Session 9. 2. D.

New York’s Hudson River watershed governance system is situated in one of the nation’s largest toxic superfund sites that has resulted in environmental injustices for communities living alongside the river. State agencies, regional civil society organizations, research institutions, local governments, and not-for-profit organizations play an important role in multi-faceted processes of watershed governance in the Hudson River Watershed (HRV). In this paper, we present preliminary results of our ongoing engagements with key decision-makers in watershed governance in the HRV. Much of the existing literature on power in collaborative watershed governance critiques their tendency to create uneven power distribution and potential for environmental injustices or elite dominance. However, a genuinely collaborative governance approach would ideally include mechanisms that allow marginalized groups to escape these constraints, enabling them to govern themselves more effectively. We seek to broaden understanding of how structures of governance shape power dynamics and the ongoing efforts to incorporate diverse actors, knowledge, and perspectives in the HRV. In the process, we seek to advance debates on power, inequality, and justice in watershed governance.

While Bangladesh is reported as doing well in food production, there is increasing concern that this essentially deltaic and highly climate-vulnerable country will face steep challenges in food governance and productivity. Anthropogenic drivers shaped by narrow economic goals and sectoral policies have deeply altered Bangladesh’s food systems since the early 1960s and partly led to adverse outcomes. By combining policy and institutional analysis and primary research in Shyamnagar Upazila in Satkhira district in the southern coastal deltas, we revisit two key transitions, poldering and commercial shrimp farming, to reveal how diverse economic, social, and political factors have shaped the efficiency, inclusivity, and sustainability of agri-food systems. These complex interactions between agrifood systems, the broader ecology, and heterogeneity in poverty, gender, and other social identities are poorly understood and accounted for in policies and program interventions. This has resulted in unequal conflicts and contestations around critical resources, which impact most marginalized groups, also because policy incoherence encourages collusion between local elites and local decision-makers for resource appropriation and control. Conceptually, a social-ecological systems (SES) framework would identify these complexities. However, SES approaches tend to be technocratic and overlook the overtly economic framing of natural resources governance, diversity among local communities, and the politics of resource appropriation. This gap can be remedied by merging SES thinking with a critical political ecology lens to trace the historical, scalar, and deeply intersectional nature of socio-ecological relations.

This review examines the decolonisation process within North-South (N-S) research collaborations, specifically focusing on decolonised practices. It also briefly discusses the influence of institutional settings and power dynamics in ensuring decolonised practices. Our findings reveal that these elements significantly mould decolonisation practices, underscoring the need for a comprehensive understanding of the broader context in which these collaborations occur. Notably, we found a limited number of studies led by Northern researchers, and indeed fewer led by Southern researchers, who actively practice decolonisation in their N-S research collaborations. This raises crucial questions regarding the extent to which the voices, perspectives, and expertise of the South are included and valued in these collaborations. The review also highlights the need for increased efforts to promote South-led research and to challenge and transform the power dynamics that often marginalise Southern researchers and institutions.
We argue that a deep understanding of these dynamics is important for developing more equitable and inclusive decolonised research practices and for addressing the power imbalances that often characterise N-S research collaborations. The study concludes with a call for equal N-S research collaboration as a key strategy for overcoming the economic, social, and cultural boundaries often dividing Northern and Southern researchers. We argue that such partnerships are essential for fostering more inclusive and equitable research practices and advancing decolonisation. Incorporating insights from earlier work, we also highlight the importance of early and open communication, which aids decolonisation in N-S research collaborations. We note that protecting specific individuals within teams can lead to the omission of critical issues, potentially endangering the sustainability of relationships beyond the project's duration. We suggest creating dedicated time and space for discussions about strengths and weaknesses, thus enhancing N-S research collaborations and the decolonisation process.