Contested Sovereignties and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund

1. ContestedSovereignties and the CriticalEcosystemPartnershipFund Ralph Litzinger (Duke University)

2. Ralph A. Litzinger • Current: AssociateProfessor in department of Cultural Anthropology, Duke University; Visiting Professor at Beijing University Health Sciences Centre • 2005-09: Director of Asian/Pacific Studies Institute, Duke University • Ph.D and M.A. in Anthropology, University of Washington • B.A. in InterdisciplinaryStudies, Evergreen State College • Specialties: Globalization, Transnationalism, Nationalism,Ethnicity, Social Movements, Migration, Asia • ResearchInterests: Environmentalism • Areas of Interest: Cultural and Political theory, Modernity and Nationalism, Anthropology of Post-socialist Development,Critical Environmentalisms, Globalization and Alternative Globalization Movements, NGOs and Transnational activism,People's Republic of China, East Asia Source: fds.duke.edu

3. The Issue • Anotherexample of ‘contestedsovereignties’ • An example of a ‘partnership’ (link to mytopic) • Creation of ‘CriticalEcosystemPartnershipFund’ (CEPF) in 2000 – new global conservation fundingproject • Start-up fundsfrom: Conservation International (CI), the World Bank, the Global EnvironmentalFacility & the MacArthurFoundation • Aims: Protection of world’sbiodiversityhotspots, promotion of civil society, assistance in MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) to eradicatepoverty •  Article shows how initial intention to encourage environmentalactivism, civil society (CS) and grassrootsresistance, iscomplicated in China  Result: A transformed global project!

4. Part I: Fund Fever • Meeting of author (Ralph Litzinger) withTibetanenvironmentalactivistfriend • New environmentalprojectwith large financialresources for NGOsworking on conservation projects • $ 11 million dispersed to 64 projects in 9 ‘hotspots’ in Africa, Asia and Latin America (in first 18 months of projectbtw. Jan ‘01 and June ‘02) • Fund’saim: to support CS groups with no discernable ties to the state  workin local and trans-local contextswherebiodiversityismostunderthreat • Acceptance of training from international conservation experts by autonomous groups; attending of meetings; and building of partnershipsacrossregional and politicalboundaries •  Collaboratingmembersin new biodiversity-funding instrument

5. ‘Vision’ versus ‘Acknowledgement’ • « Task of anycriticalethnography of global conservation initiatives, not to trackworkings of a singularform of imperialsovereignty, but rather the plurality of contestedsovereigntiesthattodayexistaround the world. » CriticalEcosystemPartnershipFund Forced to acknowledgethatits vision of world isconstantly running againstdevelopmental visions agendas of the state Imagined as universalprojectwithplanetary ambitions

6. Part II: ContestedSovereignties • Concept of ‘sovereignty’ as an object of criticalanalysis • Foucault & Agamben: Notion of bio-political dimensions  flexible & fluctuating networks, ratherthan society closelyregulated by state • Hardt & Negri: Refer in work « Empire » to new form of imperialsovereignty ; refer to concept of ‘Multitude’  new forms of politicaldesire and subjectivity • CriticalEcosystemPartnershipFund (CEPF): • Institutionallysituated in ‘First World’, yet global in scope • Crossingpoliticalbounderies, ‘eco-regional planning’  important to motivatedonors • Exclusivelycommitted to ‘local groups’; but encourages new forms of collaboration where possible

7. Part III: The Making of an Eco-Profile • Good advertisementstrategy on homepage of fund (pictures, texts on biologicalthreat) • Relentless effort to makelinkbetweenmanagingbiological life and attackingpoverty • Idealreader = NGO worker, located in one of world’shotspots, seekingfunding • Usage of termsfromlexicon of ‘corporateneoliberalism’: « Strategy », « investmentpriorities », « portfolio » • Investmentstrategy = ecosystem profile (CEPF unique as focus on biological, ratherthanpolitical areas)

8. The CriticalEcologicalPartnershipFund…

9. Source of images: http://www.cepf.net/Documents/CEPF_Overview_web.pdf

10. Part IV: EnvironmentalGovernmentalitythrough the State • In June 2002: Review and approval of ecosystem profile prepared for ‘Mountains of Southwest China – hotspot’ • 5 days workshop (with more than 80 Chinese and foreign experts)  led to investment profile • Distribution of draft profile to each of donororganizations and ‘externalstakeholders’  redraftingafter consultation • How to set priorities; decidewhere money flows?  Differentdegrees of biological importance (lined out by eco-profile) • Image in eco-profile: nature in excessawaiting new and more enlightened intervention by ecologicalscientificcommunity • « Narrative of biologicalexcess and one of tragedy » (threatanalysis)

11. Hotspot: Mountains of Southwest China Source: http://www.cepf.net/where_we_work/regions/asia_pacific/southwest_china/Pages/default.aspx

12. The Role of the Chinese state… • Role of Chinese state in threatanalysis and biodiversityloss • State as figure of weakness; if biodiversityloss to behalted, state-ledenvironmental management must bestrengthened • Eco-profile conclusion: « State sovereigntyshould not beundermined by CEPF; rather, itshouldbeempowered to become a more effective regulatory and disciplinary force. » • Issue of what to do with state - Reliablepartner? Collaboration or competitor? Control of funds?  Postponement of decision • Wideoutreach in additional meetings to workshop; state present in bureaucraticexcess • Argumentation: Definition of civil society used by CEPF cannotbetoostrictlyapplied to the China context (« China’s unique pol. structure »)

13. Part V: Conclusion • « Despiteitsplanetary ambition to workacross national boundaries, fund civil society groups worldwide, and bypass the internalpoliticalboundaries and bureaucraticunitswithin nation-states, the CEPF has been forced to return to the People’sRepublic the sovereign control over itsownresources. » • Yet, Chinesestate’ssovereign claim to speak for its land, resources and people  does not remainsecure and uncontested • Shows how incertain issue of sovereignty has become in China • Despite ‘opening up’ of China (looking for support in certain issues), highdegree of anxiety by the state to losesovereignty • CEPF as ‘work-in-progress’  difficult to predictitseffectiveness in protectingbiodiversity and its influence on China’ssovereignty • Result: State refuses to go away, even in globalizationera; yet, CEPF shows production of range of contestedsovereignties!

14. Critique & Remarks • Veryvivid article, personal descriptions (introductory part; « With a click on the mouse on the website, … ») • Initial intention of partnership not achieved in Chinesecontext, but authorseems to have a relativelyneutral point of view in regard to partnership initiatives  refers to ‘work in progress’  results have to beawaited

15. Concluding Remarques on Projects in Int. DevelopmentCooperation • Manyinteresting, well-intendedproject interventions  yet in many cases, original intention is not directlyachieved • Problem of Euro-Americanbias of manydevelopment institutions • ‘Real participation’ and ‘ownership’, notions that are increasinglyused  reallytakenseriously? Or in the end ‘alignment’ of countries to development institutions? • Role of projectlaw? Powerful instrument as argued by Weilenmann? Creatinglegalconflicts? • The link of law, power and control in developmentcooperation initiatives • General Questions for Discussion: • Better to stop projects? Partnerships? • Or try to change theirfunctioning? Or go on likebefore & acceptlimits? • How to act in an area of legalpluralism and increasinglycontestedsovereignties? Chaotic or more/lessdemocratic?

16. Thank you for your Attention!