Refine
Document Type
- Article (8)
- Recension (5)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Book (1)
- Conference Publication (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (17)
Keywords
- - (1)
- Agriculture; infrastructures; China; Central Asia (1)
- Bio-based economy; Participatory methods; Social-ecological systems; Intensification; Agriculture (1)
- Bioökonomie-Strategien (1)
- Crop type classification (1)
- External actors (1)
- Feature selection (1)
- Foreign aid (1)
- Grüne Revolution (1)
- Kasachstan (1)
Institute
Der Wandel zu einer „bio-basierten“ Wirtschaft, wie er in nationalen und internationalen Bioökonomie-Strategien propagiert wird, kann nur mit tiefgreifenden Veränderungen landwirtschaftlicher Systeme zur Steigerung der Agrarproduktion einhergehen. Besonders in Ländern des Globalen Südens gingen solche Prozesse jedoch meist mit unbeabsichtigten – oder in Kauf genommenen – negativen Konsequenzen wie Umweltdegradation oder die Verschärfung gesellschaftlicher Ungleichheiten einher. Dennoch finden die Kenntnisse über die Risiken bisheriger landwirtschaftlicher Interventionen kaum in politischen Bioökonomie-Strategien Berücksichtigung, die auf wirtschaftlich-technische Lösungen einer „nachhaltigen“ Intensivierung durch agrartechnologische Innovationen auf der einen, und eine Ausweitung von Produktionsflächen auf der anderen Seite setzen. Wie diese Produktionssteigerungen ökologisch und sozial nachhaltig gestaltet werden sollen, bleibt unklar, und bisherige Erfahrungen mit derartigen Interventionen lassen eher das Gegenteil befürchten. Anhand von zwei historischen Beispielen – der Grünen Revolution im Punjab Pakistans und der Neulandkampagne in Kasachstan – skizziert der Beitrag die vielschichtigen sozialen und ökologischen Folgen bisheriger, großangelegter landwirtschaftlicher Interventionen zur Produktionssteigerung und geht der Frage nach, inwiefern diese Erfahrungen (besser) in Bioökonomie-Strategien Berücksichtigung finden (können). Kritische Reflektion sollte dabei vor allem die Rolle institutioneller Pfadabhängigkeiten in der Gestaltung aktueller und zukünftiger Entwicklungen erfahren. Wie bisherige Erfahrungen im Landwirtschaftssektor deutlich machen, müssen Bioökonomie-Strategien ihren geforderten systemischen Ansatz ernst nehmen – was impliziert, dass technologie- und produktivitätsorientierte Ziele stets sozialen und ökologischen Zielen untergeordnet werden müssen.
In human geography and beyond, assemblage thinking has increasingly gained attention as a perspective from which to investigate the emergence and dynamics of more-than-human entanglements. Similarly, in the interdisciplinary field of social-ecological systems analysis, theories of complex adaptive systems have been employed to investigate how social and ecological dynamics and actors interact with each other on different scales. Nonetheless, despite the success of these conceptual perspectives in their respective research fields, there have been few attempts so far to bring these theoretical strands together to explore their common ground and investigate how they could cross-fertilize each other. This contribution seeks to address this gap, by investigating the ontological compatibility of these two approaches and exploring the potential for meaningful syntheses that could be utilized for integrative research—combining perspectives, approaches, and methods taken from social and environmental sciences for the analysis of human-environmental relations. Based on a comparative discussion of four selected “guiding principles” found in assemblage thinking and complex adaptive systems, namely, socio-nature, emergence/historicity, relationality, and self-organization, we find not only significant common ground between the two perspectives but also discrepancies that may be utilized for cross-fertilization. In particular, we argue complex adaptive systems would benefit from a deeper engagement with society-nature theorizations found in the assemblage literature, while assemblage thinking could borrow from complex adaptive systems to broaden its conception of how elements relate to and co-function with each other.
Calls for a “sustainable bioeconomy” have recently begun to proliferate in academic and political circles as an answer to global challenges such as the rapidly increasing world population and changing environmental conditions due to climate change. To build economies that rely on various sources of biomass rather than on fossil-based resources, bioeconomy policies highlight a need to explore ways in which productivity in agriculture can be increased. While the focus on productivity growth has largely been inspired by technology optimism and modernisation thinking, the local knowledge of farmers and other rural stakeholders – as a means of contributing to socially and ecologically more sustainable bioeconomy pathways – has frequently been sidelined. This perspective article proposes and discusses a participatory approach to strategy formulation and evaluation in agricultural transformation and bioeconomy development that is based on the methodological toolbox MARISCO (Adaptive MAnagement of vulnerability and RISk at COnservation sites). By offering a means of developing a comprehensive knowledge map, bringing together both insights and perspectives from diverse local stakeholders, this approach enables a systemic evaluation of the social and ecological effects of intervention strategies on the ground. The article outlines the benefits – and challenges – of such a systemic and participatory approach and briefly sketches how the results can be utilised in more sustainable governance processes in the development of bioeconomy strategies. We conclude that our adapted MARISCO methodology offers a viable tool to make more visible the perspectives and knowledge of biomass producers for policymakers and to contribute to a much-needed discursive shift in bioeconomy debates towards more holistic and inclusive perspectives.
This article scrutinizes the Maritime Silk Road Initiative by framing it not as a static, state-centric device to channel Chinese developmental ambitions, but by emphasizing the flexible character of its production and the provisional configuration of its materialization. It draws on assemblage theory as a conceptual angle to, on the one hand, focus on the agentive character of human and non-human ‘actors’ such as ‘traveling’ discourses of development or infrastructures to explore Maritime Silk Road Initiative’s materialization ‘on the ground’ in its emergent rather than resultant way, on the other.
Since the Soviet breakup, rural communities in the Kazakhstan–China borderlands have faced cataclysmic social, economic, and ecological transformations. Collective and state farms have been replaced by precarious smallholder agriculture suffering from a decline in financial inputs and the deterioration of infrastructure. At the same time, dynamic transformations of border permeability (and trans-border reconnections) between Kazakhstan and China have challenged the until relatively recent widespread Soviet rhetoric on Western China (or rather Xinjiang) as an underdeveloped space across the border. This article is based on several months of fieldwork between 2019 and 2021 in Panfilov District, located at major cross-border road and railway intersections and hosting important infrastructural objects, such as a dry port, a major railway transhipment hub, and a trans-border special economic zone. The article explores how the border situation (and the border’s changing permeability for people, commodities, and ideas since the early 1990s) as well as the implementation of new trans-border infrastructures eventually shaped local discourses and practices in the socio-economic development of south-east Kazakhstan’s agricultural sector. It is scrutinized herein how various forms of trans-border socio-economic interactions (although heavily regulated) and China’s (agri-) economic policy in Xinjiang started to affect farmers’ ambitions and practices across the border.
