Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rdsr20

Development Studies ResearchAn Open Access Journal

ISSN: (Print) 2166-5095 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rdsr20

Conflict transformation in indigenous peoples’territories: doing environmental justice with a‘decolonial turn’

Iokiñe Rodríguez & Mirna Liz Inturias

To cite this article: Iokiñe Rodríguez & Mirna Liz Inturias (2018) Conflict transformation inindigenous peoples’ territories: doing environmental justice with a ‘decolonial turn’, DevelopmentStudies Research, 5:1, 90-105, DOI: 10.1080/21665095.2018.1486220

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2018.1486220

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup

Published online: 18 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Conflict transformation in indigenous peoples’ territories: doing environmentaljustice with a ‘decolonial turn’Iokiñe Rodrígueza and Mirna Liz Inturiasb

aSchool of International Development, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK; bUniversidad NUR, Santa Cruz de la Sierra,Bolivia

ABSTRACTOne of the distinctive features of environmental justice theory in Latin America is its influence bydecolonial thought, which explains social and environmental injustices as arising from the project ofmodernity and the ongoing expansion of a European cultural imaginary. The decolonization ofknowledge and social relations is highlighted as one of the key challenges for overcoming thehistory of violent oppression and marginalization in development and conservation practice inthe region. In this paper we discuss how conflict transformation theory and practice has a role toplay in this process. In doing so, we draw on the Socio-environmental Conflict Transformation(SCT) framework elaborated by Grupo Confluencias, which puts a focus on building communitycapacity to impact different spheres of power: people and networks, structures and culturalpower. We discuss this framework and its practical use in the light of ongoing experiences withindigenous peoples in Latin America. We propose that by strengthening the power of agency ofindigenous peoples to impact each of these spheres it is possible to build constructive intra andintercultural relations that can help increase social and environmental justice in their territoriesand thus contribute to decolonizing structures, relations and ways of being.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 28 November 2017Accepted 5 June 2018

KEYWORDSEnvironmental justice;conflict transformation;power; decolonization;indigenous peoples

Introduction

Over the last three decades, indigenous peoples havebecome central players in environmental justicestruggles in Latin America. This is not fortuitous. On theone hand, it is the result of the increasing pressurebeing exerted by a wide variety of development, extrac-tive and conservation initiatives over their territories. Onthe other hand, it is the result of the consolidation oftheir political agency in the region. Since the 1980s indi-genous peoples have been consistent in their demandsfor autonomy and self-determination, and have beenincreasingly successful in paving their own pathway tosustainability through the construction of new environ-mental, cultural and collective rights in the region (Leff2001).

This is reflected in the progress made over pastdecades in Latin America in terms of the protection ofindigenous peoples’ rights, in comparison to otherparts of the world: of the 22 countries that by 2011had ratified Convention 160 of the ILO on indigenouspeoples’ rights, 14 are Latin American.1 In 2007, allLatin American countries except Colombia, voted infavor of the UN Declaration of the rights of indigenous

peoples. This tendency is also reflected in recent reconfi-gurations in the models of the Nation-State through newpluricultural and plurinational national constitutions, e.g.:Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, which amongst otherrights, acknowledge those of indigenous peoples totheir territorial autonomy. And lastly, it is reflected inthe expansion of indigenous peoples’ alternative devel-opment discourses and proposals, some of which havestarted to be incorporated into national developmentdiscourses and strategies, such as the philosophy of‘Buen Vivir’2 (Huanacuni Mamani 2010).

Indigenous peoples’ movements and their struggleshave also been an inspiration to the emergence of newLatin American critical thinking, such as decolonialtheory, known in the region as the Decolonial Project(Lander 2000; Quijano 2000; Escobar 2003; Walsh 2007;Mignolo 2008). This theory identifies social and environ-mental injustices as arising from the project of modernityand the continual reproduction of European culturalvalues.

To a large extent in Latin America, in contrast to otherparts of the world, environmental justice thinking hasdeveloped alongside decolonial thought, through the

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis GroupThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CONTACT Iokiñe Rodríguez i.rodriguez-fernandez@uea.ac.uk

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH2018, VOL. 5, NO. 1, 90–105https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2018.1486220

work, for instance, of Escobar (1998, 2010a, 2010b,2010c) and Leff (2001, 2003, 2004). Both authors werepioneers in describing the anti-modernity and decolonialagenda of indigenous peoples’ struggle for environ-mental justice and positioning an environmental justicetheory in the region with a ‘decolonial turn’ (Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel 2007). Some more recentaddition to this body of knowledge from an environ-mental justice perspective, include Acosta et al. (2011),Acosta (2013, 2015), Gudynas (2010a, 2010b, 2011,2012) and also Santos (2008), who although not strictlyLatin American, works in close collaboration with LatinAmerican decolonial scholars.

This strong focus on decolonization marks a differ-ence from environmental justice thinking in the GlobalNorth, which in comparison has tended not to empha-size so much the colonial and epistemic roots of injus-tices in the Global South. This is partly due to the factthat in its early years environmental justice theory fromthe Global North had a strong focus on injusticesarising from the unequal distribution of natural resourcehazards in advanced capitalist political-economy. Thework of Bullard (1983) in particular, examining therelationship between racial discrimination and industrialand waste dumping activities in the USA, marked thestart of environmental justice research in the GlobalNorth with a strong distributive focus. Thanks to thework of Pellow (2007) and Schlosberg (2007, 2013),among others, over the years environmental justiceresearch from the Global North has been moving awayfrom its initial focus on distributive justice. Schlosbergin particular, drawing upon detailed studies of environ-mental justice movements across different classes,races, ethnicities and gender, as well as on Fraser’s(1998) three-dimensional definition of justice, has madea tremendous contribution to a more pluralist under-standing of the meaning of environmental justice. Hehas consistently debated that justice is not just aboutequity (distributive justice), but also includes recognitionand participation (procedural justice). More recently,drawing upon the work of Nussbaum (2011), he addeda fourth dimension to this discussion arguing thatjustice is also about fulfilling community capabilities, par-ticularly in the context of indigenous peoples’ struggles(Schlosberg and Carruthers 2010). Another importantdevelopment in environmental justice thinking fromthe Global North is the increasing attention paid to theregional specificities of the histories of environmentaljustice movements and its scholarship across the world(Lawhon 2013). Carruthers (2008a) edited volumeEnvironmental Justice in Latin America is a case in point,where the contributors pay attention to analyzing pre-cisely what makes Latin American environmental

justice frameworks distinct from those present inothers parts of the world. The authors highlight thelong tradition for social justice demands and movementsin different fields (political participation, land distri-bution, human rights and community health) as asalient feature, as well as the central importance that cul-tural identity (linked to campesino, indigenous andwomen’s demands for justice) has historically played inenvironmental justice struggles in the region.

Although environmental justice literature from theGlobal North increasingly acknowledges the historicallegacy of colonialism in environmental justice strugglesin Latin America, particularly in reference to land useand distribution patterns (Carruthers 2008b), it rarelymentions the persistence of colonial values (coloniality)as a cause of current injustices and violence, and theneed to confront it. This is precisely what South Ameri-can environmental justice thinking offers through itsfocus on decoloniality.

Additionally, a cross-fertilization between academicfields has started to take place in the region, with deco-lonial theory merging with different traditions ofenvironmental justice action-research. Such is the caseof Grupo Confluencias, a group of Latin Americanconflict transformation practitioners and researcherswho have been working since 2005 on a regionallyspecific approach for environmental conflict-transform-ation, through the development of new conceptualand methodological frameworks. Grupo Confluenciashas merged Conflict Transformation theory (which origi-nated in Peace Studies) with decolonial thought, powertheory and political ecology, and developed a Socio-environmental Conflict Transformation (SCT) Frameworkthat seeks to guide conflict transformation work forgreater environmental justice in the region.

In this paper we present the SCT framework in orderto show what conflict transformation practice can offerfor decolonizing environmental injustices in the region.We argue that conflict transformation scholars and prac-titioners can and must play a role in decolonizingenvironmental injustices through a commitment toengage with the structural and historical forces thatcreate marginalization and exclusion in the use ofnatural resources and territories. We also propose thatconflict transformation can help move forward the deco-lonizing praxis, by engaging with a level of injusticesrarely addressed in decolonial theory: the intra-commu-nity level. Despite indigenous peoples’ discourses of‘Buen Vivir’ and their claims in environmental strugglesfor alternative development pathways, the intense pro-cesses of cultural change that they have been subjectto from colonial to modern times, often puts them invery weak positions to successfully pursue a decolonial

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 91

agenda at the community level. In conflict situations, thisinternal fragility often makes indigenous peoples proneto division and fragmentation, reducing the chance ofsuccessfully confronting the hegemonic powers thatcreate injustice.

The SCT Framework is particularly aimed at strength-ening the capacity of vulnerable actors to transformenvironmental conflicts through impacting threedifferent types of hegemonic power: structural, culturaland actor-networks. In doing so, it can help developdifferentiated strategies to challenge dominant dis-courses, economic, legal and political structures andpractices and the relationships that give rise to environ-mental justice struggles. The premise is that a focus onbuilding community capacity to transform conflicts atthe intra-cultural level helps to create the conditionsfor more symmetrical and horizontal intercultural dialo-gues, which are key for decolonizing environmentalinjustices. To our knowledge, such an approach for enga-ging with environmental justice struggles is new toenvironmental justice work. Thus, beyond contributingto decolonizing environmental injustices, it also hassomething new to offer to environmental justice think-ing more broadly.

In order to illustrate our framework, we draw on workcarried out with indigenous peoples from different partsof Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala andVenezuela) to transform socio-environmental conflicts.

The text is divided into five parts. In the first sectionwe explore the overlap and complementarity betweendecolonial and conflict transformation thought in termsof understanding and addressing environmental injus-tice in the region. This is followed by a discussion ofpower, paying attention first to describing how hegemo-nic power is exercised in environmental conflicts andlater to how such power can be challenged in order toincrease environmental justice. In order to illustrate thelatter point, in the fourth section, we discuss differentstrategies that can help indigenous peoples impact onthe different spheres of power and thus contribute toconflict transformation processes in the region. Weclose in the fifth section with a short synthesis of themain points highlighted in the paper and some ideasfor further research.

Decolonial and conflict transformationtheory: exploring the overlap andcomplementarity

Main propositions of decolonial theory:

Decolonial thought is distinct from other post-colonialcritical theory through its focus on the Global South

and for identifying mechanisms of subordination andmarginalization in Eurocentric scientific and politicalworldviews. Proponents of this school of thought arelargely from Latin America (Quijano 2000; Lander 2000;Leff 2001; Castro-Gómez and Grosfoguel 2007; Escobar2003; Walsh 2007; Mignolo 2008), but important contri-butions have also come from India (Visvanathan 1997),Portugal (Santos, Arriscado, and Meneses 2008; Santos2010) and New Zealand (Smith 1999) among others.

According to decolonial theory ‘colonialism’ endedwith political independence in the Global South, but‘coloniality’ persists through dominant colonial/modernvalues and world views that are institutionalized and dis-seminated through education, the media, state-sanc-tioned languages and behavioral norms. Thus,‘coloniality’ is a form of power that creates structuraloppression over marginalized sectors of society, suchas indigenous peoples, whose alternative worldviewsbecome devalued, marginalized and stigmatized indevelopment and conservation practice. From this per-spective, coloniality is a particular mechanism and formof mis-recognition that must be confronted in order toachieve emancipation and social/environmental justice.

Decolonial scholars argue that modernity leads to pro-found psychological harm for indigenous peoples as iterodes vital conditions for their wellbeing, including cul-tural identity, freedom of choice and self-respect. It alsohas tangible impacts on the status and participation ofindigenous peoples in development and conservationpractice by disregarding local notions of authority andterritory, frequently resulting in displacement orenforced change to livelihoods. Furthermore, theyargue that psychological and physical harm is perpetu-ated through a matrix operating at three levels: a)power (political and economic), b) knowledge (episte-mic, philosophical and scientific) and c) the self or waysof being (subjective, individual and collective identities).Thus, responses to coloniality necessarily involve decolo-nizing power, knowledge and the being.3 This involvesmoving away from a unitary model of citizenship andcivilization to one that respects different local econom-ies, politics, cultures, epistemologies and forms ofknowledge.

This focus of decolonial theory on the epistemologicaldimension of oppression and domination adds an impor-tant new critical lens to environmental justice work. Ithighlights the need to engage with one of the mostinvisible and subtle ways in which violence is exercisedin environmental justice struggles: through the impo-sition of particular ways of knowing the world at theexpense of oppressing others, in other words, throughepistemic violence. Thus, as suggested by Walsh (2005b)and Santos (2008), the greatest challenge for

92 I. RODRÍGUEZ AND M. L. INTURIAS

emancipation from a decolonial perspective is to movetowards a situation of greater cognitive justice in theworld, learning from, and making visible, alternativesforms of knowledge. Thus, the ecology of knowledge(Santos 2008), also termed by other decolonial theoristsas dialogues of knowledge/wisdoms (Leff 2004) or theconstruction of interculturality (Walsh 2005a), is viewedas the core of a decolonial praxis.

But interculturality here is radically different from othermore widely used functional definitions. Decolonial thin-kers such as Tubino (2005), Walsh (2005a, 2005b, 2007)and Santos (2010), approach interculturality from a criticalperspective. The term ‘intercultural’ is not understood as asimple contact, but as an exchange that takes place inconditions of equality, mutual legitimacy, equity and sym-metry. This encounter of cultures is a permanent anddynamic vehicle for communication and mutual learning.It is not just an exchange between individuals but alsobetween knowledge, wisdoms and practices thatdevelop a new sense of co-existence in their difference.

Therefore:

More than the idea of simple interrelation (or communi-cation, as it is often understood in Canada, Europe or theUnited States), interculturality refers to, and means, an“other” process of knowledge construction, an “other”political practice, and “other” social (and State) powerand an “other” society; an “other” way to think and actin relation to, and against, modernity and colonialism.An “other” paradigm that is thought and acted upon,through political praxis. (Walsh 2007, 47)

As suggested by Viaña (2009) in order to achieve this it isnecessary to change the conditions of intercultural dialo-gue, to ensure that the dialogue is not about the right ofinclusion in the dominant culture, but about the historicaland structural factors that limit a real exchange betweencultures in each country. Only this can help create the con-ditions for more symmetrical conversations about themodel of development needed for ‘Buen Vivir’, the typeof solidary economy needed for life, and the participatorypolitical system needed for the consolidation of autono-mies, territories and regions that allow different forms ofgovernment and self-governance.

Thus, the ‘inter’ space, becomes an arena of nego-tiation where social, economic and political inequalitiesare not kept hidden, but are made visible and con-fronted. In this sense, the dialogue among cultures andknowledge plays an important part in a wider processof social transformation.

Intra-cultural dialogues: a missing link

One issue that has received little attention in decolonialliterature is the question of cultural difference at the

intra-cultural level. Environmental justice literature alsohas a blind spot on this issue. Despite its sensitivity tosocial meaning, inter-subjectivity and long-term histori-cal contexts, decolonial literature pays little attention tothe fact that culture itself is often contested at the locallevel. There has been a paucity of discussion about theconditions necessary for dialogue about the use ofnature among different actors within communities,especially in the context of shifting local identities andrapid cultural change among indigenous peoples.

In most of the developing world indigenous peoplesare undergoing rapid processes of cultural change,which may seriously constrain local reflexivity overenvironmental and development issues. In LatinAmerica in particular, modern nation state building hasbeen premised on narratives of national identity andmodernity that have contributed significantly to under-mining ‘traditional’ views and the values placed uponnature by indigenous people. This trend has continuedeven within emerging pluricultural nation-state models,such as those currently favored in Venezuela, Bolivia,and Ecuador, where at least nominally, and withdifferent degrees, indigenous peoples’ rights areacknowledged and recognized in foundational legalframeworks, such as national constitutions (Méndez2008). In addition, this loss of traditional knowledge isuneven and varies between and within indigenousgroups and communities, thus giving rise to contestedand shifting views of development and knowledge ofthe environment at the community level. Theselocal conflicts, in turn, may act as a strong barrier fordiscussing and defining sustainability pathways at thecommunity level.

In order for intercultural dialogues to take place, it isnecessary to first acknowledge the ongoing and oftenconflicting processes of cultural change and identity for-mation that are shaping, and will continue to shape,development pathways of environmental managementstrategies at the local level. These processes of culturalchange, in turn, inform complex relations of power thattend to hinder reflexivity and dialogue at the intra-cul-tural level. Ultimately, a critical understanding of chan-ging identity and local views of nature is crucial fordeveloping more just and productive forms of delibera-tion, where the diverse forms of knowledge of margina-lized groups are brought to the foreground indiscussions about present and future development andenvironmental management.

Building community capacity to overcome theseinternal differences, through differentiated strategiesthat can help clarify local perspectives, knowledge aswell as strengthening local organization, is essential forintercultural dialogue to take place. This is where

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 93

conflict transformation practice can support a decolonialagenda in Latin America.

Conflict transformation and local capacitybuilding

Conflict transformation theory is rooted in peace studies,specifically in post-war conflicts, with the works ofauthors such as Lederach (1995, 2003, 2008) andGaltung (1969, 1990, 2004). Unlike other approacheswhich see conflict as something negative that must beovercome or reduced, the transformative approachrather sees conflict as a catalyst for social changethrough its double dimension: conflict creates stress insocial relations, but it also offers the potential to helpovercome, change and transform conflicting relation-ships towards more harmonious, constructive andbalanced ones (see Table 1). This is because it allowsunearthing injustices and making them visible, thus sig-naling necessary changes in society.

Conflict transformation involves moving away fromthe logic of resolving to understanding conflicts. Fromthis perspective, the role of external actors changesfrom fire-fighters to architects of change who musthelp build transformative platforms for new socialrelations.

As an analytical approach, it provides tools to under-stand conflict dynamics and the multiple levels inwhich it is expressed: in people, in relationships, leader-ship forms, organizations, political systems, the construc-tion of narratives, and in cultural frameworks. This meansthat from a descriptive perspective, conflicts are in con-stant change due to various reasons (contextual, struc-tural, strategies of the actors, etc.) and we can / mustengage with them in order to transcend the immediateexpression of the conflict.

Similarly to decolonial theory, this approach postu-lates that behind a conflict episode lie relational andstructural factors that determine its current expression,and which must be addressed if we are to increasejustice in relationships and social structures, and avoidrecurrence. In socio-environmental conflicts we caneasily differentiate between a conflict episode (claimsto environmental liabilities, opposition to a particularpolicy, mobilization against the installation of an extrac-tive activity or the construction of infrastructure, viola-tion of indigenous territories, etc.) and underlyingcauses, which are commonly found far from theseevents, both physically and historically. This is whatLederach calls the epicenter of a conflict (see Figure 1below).

From a prescriptive perspective, conflict transform-ation is also a process of commitment to the transform-ation of relationships, patterns, discourses and, ifnecessary, the very shape of society that createsconflict. This requires transcending the ‘episodic’expression of conflict, instead focusing on the relationaland historical patterns in which the conflict is rooted andin those areas that generate or make inequities invisible,driving an approach that can reflect the desired changesand that also generates operational solutions to immedi-ate problems.

Thus, the conflict transformation approach seeks todevelop strategies at multiple levels and scales. It advo-cates the idea of platforms for transformation (Lederach1995) with a view to promoting processes of constructivechange at the personal, inter-group and structural levelsthat can generate greater justice and reduce violence inrelationships and society.

Conflict transformation is therefore a long-termprocess of socio-political, psycho-social and culturaltransformation in which key aspects of the reality areaddressed in the short-term, in conjunction with struc-tural issues that can be resolved in the medium, andlong-term. Thus, the key is to have a strategic vision oftransformation that articulates the needs and actionsthat must be taken in the short-term (addressing thespecific episode) with a long-term pathway for change(addressing the epicenter).

There are two complementary components of thisstrategic vision. First, similar to decolonial theory,conflict transformation postulates the need to engagewith power in order to overcome the structural causesof injustice. Second, and linked to the above, is the atten-tion paid to strengthening the capacity of vulnerableactors to transform conflicts, through a variety of trainingand capacity building processes, as a necessary startingpoint in the long-term vision of transformation (Lederach1995; Botes 2003). These processes of local capacity

Table 1. Basic differences between conflict resolution andconflict transformation.Caracteristics Resolution Transformation

View ofconflict

Conflict as somethingnegative that must beeliminated.

Conflict as catalyst of socialchange, with greattransformative potential.

What isimporant?

To overcome the conflict To transform its underlyingcauses

How? Through mediation,negotiation and othertools.

Through engaging with itscomplex causes, throughsocial and political action,advocacy, resistance,action research and more.

The verb is To Resolve To transformThe role ofoutsiders

Firemen who arrive at a fire,put it out and leavewithout understandingwhat caused it and mightcause it again.

Architects who buildtransformative platformsof social relations.

Source: Adaptaded from Lederach (2003).

94 I. RODRÍGUEZ AND M. L. INTURIAS

building are aimed precisely at promoting intra-culturaldialogues about complex issues related to the cause ofconflicts in order to create the conditions for more sym-metrical inter-cultural dialogues.

Yet, as conflict transformation theory was originallycreated to deal with conflicts in post-war scenarios, theunderstanding of power is not sufficiently adapted tothe context of environmental conflicts. A morenuanced approach to power that can guide socio-environmental conflict transformation practice in theregion is necessary. As we will see, this approach topower shares important points in common with decolo-nial theory.

Understanding hegemonic power

In order to understand how power is expressed in socio-environmental conflicts and to address existing asymme-tries, it is useful to distinguish between two kinds ofpower: hegemonic power and transformative power.While the first refers to power in its coercive form(what some theorists call ‘power on’ or power as domina-tion), the second refers to forms of power that seek toimpact power of domination and bring about socialchange.

The notion of power as domination is the most com-monly known. It implies the idea of imposing a mandateor an idea. However, power of domination is not alwaysexercised coercively, but through subtle mechanisms. In

this sense, it is important to distinguish between thevisible and less visible face of domination (for the lattersee Foucault 1971) (see Table 2).

In society, the visible face of power is manifestedthrough decision-making bodies (institutions) whereissues of public interest, such as legal and economic fra-meworks, regulations and public policies, are decided.This includes the formal political decision-makingbodies, such as congresses, legislative assemblies andadvisory bodies, and decision-making mechanismsused by civil society and social movements. This is thepublic space where different actors display their strat-egies in order to assert their rights and interests. Thistype of power is also known as institutional or structuralpower.

Yet most of the time, power is exercised in a hiddenway, by some sectors attempting to maintain their privi-leged position in society, creating barriers to partici-pation, excluding issues from the public agenda orcontrolling political decisions ‘behind the scene’. In

Figure 1. The transformative platform. Source: Lederach (2003).

Table 2. Ways in domination is manifested.

Visible Power Hidden powerInvisible/Internalised

Power

Decision makingstructures (andrepression).

Manipulation (definingthe agenda behind thescenes).

Discourses, narratives,world views,knowledge, behavior,ideas.

Source: Adapted from the Power Cube 2011. See: http://www.powercube.net/.

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 95

other words, the power of domination is exercised alsoby people and power networks (Long and Van Der Ploeg1989) that are organized to ensure that their interestsand world-views prevail over others.

The power of domination also works in an invisibleway through discursive practices, narratives, worldviews,knowledge, behaviors and thoughts that are assimilatedby society as true without public questioning (Foucault1971). This invisible, subtle form of power often takesthe shape in practice (following Galtung 1990) of culturalviolence, through the imposition of value and beliefssystems that exclude or violate the physical, moral or cul-tural integrity of certain social groups by devaluing theirown value and belief systems.

These structural forms of power are materialized instate institutions, the market and civil society, giving riseto a structural bias in relationships and consequent asym-metrical power relations. Therefore, this form of invisiblepower is also known as cultural power. Here, people canremain ignorant of their rights or ability to enforcethem, and may see certain forms of domination overthem as natural or immutable, and therefore unquestion-able. In this way, invisible power and hidden power oftenact together, one controlling the world of ideas and theother controlling the world of decisions.

This distinction between power concentrated in insti-tutions, people and culture is very important for under-standing power relationships and domination in socio-environmental conflicts and in the perpetuation ofenvironmental injustices.

The challenge for overcoming violence, injustice(Young 1990) and thereby for achieving conflict trans-formation is to generate strategies that impact onthese three areas in which power is concentrated inenvironmental management and territorial control: a)institutions and economic and legal frameworks, b)people and their networks, and c) discourses, narrativesand wold views. This takes us to a discussion of theconcept of power of agency, which will show how wecan put power at the service of conflict transformation.

Impacting hegemonic power

Although there is a tendency to think of power as some-thing negative due its coercive and hegemonic manifes-tations, power has also been widely described positivelyas a ‘force in the service of an idea’ (Burdeau 1985), or the‘ability to do things and change your circumstances’(Giddens 1984). This positive notion of power is com-monly known as the ‘power of agency’, which isdefined as ‘the ability of social partners to define socialproblems and political issues and mobilize resources toformulate and carry out a desired solution’ (Arts and

Van Tatenhove 2004). Unlike power of domination,which is known as ‘power over’, power of agency is com-monly known as the ‘power to’ change. The power ofagency is complemented and made more effective withthe ‘power with’, which is the ability to act together, andthe ‘inner power’ which means relying on the sense ofidentity and dignity to mobilize for change (See Table 3).

The power of agency, thus, suggests that in situationsof domination, the problem is not that some people havepower and others do not, but rather how those who areexcluded can make use of their resources and sources ofpower to change their circumstances and effectivelycounterbalance the forces of domination in differentsocial areas. Power is not static and un-changeable.During the evolution of a conflict, power is transformed:it is dynamic, permeable and may be influenced, becausewhere there is domination, there is usually resistance andchange (Foucault 1984).

Power resources include: material resources such asmoney and physical capital; moral support in the formof solidarity; control of information, social organization,including organizational strategies, social networks andalliances; human resources such as volunteers, staff andleaders with specific skills and knowledge; and culturalresources including previous experiences, understandingof the issues from the local perspective and the ability toinitiate collective action. Success depends on the effec-tiveness with which agents activate these resourcesand direct them towards achieving their goals.

Agency is generally interpreted as the power ofpeople to impact others. However, when power staysexclusively at the level of individuals and their inter-actions, it runs the risk of reproducing conditions of dom-ination as it does not challenge rules or structures. Socialtransformations only occur when the power of agencyimpacts institutions and the world of ideas. Therefore,the power of agency must impact simultaneously onpeople (networks), institutions and frameworks (struc-tures) and culture to influence a change in thedifferent levels of domination.

Table 3. Different ways of exercising power.Coercive viewof Power Transformative view of Power

Power Over Power to Power with Inner Power

Dominationcontrol.

The ability of socialpartners to definesocial problems andpolitical issues andmobilize resourcesto formulate andcarry out a desiredsolution

The abilityto acttogether

The ability to relyon the sense ofidentity anddignity tomobilize forchange

Source: Adapted from the Power Cube (2011). For more details see: http://www.powercube.net/.

96 I. RODRÍGUEZ AND M. L. INTURIAS

Experiences in transforming environmentalconflicts in Latin America

In Figure 2 we summarize some strategies that in ourexperience can help enhance the power of agency toimpact on different forms of hegemonic power, thuscontributing to the constructive transformation ofsocio-environmental conflicts. We now turn to discussingthese strategies with examples from Latin America.

Impacting people and networks

Power networks are a common way in which dominantactors exercise their power in socio-environmentalconflicts. Behind the scene negotiations, the co-optationof leaders and the divisions of local communities are partof the common tactics used by the private sector andgovernments in mining and/or development projects(Inturias and Aragón 2005; Padilla and Luna 2005). Theyare also common in the way environmental knowledgeis constructed and institutionalized in environmentalmanagement through alliances between resource man-agers and certain sectors of the scientific communitythat legitimize the need for external control in

environmental management (see for instance Rodríguez2004). Something similar has happened in the formu-lation of climate change policy, where alliancesbetween particular sectors of public policy making andthe international academic community have determinedthe type of knowledge that is used for climate changenegotiations and that which is left out (Ulloa 2011).Thus, one of the challenges in overcoming such powerasymmetries in socio-environmental conflicts is toimpact on these power networks in order for otherviews to have a place in decision-making and discursiveformations.

A key issue in conflict transformation is capacity build-ing on issues of social and political organization, localleadership, conflict theory and dialogue/negotiationtactics. Such was the case for instance in the widelyknown Water War in Bolivia in 2000, where the Boliviangovernment attempted to sanction a new Law on Priva-tization of Water and Sewage without local consultation.This law met with strong resistance and intense mobiliz-ation from the part of campesino and the indigenouspeoples of Cochabamba, to the point that it could notbe approved. Carlos Crespo Flores, who acted asadviser to the campesino and indigenous peoples in

Figure 2. Strategies to impact the Personal (networks), Structural (institutions) y Cultural dimensions of domination. Source: Rodriguezet al. (2015).

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 97

this conflict, explains that in this case it was crucial towork on four issues with the Cochabamba farmingorganizations to ensure successful negotiations: a) howto control or modify internal organization factors, b)how to increase awareness of external factors in theconflict, c) how to develop parallel actions to nego-tiations, and d) how to increase the technical knowledgeof dialogue and negotiation procedures (Crespo 2005)(See Table 4 for more details).

TheWater War is renowned for the intense political andsocial mobilization that it generated through the develop-ment of press and media campaigns, lobbying, lawsuitsand public demonstrations demanding respect for tra-ditional water uses and customs (Nickson and Vargas2002; Gutiérrez-Pérez 2014). But perhaps the most inter-esting aspect of this case was not the external strategies,but the internal ones developed by the local organizationsto ensure negotiations in conditions of equity, and moreimportantly, to halt changes in the legislation.

Distinct from strategies that focus on overcomingdomination in negotiations, such as the Water War,there are other initiatives in the region developinglong-term political empowerment for conflict transform-ation. For example the ‘Diploma on conflict analysis and

transformation, negotiation, advocacy and lobbying’ runby the ProPaz Foundation in Guatemala, is directed atancestral authorities, leaders and young indigenouspeoples (men and women) and seeks to strengthenlocal capacity to confront future conflicts, most of themsocio-environmental conflicts.

ProPaz Foundation does not run the conflict trans-formation diploma as an academic course, but as anopportunity to contrast conflict theory with the partici-pants’ own experience and knowledge on the topic, inorder to find solutions to inequality that they experiencein their daily lives. There is a follow up phase to supportindigenous organizations immersed in specific conflictsin which participants receive technical assistance,advice and monitoring of their own practices and theseare discussed with participating organizations as partof the capacity building process.

The entire process seeks to empower indigenouspeoples to defend their territories and collective andindividual rights. One strategy is to influence spheresof government and the other to legitimize leadershiproles on these issues within their communities.4

Although, as in the case of the Water War in Bolivia,empowerment is aimed initially at strengthening theinternal organization, the ultimate goal is to impact struc-tural/institutional power.

Similarly, the Foundation for Democratic Change(FCD) in Argentina provides technical support to indigen-ous communities through workshops and joint advocacyprocesses, with the aim of building capacity and commu-nity organization as well as improving their conditions ofparticipation in developing policies and resolvingenvironmental conflicts. In particular, it supports indigen-ous communities in northern Argentina developing com-munity protocols to be applied in consultations or whenfree, prior and informed consent is sought. Similar proto-cols have already been launched by other indigenouspeoples in Latin America.5

Another way of impacting existing hegemonic powernetworks in socio-environmental conflicts is through thedevelopment of transformative knowledge networksthat can challenge and help re-shape existing environ-mental policies through giving visibility and public legiti-macy to marginaliszed knowledge.

Such is the case of knowledge networks that havebeen developed amongst different research institutesover the last decade in the Canaima National Park, Vene-zuela, in order to help reframe fire use policies in thearea. Since the 1980s there has been a long-standingland use conflict in this national park related to the useof fire in the shifting cultivation and savannah burningby the Pemon indigenous peoples, both practicesbeing considered by environmental managers as a

Table 4. Key factors in strengthening power of agency in theWater Way negotiations, Bolivia.

Internal FactorsKnoledge of Dialoge andNegotiation Procedures

. Knowledge and clarity of the conflict(background, causes, issues, actors,institutional and legal framework).

. Strength in the argument of localorganizations.

. Capacity to generate alternativeproposals.

. Access to information about thecentral themes of the conflict.

. Internal organization.

. Knowledge about the rights andresponsibilities, etc.

. Existence of an external advisory group

. Economic resources.

. Legitimacy and representativeness oflocal organizations.

. Capacity of local representatives on:- Knowledge of the conflict- Capacity to defend arguments- Self esteem of leaders- Legitimacy

. Rules and norms fordialogue and negotiation.

. Use of public media duringnegotiations.

. The role of facilitators andmediators.

. Design of dialogueprocedures:- Dialogue and negotiationagenda

- Venue- Time scale- Number of representatives- Extra-official dialogue andnegotiations

- Expected results

Knowledge of External Factors Parallel Advocacy Accions. Global Context. Political Context. Legitimacy of adversarial organizations

and institutions. Capacity and will of adversaries and

the political systems to initiatedialogue and negotiate.

. Legal actions

. Resistance Actions: strikes,road blocks, etc

. Advocacy strategies(involving top decisionmakers)

. Access to the public media

. Networking (to change thescale of the conflict).

98 I. RODRÍGUEZ AND M. L. INTURIAS

threat to the watershed conservation functions of theprotected area. Despite a variety of strategies developedby the State to change or eliminate the use of fire in agri-culture and savannas (repression, environmental edu-cation, introduction of new cultivation techniques, anda fire control program) many Pemon, especially theelders and those living in more isolated communities,have continued to make extensive use of fire. In contrast,the younger Pemon have gradually become more criticalof the use of fire and as a result, inter-generational ten-sions over this issue are becoming more frequent. ThePemon’s traditional knowledge has been key for illuminat-ing new technical fire management knowledge that chal-lenges conventional explanations of landscape change.This local knowledge, combined with results fromstudies of Pemon fire regimes, fire behavior ecology andpaleo-ecological research, now inform a counter narrativeof landscape change that is influencing a shift in environ-mental discourse and policy making towards an intercul-tural fire management approach (Rodríguez et al. 2013).

Impacting structural power (institutions)

Structural power goes beyond the exercise of power overothers. It refers to more regulated modes of power thatdefine social rules and interactions between peoplethrough institutions. Social actors are often positioneddifferently in relation to decision-making and pro-cedures, which ends up affecting the interests ofspecific groups. The challenge is then to impact publicinstitutions and frameworks in order to represent morefairly the different interests of society.

There are different ways to achieve this. One isthrough outright confrontation, as we saw above in theexample of the Water War, impacting through politicaland social mobilization on laws, regulations and normsthat have been created without consultation or that donot represent the differentiated rights of society.Although effective in the short-term, this strategy willnot necessarily transform institutional structures in a pro-found way, unless macro legal frameworks are revised.The other way is to ensure greater representation ofdifferent sectors of society in the formulation of publicpolicy in existing public institutions such as nationaland local assemblies or by creating new institutionalarrangements where none exist, such as decision-making councils, co-management committees, round-tables or processes of consultation. However, theproblem with this approach is that it often ends up co-opting local leaders or that participation takes place ina tokenistic way.

Therefore, in terms of conflict transformation it isimportant also to move towards public participation

with an intercultural approach, where the focus is notto open up participation for marginalized sectors inalready established institutions, but rather to acknowl-edge and strengthen existing customary decision-making and natural resources management approaches.

An example of this type of strategy is newinstruments for territorial planning and managementimplemented in Bolivia since 2006, such as Indigenousand Campesino Territories (TIOCs), which were createdas a result of changes in the model of the nation-stateand a new form of democracy and citizenship thatacknowledges cultural differences. TIOCs, apart fromrecognizing the ancestral ownership of land by indigen-ous peoples, gives them the legal mandate to managetheir natural resources autonomously and with respectfor their customary decision-making procedures. Yet, inorder to conquer these new intercultural institutionalarrangements, indigenous peoples in Bolivia have hadto resort to a variety of strategies, from social and politi-cal mobilization, training and assessment with experts,advocacy strategies, to tactical negotiations with thestate. As an illustration, in Table 5, we summarize themain strategies that have been used by the Monkoxipeoples in the TIOC of Lomerio, in order to transformsocio-environmental conflicts in their territories,through challenging and impacting (structural) insti-tutional power.

Even though since 2006, the Monkoxi peoples havehad legal ownership of their lands, and are now demand-ing autonomous territorial rights, one of their greatestchallenges continues to be strengthening their own cus-tomary territorial and natural resource governancesystems in order to ensure a sustainable and just man-agement of the territory (Inturias et al. 2016). Thus, in col-laboration with a wide variety of partners that includeFundación Tierra, CEJIS, Universidad NUR, Grupo

Table 5. Strategies used by the Monkoxi Peoples of Lomerio toimpact on Institutional Power in order to transform socio-environmental conflict in their territories.Legal and normativechanges

Resistance andMobilizations Alliances

- Develop CommunalForestry Plans

- Demand Territorial LandRights

- Implement land reformprocess

- Creation of indigenousmunicipal government

- Develop TerritorialManagement Plan

- Develop AutonomyStatutes

- Demand territorialautonomy rights

- Marches- Road Blocades- Expulsion of large land

owners (hacendados)

- APCOB- OXFAMAmérica

- USAID- Bolfor- DANIDA- CEJIS- FundaciónTierra

- NUR University- University ofEast Anglia

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 99

Confluencias and the University of East Anglia, they arecurrently working on strengthening their IndigenousJustice system as well as on training a new generationof leaders in indigenous autonomy related issues.

Impacting cultural power

One of the main challenges for many social groups whodo not see themselves represented in dominant world-views, is to alter the realm of social representation inorder to protect and defend their own identity,through the creation of new meanings, norms andvalues. If over time, a sufficient number of peopleconfirm and reaffirm the new meanings through the cre-ation of counter-narratives or counter-discourses, sys-temic changes in cultural power can take place.

We refer, for example, to dominant views of develop-ment, to the way nation-state models define citizenshiprights and to dominant climate change or environmentalchange discourses. Many actors and social movements inLatin America are creating new social meanings whenthey position themselves against mining or against infra-structure projects based on their own conceptions of theenvironment, the land and development (OSAL 2012).The changes that have occurred towards pluriculturalnation states in Latin America in relation to developmentnarratives like ‘Buen Vivir’ or towards new forms ofterritorial management, are the result of a long processof confrontation with certain sectors of society holdingdominant development concepts and and of citizenshiprights.

Yet, as said before, domination is continually being exer-cised in abstract and invisible ways, and indigenous com-munities themselves often have themselves controversialand shifting views of development and of environmentalknowledge. Therefore, in order to impact cultural power,it is often necessary to strengthen local identity in orderfor alternative sustained meanings and values to emerge.The revitalization of local environmental knowledge andthe reconstruction of local history are some of the actionsthat can help. Building visions of the future through com-munity life plans, processes of self-demarcation or local ter-ritorial management also play a role.

In Latin America, there are valuable experiences inrecovering the historical memory of indigenouspeoples, made by the protagonists themselves, as partof strategies aimed at confronting the dominant devel-opment model and its tendency to erode and erasethe identity of entire peoples. A case in point was theproject to recover the historical memory of the Talama-queño people in Costa Rica, led by the American histor-ian Paula Palmer in the 1980s (Palmer 1994). The project

sought to document the socio-economic changesexperienced by the people in the region as well asconflicts with the State as lived and experienced by theTalamaqueño peoples themselves (Quezada 1990).

In Venezuela there is the experience of Pemon-Taurepan from Kumarakapay Village, located inCanaima National Park, Bolivar State, who in 1995, as areaction against increasing pressure from developmentprojects on their land, began compiling their ownhistory through recording interviews with theirelders. Later in 1999, through a process of self-reflectionabout their past, present and desired future, they conso-lidated this effort, giving birth a decade later to the firstaccount written by indigenous peoples in Venezuelaabout their own history (Roroimokok Damuk 2010).This experience served as inspiration for the Pemon-Arekuna from Kavanayen, also from Gran Sabana, tobegin a similar process in 2011, which is currently under-way. Recently in Colombia, the Muinane IndigenousPeople underwent a similar process, which alsoculminated in a self-authored history book (Ancianosdel Pueblo Féénemɨnaa 2017).

In Bolivia, there is the recent experience of theMonkoxi Peoples, in which participatory video wasused to reconstruct the history of the struggle for auton-omy and territorial rights, as part of a participatory analy-sis of conflicts in the management of the TIOC (Rodriguezand Inturias 2016). As a result of this process, the Unionof Indigenous Peoples of Lomerio (CICOL), decided toput the history of the Monkoxi Peoples in writingthorough a community authored book that is nowused as part of their communication strategy toadvance their claim for territorial autonomy (Peña et al.2016).

Incorporating local visions of the past and future are acornerstone for the transformation of environmentalconflicts. Contemporary environmental conflict analysishas a strong present time bias, which contributes toerasing collective identities.

Many indigenous peoples in Latin America are makingthese links between their past, present and futurethrough the definition of their life plans, helping themto look ahead by reconnecting first with their past andtheir identity (Cabildo de Guambia 1994; Jansasoy andPerez-Vera 2006; COINPA 2008; Espinosa 2014).

In Box 1 we see for instance how the Pemon Taurepanvisualized and defined a desired future, by reviving theirpast and carrying out a self-critical assessment of theircurrent situation. This vision of the future has been keyfor them grounding a local well-being agenda that canhelp negotiate new development projects in their terri-tory with greater clarity (Rodriguez 2016).

100 I. RODRÍGUEZ AND M. L. INTURIAS

Box 1. The type of society that the Pemon of Kumarakapay wantto have.

• A Pemon society with awareness of who we are, and with a sense ofidentity and of belonging.

• Knowledgeable about our history, culture, tradition and language.• Owners of our land – territory, knowledge, culture and destiny.• A society educated with ancestral and modern knowledge.• A society that values its wise people (parents and grandparents).• A respectful, hard-working, obedient, kind, courteous, cheerful,generous, harmonious, understanding society where there is love.

• A productive, autonomous society.• A society that defends its rights and is ready to confront pressures fromVenezuelan society.

Source: Roraimökok Damük (2010).

In the case of socio-environmental conflicts, thereconstruction of local stories is also key in helpingclarify disputes over environmental and landscapechanges, which are often and simplistically attributedto local practices. Such is the case of the use of fire inCanaima National Park, noted above, where reconstruc-tion of local histories have helped to make connectother social and environmental histories explaininghow and why fire regimes have been altered over time.These include migration, the slave trade and death fol-lowing colonial contact, combined with cyclical climatechange, instead of current Pemon fire practices, as com-monly explained in dominant narratives (Rodríguez et al.2014).

Thus, affirming history from the local perspective canplay an important role in developing environmentalcounter-narratives and counter-histories, which, in turn,by helping to change the collective way of thinkingand seeing the environment, can help revalue and revi-talize local knowledge and identities.

Concluding remarks

we see Ralco as the symbolic expression of the threat ofmodernity and progress to the indigenous people ofChile…we don’t want your progress to rub out ourculture.

These are the words of Domingo Namuncura, Mapucheleader from Chile expressing his views in 1999 about adam built in the Bio Bio River. He was quoted by DavidSchlosberg and David Carruthers in a recent publication(2010), where the authors made a case for developing acommunity capabilities approach to environmentaljustice theory. They rightly argue that indigenouspeoples’ environmental justice struggles are not merelyabout procedural, distributive and recognition issues,as environmental justice is commonly conceptualizedin the Global North, but about wider capability issueslinked to the health of the environment, the protectionof traditional village economies, respect for sacred sites

and the preservation of native religion, language,culture and practice, which undergird a quest for thebasic functioning of communities and the integrity ofcultures.

While we agree with Schlosberg’s and Carruthers’argument for pushing the boundaries of environmentaljustice literature towards a capabilities approach, wewould argue that at least in Latin America it is necessaryto push the boundaries further. As clearly expressed inNamuncura’s words, and as we have argued, in LatinAmerica indigenous peoples’ claims for the basic func-tioning of their communities and the integrity of theircultures are set within a wider anti-modernity agenda,which decolonial theory has managed to capture effec-tively. Such struggles speak of indigenous peoples’desires to continue being different in a world dominatedby modern, capitalist and individualistic values, in orderto be able to continue living according to their own cos-mogonies and well-being conceptions: a life centered incollective and communal values and inherited inter-relations between nature and culture. This cannot beachieved within the existing dominant model of devel-opment and of production of knowledge.

Thus, as decolonial theorists would argue, at least inLatin America, environmental justice must necessarilyengage with a politics of difference that is not simplybased on the search for recognition or inclusion in domi-nant structures, such as the liberal nation state, butfocused rather on the construction of ‘otherness’:

an “other” process of knowledge construction, an “other”political practice, and “other” social (and State) powerand an “other” society; an “other” way to think and actin relation to, and against, modernity and colonialism.(Walsh 2007, 57)

Such a focus on the construction of ‘otherness’ is whatwe have argued decolonial theory has to offer to north-ern theoretical understandings of environmental justice(Lawhon 2013).

As we have also argued in this paper, conflict trans-formation offers something additional, both to decolo-nial thought and to environmental justice theory andpractice, to help decolonize environmental injustices.By paying particular attention to developing capacitiesto transform conflicts at the intercultural level in thedifferent spheres of power, it can help to create the con-ditions for the construction of ‘otherness’ from thebottom up.

We have seen for instance how conflict transform-ation practice can help impact dominant power networks,through building counter-hegemonic networks that canenable indigenous peoples to negotiate projects ordeliberate with other actors about the causes of

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 101

conflicts, on a more equal standing. Capacity building inlocal organization, leadership and legal procedures, suchas free, prior and informed consent, as well as in theconflict theory and negotiation procedures, has provento be an indispensable first step to dialogue withothers in conflict situations. Also, the development ofcounter-hegemonic knowledge networks, which openup spaces for local reflexivity on contested issuesrelated to environmental change, such as the local useof fire, can play an important role in influencing a shiftin environmental discourse and policy, by giving visibilityto marginalized local environmental knowledge andlegitimizing local environmental practices.

We have also seen that, as evidenced by the Boliviancase, it is possible to generate new intercultural politicalmodels and national environment and land manage-ment approaches, through the sustained and strategicpolitical mobilization of indigenous peoples to impactpublic policy, legal, institutional or existing policy frame-works (structural power). But it is equally important tocontinue strengthening the customary territorial andnatural resource management procedures in indigenousterritories to ensure long-term sustainability andeffective exercise of indigenous justice.

And finally, we have seen the important role that therevitalization of local knowledge and local identity playsin creating new meanings, values and norms (culturalpower). Key strategies involve helping to rebuild local his-tories, revitalize environmental knowledge and buildvisions of the future, all indispensable for decolonization.

This approach requires a commitment from academiato participate in this transformation, undertaking asLederach has said (2008), a role in the architecture ofchange, knowing when and how to help impact eachsphere of power, depending on the nature and dynamicsof each conflict. The cases analysed here have shownthat by impacting one of the spheres of power it isalso possible to impact others. In some cases, dependingon the nature of the conflict, it may be sufficient to con-centrate efforts on a single sphere of power, while inother cases, in order to achieve the desired result, a sim-ultaneous effort in all spheres may be necessary.

Beyond its contribution to the architecture of changewith a ‘decolonial turn’, a conflict transformationapproach also offers new avenues for future environ-mental justice research. The assessment of the impactof specific socio-environmental conflict transformationstrategies (SCT) in the decolonization of power, knowl-edge and the being is still in its infancy. In this sense,the SCT framework can also be used in cross-countryand cross-cultural comparisons to gain a deeper under-standing of how transformative change happens onthe ground, and which factors facilitate or limit such

change. The empirical material presented in this paperoffers an illustration of different types of transformativestrategies that can be put into practice in order to con-tribute to greater environmental justice, by impactingdifferent forms of hegemonic power. Much closer atten-tion needs to be paid to the way in which distinct microand macro political and economic contexts in eachcountry affects the overall outcome of specific conflicttransformation strategies.

For instance, it is no coincidence that the chances foradvancing a decolonial political agenda (at least in termsof political reforms) over the last two decades have beengreater in a country like Bolivia, with a majority of indi-genous peoples, than for instance in Argentina orChile, where most of its indigenous population wasexterminated in the colonial period. This could meanthat conflict transformation strategies that put a focuson decolonizing power can intrinsically have more trac-tion in some countries than in others. At the sametime, we need to pay attention to the complex and con-tradictory ways in which hegemonic power is exercisedand to how this limits the effect of conflict transform-ation strategies.

Despite important recent structural changes in Bolivia,Ecuador and Colombia in the national constitutions interms of restoring rights to indigenous peoples andeven to Nature (e.g. Bolivia and Ecuador), such inno-vations have not been translated into real changes inenvironmental governance, such as ensuring greaterlocal control over natural resource use. If anything,authoritarian approaches to resource extraction basedon a capitalist logic of accumulation have continued oreven expanded in these three countries over the lastdecade, through projects such as the Yasuni-ITT(Ecuador), the building of a new road in TIPNIS (Bolivia)and Arco Minero (Venezuela). In all three cases, theseprojects pose potentially devastating effects on the phys-ical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples. A conflicttransformation lens can help illuminate these contradic-tions, through a close examination of both the hegemo-nic and transformative power strategies used during theevolution of environmental justice struggles. Further-more, doing this analysis with those experiencingenvironmental injustice can help them learn from thestrategies used and the limitations encountered in theprocess to re-strategize and continue working towardsthe desired social changes.

An example of how the SCT Framework is used for thispurpose can be found in the ‘Academic and Activist co-produced knowledge for Environmental Justice’ Project(ACKnowl_EJ) (http://acknowlej.org/). Here, power analy-sis, as outlined in this paper, combined with a new set ofconflict transformation indicators, are being used in five

102 I. RODRÍGUEZ AND M. L. INTURIAS

different case studies in Bolivia, India and Turkey, to learnin conjunction with activists, the lessons experiencedduring environmental justice struggles (Temper et al.2018). In the future we hope to share some new publi-cations with results from this project, which shouldhelp assess further the practical use of this frameworkin decolonizing environmental justice in Latin Americaand beyond.

Notes

1. This includes: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia,Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.

2. The literal translation of ‘Buen Vivir’ in Quechua andAymara languages is ‘To Live in Plenitude’. The Guariversion, Teko porâ literarily means, ‘a good way ofbeing’ or ‘a good way of life’, but as stated by theAymara writer Fernando Huanacuni, from Bolivia, noneof the literary translations of the term do justice to thedepth of its meaning from an indigenous perspective.‘Buen Vivir’ is a holistic concept rooted on principlesand values such as harmony, equilibrium and comple-mentarity, which from an indigenous perspective mustguide the relationship of human beings with eachother and with nature (or Mother Earth) and the cosmos.

3. Broadly speaking ‘the being’ is defined as the soul andessence of a person. The coloniality of the being refersto the impact of colonial technologies of subjectivationon the life, body, and mind of the colonized people, tothe point of stripping them from their very essenceand soul. Thus, the decolonization of the being involvesforging new categories of thought, constructing newsubjectivities and creating new modes of being andbecoming that can lead to emancipation.

4. For more information see: http://www.propaz.org.gt/capacitacion-y-formacion

5. See for example the case of the Munduruku ConsultationProtocol in Brasil: http://amazonwatch.org/assets/files/2014-12-14-munduruku-consultation-protocol.pdf

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank our colleagues from Grupo ConfluenciasJuliana Robledo, Rolain Borel, Carlos Sarti, Diego Luna, AnaCabria Mellace, Gachi Tapia, Volker Frank, Nicolas Lucas, JuanDumas, Antonio Bernales, Jesvana Policardo and Pablo Lum-merman, with whom over the years we have matured manyof the ideas presented in this document. Our colleagues fromthe ACKnowl-EJ Project: Leah Temper, Ashish Kothari, AdrianMartin, Mariana Walter, Meena Pathak, Radhika Mulay,Daniela del Bene, Ethemcam Turhan, Cem Aidin, Begüm Özkay-nak, Lena Weber and Rania Masri have provided very usefulinsights during project meetings and activities. The collabora-tive work we carry out in ACKnowl-EJ is possible thanks tothe support of International Social Science Council (ISSC)through the Transformations to Sustainability Programme(Grant ISSC2015-TKN150317115354). Thanks also to NicoleGross-Camp, Phoshendra Satyal and Saskia Vermeylen withwho we have had the opportunity to discuss parts of this

work and from whom we have received very useful feedback.And, last but not least, many thanks to three anonymousreviewers who provided by useful comments that significantlyimproved the quality of an earlier version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

The collaborative work we carry out in ACKnowl-EJ is possiblethanks to the support of International Social Science Council(ISSC) through the Transformations to Sustainability Pro-gramme (Grant ISSC2015-TKN150317115354)

References

Acosta, A. 2013. El Buen Vivir. Sumak Kawsay, una oportunidadpara imaginar otros mundo. Barcelona: Icaria editorial.

Acosta, A. 2015. Extractivismos y subdesarrollo. La maldición dela abundancia. Rebelión. 04-11-2015. Disponible en linea:http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=205247.

Acosta, A., E. Gudynas, F. Houtart, H. Ramírez Soler, J. MartínezAlier, and L. Macas. 2011. Colonialismos del siglo XXI. Negociosextractivos y defensa del territorio en América. Barcelona: IcariaEditorial.

Ancianos del Pueblo Féénemɨnaa. 2017. Ancianos que caminany cuentan historias. Colombia: Consejo Regional Indígena delMedio Amazonas (CRIMA) y Forest Peoples Programme(FPP).

Arts, B., and J. Van Tatenhove. 2004. “Policy and Power: AConceptual Framework Between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ PolicyIdioms.” Policy Sciences 37 (3–4): 339–356.

Botes, J. 2003. “Conflict Transformation: A Debate OverSemantics or a Crucial Shift in the Theory and Practice ofPeace and Conflict Studies?” The International Journal ofPeace Studies 8 (2): 1–27.

Bullard, R. D., ed. 1983. Confronting Environmental Racism:Voices From the Grassroots. Boston: South End Press.

Burdeau, G. 1985. Tratado de Ciencia Política. UNAM, México.Vol. II, tomo II.

Cabildo de Guambia. 1994. Plan de Vida del Pueblo Guambiano.Popayan.

Carruthers, D., ed. 2008a. Environmental Justice in Latin America.Problems, Promise and Practice. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress. 329 pp.

Carruthers, D. 2008b. “Introduction. Popular Environmentalismand Social Justice in Latin America.” In EnvironmentalJustice in Latin America. Problems, Promise and Practice,edited by D. Carruthers. 329 pp. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress.

Castro-Gómez, S., and R. Grosfoguel, eds. 2007. El giro decolonialReflexiones para una diversidad epistémica más allá del capita-lismo global. Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores; UniversidadCentral, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Contemporáneos yPontifi cia Universidad Javeriana, Instituto Pensar, 308 pp.

COINPA. 2008. Plan de Vida Pueblos Huitoto e Inga. Documentode avance. Consejo Indígena de Puerto Alegría (COINPA):Colombia, Abril 2008.

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 103

Crespo, C. 2005. “La negociación como dispositivo para reducirrelaciones de dominación. Aspectos conceptuales ymetodológicos.” En Encrucijadas Ambientales en AméricaLatina. Entre el manejo y la transformación de conflictos porrecursos naturales, edited by Hernán Correa y IokiñeRodríguez, 237–254. San José: Universidad para la Paz.

Escobar, A. 1998. “Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature?Biodiversity, Conservation, and ThePolitical Ecology ofSocial Movements.” Journal of Political Ecology 5: 53–82.

Escobar, A. 2003. “Mundos y conocimientos de otro modo» Elprograma de investigación de modernidad/colonialidadLatinoamericano.” Tabula Rasa. Bogotá - Colombia 1: 51–86,enero-diciembre de 2003.

Escobar, A. 2010a. “América Latina en una encrucijada¿Modernizaciones alternativas, postliberalismo o postdesar-rollo?” En Saturno Devora a sus hijos. Mirada crítica sobre eldesarrollo y sus promesas, edited by Víctor Breton, 33–84.Barcelona: Icaria Editorial.

Escobar, A. 2010b. “Una ecología de la diferencia: igualdad yconflicto en un mundo glocalizado.” En Más allá del TercerMundo. Globalización y Diferencia, edited by Arturo Escobar,123–143. Bogotá: Instituto Colombiano de Antropología eHistoria.

Escobar, A. 2010c. Epistemologías de la naturaleza y coloniali-dad de la naturaleza. Variedades de realismo y constructi-vismo. Revista Cultura y Naturaleza, Jardín Botánico deBogotá José Celestino Mutis, pp. 49–71.

Espinosa, O. 2014. “Los planes de vida y la política indígenaen la Amazonía peruana.” Anthropologica [online] 32 (32):87–114.

Foucault, M. 1971. “The Order of Discourse.” In Untying the Text:A Poststructuralist Reader, edited by R. Young, 48–78. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Foucault, M. 1984. “Space, Knowledge and Power.” In TheFoucault Reader, edited by P. Rainbow, 239–256. New York:Penguin Books.

Fraser, N. 1998. “Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics:Redistribution, and Participation.” The Tanner Lectures onHuman Values 19: 2–67.

Galtung, J. 1969. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journalof Peace Research, Vol.6, No.3, International Peace ResearchInstitute, Oslo (PRIO), London: Sage Publications, pp167–191.

Galtung, J. 1990. “Cultural Violence.” Journal of Peace Research,Vol.27, No.3, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo(PRIO), London: Sage Publications, pp 291–305.

Galtung, J. 2004. Trascender & Transformar. Una introducción a laresolución de conflictos. México: M&S Editores.

Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of theTheory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gudynas, E. 2010a. “La senda biocéntrica: valores intrínsecos,derechos de la naturaleza y justicia ecológica.” Tabula Rasa.Bogotá - Colombia 13: 45–71, julio-diciembre 2010.

Gudynas, E. 2010b. Tensiones, contradicciones y oportunidadesde la dimensión ambiental del Buen Vivir, En: I. Farah H. yL. Vasapollo, (coords) “Vivir bien: ¿Paradigma no capitalista?”.La Paz: CIDES-UMSA y Plural.

Gudynas, E. 2011. “Desarrollo y sustentabilidad ambiental:diversidad de posturas, tensiones persistentes.” En La Tierrano es muda: diálogos entre el desarrollo sostenible y el postde-sarrollo, edited by A. Matarán, y F. López, 69–96. Granada:Universidad de Granada.

Gudynas, E. 2012. Estado compensador y nuevos extractivis-mos. Las ambivalencias del progresismo sudamericano.Nueva Sociedad, No. 237.

Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. 2014. “Latin American Narratives ofSustainability: Opportunities for Engagement ThroughFilms.” International Journal of Sustainable Development 17(2): 160–175.

Huanacuni Mamani, F. 2010. Vivir Bien / Buen Vivir. ConvenioAndrés Bello, Instituto Internacional de Investigación yCAOI, La Paz, 2010.

Inturias, M., and M. Aragón. 2005. “David y Goliat. LosWeenhayek y el consorcio petrolero Transierra, Bolivia.” EnEncrucijadas Ambientales en América Latina. Entre el manejoy la transformación de conflictos por recursos naturales,edited by H. Correa and I. Rodriguez, 257–270. San José:Universidad para la Paz.

Inturias, M., I. Rodriguez, H. Valderomar, and A. Peña, eds. 2016.Justicia Ambiental y Autonomía Indígena de Base Territorial enBolivia. Un dialogo político desde el Pueblo Monkox deLomerio. Bolivia: University of East Anglia, Universidad Nur,Grupo Confluencias and Ministerio de Autonomía.

Jansasoy, J., and A. Perez-Vera. 2006. “Plan de Vida: Propuesta parala supervivencia Cultural, Territorial y Ambiental de los PueblosIndigenas.” The World Bank Environment Department 30 pp.

Lander, E., ed. 2000. La colonialidad del saber: eurocentrismo yciencias sociales. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.

Lawhon, M. 2013. “Situated, Networked Environmentalism: ACase for Environmental Theory From the South.”Geography Compass 7 (2): 128–138.

Lederach, J. P. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict TransformationAcross Cultures. New York: Syracuse University Press.

Lederach, J. P. 2003. The Little Book of Conflict Transformation.Intercourse, PA: Good Books.

Lederach, J. P. 2008. La imaginación moral. El arte y el alma deconstruir la paz. Bogotá: Grupo Editorial Norma, 284 pp.

Leff, E., ed. 2001. Justicia ambiental: Construcción y defensa de losnuevos derechos ambientales culturales y colectivos enAmérica Latina. México: UNEP.

Leff, E. 2003. Latin American Environmental Thought: AHeritage of Knowledge for Sustainability. ISEE PublicaciónOcasional, South American Environmental PhilosophySection, No. 9.

Leff, E. 2004. Racionalidad Ambiental y Diálogo de saberes:significancia y sentido en la construcción de un futuro sus-tentable. Polis, Revista de la Universidad Bolivariana,Santiago de Chile, año/vol 2, numero 007.

Long, N., and J. D. Van Der Ploeg. 1989. “DemythologizingPlanned Intervention: An Actor Perspective.” SociologiaRuralis 29 (3/4): 226–249.

Méndez, A. 2008. “Los derechos indígenas en las constitucioneslatinoamericanas.” Cuestiones Políticas 24 (41): 101–125.

Mignolo, W. 2008. “Epistemic Disobedience and the DecolonialOption: A Manifesto.” Subaltern Studies: An InterdisciplinaryStudy of Media and Communication, 2 February. http://subalternstudies.com/?p=193.

Nickson, A., and C. Vargas. 2002. “The Limitations of WaterRegulation: The Failure of the Cochabamba Concession inBolivia.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 21 (1): 99–120,January 2002.

Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The HumanDevelopment Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

104 I. RODRÍGUEZ AND M. L. INTURIAS

OSAL. 2012. Número Especial de la Revista del Observatorio Socialde América Latina (OSAL) sobre Movimientos socio-ambien-tales en América Latina. Año XIII N° 32 - Noviembre de2012. Disponible en linea. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/osal/20120927103642/OSAL32.pdf.

Padilla, C., and D. Luna. 2005. “Conflictos mineros en Chile:Poder económico versus Poder social. El caso de Mineralos Pelambres.” En Encrucijadas Ambientales en AméricaLatina. Entre el manejo y la transformación de conflictos porrecursos naturales, edited by Hernan Correa y IokiñeRodríguez, 135–146. San José: Universidad para la Paz.

Palmer, P. 1994. “Self-history and Self-identity in Talamanca.” EnCultural Expression and Grassroots Development. Cases FromLatin America and the Caribbean, edited by Charles DavidKleymeyer, 39–55. Colorado: Lynne Riener Publishers, Inc.

Pellow, D. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movementsfor Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Peña, A., P. Tubari, L. Chuve, M. Chore, and C. Ipi. 2016. Historiade Lomerio. El camino hacia la libertad. Universidad de EastAnglia, Universida NUR, CICOL. Bolivia, Julio 2016.

Quezada, J. R. 1990. “Historia Oral en Costa Rica. Génesis yestado actual.” Estudios Sobre las Culturas Contemporáneas3 (9): 173–197.

Quijano, A. 2000. “Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism inLatin America.” International Sociology 15: 215–232.

Rodríguez, I. 2004. “Conocimiento indígena vs. científico: elconflicto por el uso del fuego en el Parque NacionalCanaima, Venezuela.” Interciencia 29 (3): 121–129.

Rodriguez, I. 2016. “Historical Reconstruction and CulturalIdentity Building as a Local Pathway to “Living Well”Amongst the Pemon of Venezuela.” In Cultures ofWellbeing. Method, Place and Policy, edited by S. White andC. Blackmore, 260–280. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Rodríguez, I., R. Gasson, A. Butt-Colson, A. Leal, and B. Bilbao.2014. “Ecología Histórica de la Gran Sabana (Estado Bolívar,Venezuela) entre los siglos XVIII y XX.” En Antes de Orellana.Actas del III Encuentro Internacional de ArqueologíaAmazónica, edited by Stephen Rostain, 113–121. Quito:Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, FacultadLatinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Embajada de EEUU.

Rodriguez, I., and M. Inturias. 2016. “Cameras to the PeopleReclaiming Local Histories and Restoring EnvironmentalJustice in Community Based Forest Management ThroughParticipatory Video.” Alternautas 3 (1): 32–49.

Rodriguez, I., M. Inturias, J. Robledo, C. Sarti, R. Borel, and A.Cabria. 2015. “Abordando la Justicia Ambiental desde laTransformación de Conflictos: experiencias en AméricaLatina con Pueblos Indígenas.” Revista de Paz y Conflictos 2(8): 97–128.

Rodríguez I., B. Sletto, B. Bilbao, I. Sánchez-Rose and A. Leal.2013. “Speaking of Fire: Reflexive Governance inLandscapes of Social Change and Shifting Local Identities.”Journal of Environmental Policy Making and Planning 38 (5):1–20. doi:10.1080/1523908X.2013.766579.

Roroimökok Damük. 2010. La Historia de los Pemon deVenezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Fundación

Futuro Latinoamericano, Inwent y Forest PeoplesProgramme. Ediciones IVIC. Caracas, Venezuela, 124 p.

Santos, B. de Sousa. 2008. Another Knowledge is Possible: BeyondNorthern Epistemologies. London: Verso.

Santos, B. de Sousa. 2010. Descolonizar el saber reinventar elpoder. Montevideo: Ediciones Trilce.

Santos, B. de Sousa, J. Arriscado, and M. P. Meneses. 2008.“Introduction: Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge andRecognition of Difference.” En Another Knowledge isPossible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies, edited byBoaventura De Sousa, vx–ixii. London: Verso.

Schlosberg, D. 2007. Defining Environmental Justice: Theories,Movements and Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schlosberg, D. 2013. “Theorising Environmental Justice: TheExpanding Sphere of a Discourse.” Environmental Politics 22(1): 37–55.

Schlosberg, D., and D. Carruthers. 2010. “Indigenous Struggles,Environmental, Justice, and Community Capabilities.” GlobalEnvironmental Politics 10 (4): 12–35, November 2010.

Smith, L. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research andIndigenous Peoples. London: Zed books.

Temper, L., M. Walter, I, Rodriguez, A. Kothari, E. Turhan. 2018.“A Perspective on Radical Transformations toSustainability: Resistance, Movement and Alternatives.”Sustainability Science 13 (3): 747–764. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0543-8.

Tubino, F. 2005. “La interculturalidad crítica como proyectoético-político”, En: Encuentro continental de educadores agus-tinos. Lima, 24–28 de enero de 2005. http://oala.villanova.edu/congresos/educación/lima-ponen-02.html.

Ulloa, A. 2011. “Políticas globales del cambio climático: nuevasgeopolíticas del conocimiento y sus efectos en territoriosindígenas.” En Perspectivas Culturales del Clima, edited byAstrid Ulloa, 477–493. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional deColombia.

Viaña, J. 2009. La Interculturalidad como Herramienta deEmancipación. Bolivia: Instituto Internacional deIntegración/Convenio Andrés Bello.

Visvanathan, S. 1997. A Carnival for Science: Essays on Science,Technology and Development. London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Walsh, C. 2005a. La interculturalidad en la educación. Lima:Ministerio de Educación DINEBI.

Walsh, C. 2005b. “Interculturalidad, conocimientos y decolonia-lidad.” Signo y Pensamiento. Perspectivas y Convergencia 46(24): 31–50.

Walsh, C. 2007. “Interculturalidad y colonialidad del poder. Unpensamiento y posicionamiento “otro” desde la diferenciacolonial.” En El giro decolonial Reflexiones para una diversidadepistémica más allá del capitalismo global, edited by SantiagoCastro-Gómez y Ramón Grosfoguel, 308 p. Bogotá: Siglo delHombre Editores; Universidad Central, Instituto de EstudiosSociales Contemporáneos y Pontificia UniversidadJaveriana, Instituto Pensar.

Young, I. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton,NY: Princeton University Press.

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES RESEARCH 105