No, except that, of course, it was a very positive experience with BSU3, and I really hope that we, at some point, will manage to attract funding that allows us to continue some of the activities that we had within the project.

Dialogue between Professor Morten Birkved and Professor Anthony Zozimus Sangeda moderated by Editor Arne Wangel

https://ddrn.dk/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/audio1502904665publish.mp3

Reducing Chemical Pesticides in Agriculture in Nepal – a Planetary Health Issue

Lise Josefsen Hermann — Sun, 29 Jun 2025 15:26:14 +0000

Integrated pest management and nature-based solutions is an urgent matter to reduce the dangerous use of chemical pesticides in the production of most of our food worldwide. Nepali Professor Sundar Tiwari from Bharatpur, Nepal, dialogues with Danish Erik Jørs, associate professor in occupational medicine.

How can the use of chemical pesticides be reduced drastically worldwide without affecting the production? What consequences do these pesticides have for farmers and consumers health? And how does it affect the planetary health?

That are some of the points discussed by the Nepali researcher and professor Sundar Tiwari from Agriculture and Forestry University in Bharatpur, Nepal, who has been specializing for years in biological pest control and sustainable agriculture. In a recent recorded podcast, a part of the Nordic Talks series, he dialogues with Danish Erik Jørs, a senior physician and associate professor in occupational medicine at Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, who a large part of his working life has spent leveling global inequality in countries like Nepal, Uganda and Bolivia, focusing on pesticide poisoning in several parts of the world.

Nordic talks are dedicated to addressing the UN’s sustainable development goals and is a series of talks addressing the biggest global challenges through conversations with some of the brightest minds in the Nordics and the counterparts from around the world.

Sundar Tiwari has been working with biological pest control methods and has also been involved in research in Nepal focusing on nature-based solutions as an alternative measure to pesticides. And then he has been engaged – together with Erik Jørs – in training of farmers.

Erik Jørs has been working with pesticides since 2001, where he started a collaboration with Bolivia due to a high number of human poisonings by chemical pesticides. Later on, he started out in Uganda and Nepal.

“The extensive use of chemical pesticides is of global concern, because people are facing many challenges in agriculture and especially in the intensive agriculture they are using high dose of pesticides, which are going to affect our whole ecosystem, society, farming communities including environment and biodiversity, “ says Sundar Tiwari and continues: “People are affected by cancer in many Nepalese villages and we have been facing many environmental challenges – we are losing our aquatic biodiversity. We cannot see fish in our rivers and streams. We are losing our bees, which are very important for pollination, and also some butterflies. We’re losing these good insects, and that’s going to affect our ecosystem and our biodiversity,” explains Sundar Tiwari.

Erik Jørs has especially been focusing on farmer’s health related to the use of chemical pesticides: “…because every time they go to the field and they might have contamination of the chemical pesticide. In short run the farmers they might experience vomiting and other health related issues. But in long run this pesticide contamination and everyday consumption of the pesticide is going to affect their whole health system including cancer, blood cancer, breast cancer etc. These are some health-related issues in case of the farmers,” explains Erik Jørs.

But he is also very worried about the environmental affectation: ”It’s actually planetary health that we are talking about. It’s not only affecting the health of humans – causing deaths and poisonings, nervous diseases, cancer, problems with the fertility and so on, but it’s also affecting the fertility of the land and the preservation of the land where we are growing our food. So, if we can’t grow the amounts of food we want due to problems pesticides killing the good insects which are maintaining the ground fertile, then we will have problems with the with the lower harvests and maybe even starvation,” says Erik.

According to Sundar Tiwari, the majority of farmers in Nepal are still practicing traditional farming, but there is a big challenge or pressure created by many people migrating from the rural to urban areas, where people are focusing on increasing the production. Traditional farming has many good practices to learn from:

“They have their own practice of the cultivation like they use a local variety. They use mixed cropping, intercropping and they have a very good mechanism of maintaining the biodiversity. So, they also use some bio pesticide in local level using many plant materials together and they make a solution and they spray. So, this is a kind of biological pest control,” says Sundar Tiwari.

An important and well-known tool in the work of reducing the use of pesticides is the so-called integrated pest management – a principle promoted for years by UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization, FAO. Both Erik and Sundar have been working according to those principles.

“We teach farmers as far as possible to avoid chemicals. It’s cheaper for them and often it’s not necessary to spray with pesticides. But farmers need to know for example, if the insects in their field are beneficial or harmful to the crops, so they don’t spray the beneficial ones. And then they should use traditional methods, good farming practices including selection of the best seeds, how to water the plants when they are growing and give maybe traditional manure from the cows or whatever they have available to them,” says Erik Jørs and Sundar continues:

“So, we are integrating all methods, whatever available to the farmers. For example, seed selection. If you have a good seed, it is going to be germinated very well, and it’s can be very healthy. And the healthy plant is not going to be attacked as easily by insects and diseases. If there is no insects and diseases, then farmers are not using chemical pesticide. Similarly, if you have a very good fertilizer in the soil, for example, potash or some silica, so if you integrate into the nitrogen and that crop is very healthy. That is integrated pest management. We integrate all methods so that we can reduce the pest population in the farm. The nature is full of biological control, but we are wiping out that biological control agent from the nature because of the chemical pesticide,” says Sundar Tiwari.

Also, with a consumer perspective there is a great advantage of trying to avoid the chemical pesticides in our food production: “We have tested different food items and, in many cases, we have actually found the maximum residue levels of pesticides (by WHO) have been surpassed in many cases. That means, that there is a danger for human health. Not only for the farmer spraying but also for the consumers. Nowadays we are talking a lot in Denmark about the residues of pesticides in our drinking water. And in many of the wells, pesticides have poisoned our drinking water and now we are drinking our water but contaminated with pesticides,” tells Erik Jørs.

“In Bolivia we found that children who have been exposed to pesticides during their mother’s pregnancy they do not perform as well as children without that pesticide exposure during pregnancy. So, we also have to think about the future generation when we talk about pesticides and prevention of poisonings. An important issue if we want farmers to reduce the use of pesticide and use pesticides safely when needed,” says Erik – who underlines, that at the from his perspective, it is not necessary to make radical changes and it is important to take social issues into account:

“Integrated pest management doesn’t say no to pesticides, but they say minimize the use and do only use pesticides if you are in the danger of losing your crop. Many farmers in low-income countries cannot afford to lose their crop. Then they will starve and eventually suffer a lot from that. So, they have to reach out for the ultimate solution. If they can’t find another way to combat the pest or they have a big attack of pest and they can use pesticides. But they must protect themselves and they must use the pesticide in a proper manner,” says Erik.

“It’s necessary with interdisciplinary work collaboration to minimize this problem. Many people, many organizations have been working trying to reduce pesticides, but I think it’s also very important that government prohibit the most toxic ones and demands that the farmers gets educated and take courses in proper handling of pesticides. Many low-income countries want to be able to feed themselves and be able to grow crops that can be exported. But you have to put rules on that. For example, in the EU, we control the food coming from Africa, or other parts of the world to see if they comply with the maximum residue levels that we have in the EU. I think it’s important with some kind of political strong engagement. And we have the FAO, we have the WHO, they have their guideline on this. But it’s difficult because there’s also a strong lobby from the industry producing pesticides,” says Erik.

He mentions a responsibility from the financial system: “In some cases, loans to farmers are tied to the use of pesticides. The bank wants to reassure that the loan is paid back. So, they don’t want the farmer who take a loan to grow this crop, to lose it. So, the deal is: Okay, you can have the loan, only if you guarantee that you buy this packet of pesticides too. That is an unhealthy policy to promote. So political leadership is crucial if we want to reduce the use and amount of pesticides used, “ says Erik Jørs.

And it is urgent to make a shift in the commodities production worldwide, because as many scientific studies documents, it is not sustainable if we just continue business as usual: “If we continue this farming practice we will face a human, biodiversity and environmental crisis. Research also says pesticide use contributes to increase of non-communicable disease to human beings. In the end it will affect the food and nutrition security. And if our environment is polluted, our water, air and soil is polluted, then what happen? Then you cannot get a good future. Our children will be affected. Future generations will be affected. We will be sick. The whole ecosystems will be affected by chemical pesticides,” warns Sundar Tiwari.

“If we don’t minimize the use of pesticides, then we’ll end up with problems like infertile soils, lack of bees to pollinate our plants and grow the crops. We will end up with many more poisonings especially in low-income countries. So, I really think it’s time to make a big effort and swap to more ecological farming. Not saying that we totally can avoid the use of pesticides, but at least we can minimize it a lot;” said Erik Jørs.

Lise Josefsen Hermann is a freelance journalist who has been reporting from Latin America for 15 years. She has received grants from Earth Journalism Fund, GABO Foundation, Journalism Fund, National Geographic and Pulitzer among others. Her work has been published in media like Al Jazeera, BBC, Danwatch, Dialogue Earth (former China Dialogue), Deutsche Welle, Danish Broadcasting Corporation, El País, New York Times, and Undark Magazine.

Nepali researcher and professor Sundar Tiwari from Agriculture and Forestry University in Bharatpur, Nepal, who has been specializing for years in biological pest control and sustainable agriculture in dialogue with Danish Erik Jørs, a senior physician and associate professor in occupational medicine at Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark.

https://ddrn.dk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Nordic-Talks-Jors-og-Sundar.mp3

Oprindelige folk bærer på værdifuld viden – Forskningens Døgn 2025

Asger Roejle Christensen — Fri, 30 May 2025 10:07:02 +0000

Danske forskere, der har arbejdet og forsket blandt oprindelige folk i Latinamerika, ser tegn på en ny anerkendelse i forskerkredse af disse folks traditioner og visdom

Oprindelige folk bærer på værdifuld viden, som er i fare for at gå tabt i Latinamerikas moderne samfund. Det var et tema, der gik igen i tre korte foredrag af danske forskere ved et seminar i København, som DDRN havde arrangeret som en del af Forskningens Døgn i april måned. De tre forskere arbejder til daglig blandt oprindelige folk i den del af verden.

Men der var også optimistiske ord. Med Line Jespersgaard Jakobsens ord ”ser vi i øjeblikket, at der i vestlig praksis viser sig en forstærket bevægelse hen med en større anerkendelse af oprindelige folks ‘kosmovisioner’- og en anerkendelse af, at deres former for viden har en betydning”. Line Jespersgaard Jakobsen er fra 1. juni postdoc ved Institut for Fødevare- og Ressourceøkonomi (IFRO) på Københavns Universitet, og før det, postdoc på Institut for Samfund og Erhverv, Roskilde Universitet.

Mødet, der fandt sted på kulturcentret Union på Nørre Allé i København, forsøgte at skabe en dialog på tværs af forskningsfelter om oprindelige folk i Latinamerika og deres bidrag til vores verdensbillede. Antropolog Stine Krøijer, Institut for Antropologi, Københavns Universitet, fortalte om de politiske problemer i relation til oprindelige folks landrettigheder ved de store skovbrande i Amazonas. Hun definerede ved mødets start oprindelige folk som ”efterkommere af dem, der boede i et bestemt område før koloniseringen”. De behøver ikke bo der længere, de behøver ikke have det oprindelige sprog som primært sprog, det handler om ”selvidentificering”.

”Der vil blive færre, som identificerer sig som indfødte folk, men det har jo også været et fundamentalt krav fra oprindelige folk netop at have retten til selvidentifikation. Det har været et politisk krav, at man ikke bliver identificeret af andre. Man identificerer sig selv”, sagde hun. ”Og så har vi også set eksempler rundt omkring i verden på, at nogle også genopfinder deres identitet efter en periode, for eksempel i USA, hvor der har været historiske perioder, hvor det af forskellige grunde var politisk opportunt at identificere sig som oprindelige befolkning”. Men der er også, som det under mødet blev påpeget fra salen, eksempler på, at unge ikke gider være oprindelige folk og flytter væk, hvorved sprog og territorier mistes.

Oprindelige folk er ifølge definitionen i den FN-vedtagne erklæring om oprindelige folks rettigheder fra 2007 et ikke-dominerende folkeslag i et større samfund, som de oprindelige beboede, men senere er blevet et mindretal i. De har ofte ifølge denne definition i forskellig grad bevaret deres egen kultur, baseret på naturens lokale ressourcer, og de har typisk en anden kultur og et andet sprog end den dominerende befolkning. I vore dage bliver omkring 370 millioner mennesker rundt omkring i verden defineret som oprindelige folk.

”Antropologi er som fag vokset ud af en interesse for at forstå, hvordan kulturer udvikler sig forskelligt eller ens, afhængigt af deres naturgrundlag”, forklarede Stine Krøijer. ”Det førte til meget detaljerede lokale studier af, hvad folk spiste, deres narrative traditioner og deres måder at organisere sig på lokalt. Antropologer løb rundt og målte og vejede, hvad folk indsamlede fra skoven for at finde ud af, hvilke ressourcer de benyttede sig af”.

Denne arbejdsform og de teorier, den førte til, blev imidlertid i de senere årtier ”udfordret af det, man kalder den politiske økologi, der pegede på, at det grundlæggende handlede om udnyttelsen af lokale ressourcer, og at der var større politiske interesser på spil. Spørgsmålet om tilkendelse af rettigheder til lokale ressourcer havde betydning. Så derfor begyndte antropologien sammen med geografien og flere andre fag at interesserer sig specifikt for miljøkonflikter, konflikter omkring natur og ressourceudnyttelse og indfødte folks territorier”. Der skete med andre ord et historisk skifte for antropologiske studier af oprindelige folk i retning af et nyt fokus på miljøkonflikter og rettigheder.

”Der, hvor jeg selv har arbejdet i Amazonas, har der været en meget lang konflikt om olieudvinding, som på ret voldsom vis har forandret det lokale miljø og dermed også de strategier, folk har kunnet have i forhold til deres livsgrundlag”, forklarede Stine Krøijer på mødet. ”Denne forskning, som jeg nu har gang i, tager udgangspunkt i, hvordan alle disse forskellige miljøkonflikter udfolder sig, og hvordan indfødte folk og andre sociale grupper går ind i disse og organiserer sig politisk og forsøger at få deres for deres egen sag fremført politisk”.

Den erfarne arbejdsmediciner Erik Jørs fra Odense Universitetshospital, som gennem NGO’er som IMCC (International Medical Cooperation Committee) og Dialogos i årtier har været involveret i sundhedsprojekter i Bolivia, Uganda, Filippinerne og Nepal, fortalte ved mødet specifikt om arbejdet med interkulturel medicin i Bolivia. Han understregede vigtigheden af samarbejde mellem på den ene side traditionelle medicinmænd af begge køn og på den anden side vestlige læger.

I Bolivia har omkring halvdelen af landbefolkningen ikke let adgang til sundhedssystemet, og det er et af de få lande i verden, hvor størstedelen af befolkningen tilhører et oprindeligt folk. Hans oplæg indeholdt en lang række konkrete eksempler på, at de oprindelige folks sundhedsråd og traditionelle måde at helbrede sygdomme på har givet mening.

”Allerede i 1986 brugte vi et halvt år på at gå rundt mellem landsbyerne og interviewe folk for at finde ud af, hvordan bor de? Hvor mange penge tjener de? Tjener de noget overhovedet? Hvilke afgrøder dyrker de? Og hvilke sygdomme optræder der? Og der fandt vi ud af, at selv om man lokalt ikke var meget for at fortælle om det, at de faktisk havde et fungerende sundhedssystem. Det var bare ikke et vestligt sundhedssystem, men et traditionelt sundhedssystem, som de ofte havde større tiltro til end det, de kunne møde på sygehuset”, fortalte han.

”Når vi gik rundt i gaderne, så kunne vi købe alle mulige mærkelige forskellige former for medicin, som var et resultat af den viden, de havde samlet sammen”. En viden, som handlede meget om forholdet mellem ”varmt og koldt”. Der var bestemte fødevarer i handelen, som blev opfattet som henholdsvis ”varme eller kolde”, og der var behandlinger mod sygdomme, som blev opfattet som ”varme eller kolde”.

”Det er klart, at hvis man har en varm sygdom, så skal man have nogle kolde behandlinger eller kolde ting at spise. På den måde forsøger man at genskabe balancen i kroppen” forklarede Erik Jørs, som på baggrund af sine erfaringer mener, at vi i den vestlige verden kan lære meget af oprindelig medicin, en lærdom, som vi har haft i Europas traditionelle medicin, og som også genfindes i Afrika og Asien.

”Vi kunne nedsætte vores medicinforbrug ganske betydeligt, hvis man gik mere over til baldrian, kamillete og citronmelisse. Vi har et overforbrug af medicin, fordi folk selvfølgelig gerne vil behandles. Der kan vi lære, at naturen stadigvæk har meget at byde på, også medicinsk, uden at det nødvendigvis skal være fremstillet på et farmaceutisk institut”, konkluderede Erik Jørs.

Line Jespersgaard Jakobsen, der blandt andet forsker i naturens rettigheder i forhold til udvinding af naturressourcer i Colombia, supplerer med, at ”der er en sandhed i fortællingen om, at de oprindelige folk er dygtige til at beskytte naturen”.

”Det betyder ikke, at jeg ønsker at sige til de oprindelige folk, at i og med at I er dygtige til at beskytte naturen, så bør I gå forrest i miljøkampen. Dét er et fælles ansvar. Men vi kan lære noget af den omgang med naturen, det forhold til naturen, som de har, den enorme evne, de har til at lytte og indgå i harmoni med naturen. Det er jo det, vi fuldstændigt har aflært, så der er stadigvæk noget at hente”, sagde Line Jespersgaard Jakobsen. Hun har i sin forskning med eksempler fra Colombias særlige domstol for fred set på vanskelige juridiske spørgsmål omkring ”naturen som offer” og ”naturen som subjekt for rettigheder”. Hun arbejder i, hvad hun kalder et ”krydsfelt mellem vestlig jura og det oprindelige folks viden og ’kosmovision’s sammenstød med den vestligt definerede jura”.

Det handler om, hvordan skader og lidelse i naturen bør kunne defineres som kriminelle handlinger, hvilket de i vid udstrækning ikke bliver i dag. Line Jespersgaard Jakobsen har sammen med sine kolleger set på den måde, hvorpå man forstår straffrihed inden for international lov og politik og udfordringerne ved at retsforfølge de ansvarlige for en skade på naturen.

”Vi vil gerne bryde med den nuværende fastlåste forståelse af retfærdighed, skyld og ansvar. Den måde at forstå retfærdighed på, der kommer fra vestlig jura, er fokuseret på staten og har mennesket i centrum. Mens nogle af de her folk, de taler om skade og lidelse og smerte på en helt ny måde. Hvordan dokumenterer man den her form for skade på for eksempel en flod eller på et træ eller på et bjerg? Og hvordan kan vi afgøre ansvar og sanktioner i sådan nogle sager? Her opstår der nogle interessante krydsninger mellem oprindelige folks viden og den vestlige jura.”

Til sidst på mødet kom Stine Krøijer med nogle ord om, at det næppe i ret mange tilfælde kan lade sig gøre at overføre viden fra et oprindeligt folk ”en til en” til et moderne samfund, men at det handler om at lære i højere grad at respektere hinanden og hinandens viden. ”Det bedste, vi kan bestræbe os på, er at gå i retning af at anerkende, at der er mange måder at se tingene på og mange måder at gøre det på. Det handler om at respektere andres kosmologi eller spiritualitet, men uden nødvendigvis at kopiere den en til en”.

Lydoptagelse af oplæg v/ Line Jespersgaard Jacobsen, Stine Krøijer og Erik Jørs, samt diskussion v/ moderator Lise Josefsen Hermann

https://ddrn.dk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/250422_004-2.mp3

Forskningens Døgn 2025: Forskning i Latinamerika med Respekt for Oprindelige folk

Arne Wangel — Wed, 16 Apr 2025 07:59:40 +0000

Tirsdag den 22.april 2025, kl. 19.00-21.15, GRATIS ADGANG Sted: UNION, Nørre Allé 7, 2300 Kbh. N. Klik for kort!

Tilmelding: Send e-mail med navn til info@ddrn.dk

Arrangør: Danish Development Research Network (DDRN.dk)

Program
19.00 – 19.05	Velkomst v/ Danish Development Research Network – DDRN.dk
19.05 – 19.35	Antropolog Stine Krøijer, Institut for Antropologi, Københavns Universitet, fortæller om oprindelige folks landrettigheder i forhold til de store skovbrande i Amazonas samt de politiske modsætninger, som det skaber.
19.35 – 20.05	Arbejdsmediciner Erik Jørs fra Odense Universitetshospital fortæller om arbejdet med interkulturel medicin i Bolivia, og om vigtigheden af samarbejde mellem medicinmænd (og kvinder) og vestlige læger. I Bolivia har omkring halvdelen af landbefolkningen ikke adgang til sundhedssystemet og det er ét af de få lande i verden, hvor størstedelen af befolkningen tilhører et oprindeligt folk.
20.05 – 20.20	Pause med forfriskninger
20.20 – 20.50	Post doc Line Jespersgaard Jakobsen, Institut for Fødevare- og Ressourceøkonomi (IFRO), Københavns Universitet, fortæller om arbejdet med naturens rettigheder i forhold til udvinding af naturressourcer i Colombia i krydsfeltet mellem oprindelige folks kosmovision og vores vestlige verdenssyn/jura. Med eksempler fra Colombias særlige domstol for fred.
20.50 – 21.15	Spørgsmål og debat modereres af videnskabsjournalist Lise Josefsen Herman, som har mange års erfaring med at rapportere fra Latinamerika ofte med særligt fokus på oprindelige folk.