Locating the theory of access within FPE

As shown in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, it is necessary to combine both the theory of access and FPE to analyse gendered access to resources in my case study. Bringing these together, I argue, helps to address their respective shortcomings and makes each work better. I summarise how the theory of access is deployed in this research below. I then move on to explain how the theory of access is located within FPE, how the two are connected to one another, and what additional concept is needed to effectively couple the theory of access and FPE. The theory of access is deployed in two different layers. Firstly, I examine how local villagers establish their relationship with the surrounding ecosystem, i.e. how they classify their land and forest, what they use these resources for and to what extent these resources contribute to their livelihood and well-being. Secondly and more importantly, I attempt to understand the underlying power relations between different social groups in the village and between villagers and other national and sub-national actors regarding who is able to claim what, who is entitled to what and why this is the case. As this research is concerned with a forest community involved in PFES and REDD+, I assume that these power relations are shaped and reshaped on a daily basis and during the course of the intervention schemes of state and non-state agencies.

I draw on Ribot and Peluso’s (2003) theory of access to tease out possible mech- anisms for local people to access natural resources that involve social identities and rela- tions. I argue that a villager is entitled to or can claim certain things (land/forests/trees) due to his/her membership in certain social groups and his/her ability to negotiate and mobilise his/her available social relations. These two mechanisms to gain and maintain access might be analysed separately, but my research findings suggest that a villager’s negotiating power over social relations is, in this specific context, tied to his/her mem- bership of certain social groups, and thus can be analysed simultaneously. The theory of access is further developed when situated within FPE. In my view, FPE helps to contex- tualise the concept of access from a feminist perspective and across multiple scales. Sit- uating the theory of access within FPE also helps to better address local agency in strug- gles over resource access. I will further explain these two aspects in the following para- graphs.

First, FPE takes ‘gender’ as a crucial factor in determining who is able to access resources. In other words, particular men or women are entitled to or able to claim certain types or pieces of land. On the surface, this emphasis on gender seems to limit FPE’s range of analysis. In fact, FPE, through an intersectional approach, provides a broader framework to analyse mechanisms and processes of access (i.e. under what conditions a villager can benefit from things). Moreover, a feminist perspective in FPE reminds us that the three pillars of political ecology, including ‘the ecological conditions, socio-political relations, and cultural practices’ (Nygren and Rikoon 2008) are necessarily gendered and therefore, these gendered dynamics need to be observed. It is noted that FPE proponents such as Elmhirst (2011) see gender not as a descriptive term or categorisation, but an analytical concept for considering the working of power (see also Butler 2004 and Corn- wall 2007). As such, while my research is about gender in resource access and govern- ance, gender should not be considered a fixed entity. For example, as I discuss gender divisions of labour in forestry activities, I do not assume that men and women in the community have pre-determined roles and that this division is clear and straightforward. This is also in line with the FPE conceptualisation of gender and intersectionality. In her earlier work in Indonesia, Elmhirst (1998) called for an alternative conceptualisation of gender divisions that does not see gender divisions as a determinative organising principle but instead considers the cultural construction of gender differences and the gendered division of labour through livelihood practices. As Turner and Bonnin (2014: 1303) point out, ‘identity categories such as gender do not exist a priori, but are continually produced

through social relations, in this case, through the domestic political economy of agricul- ture.’

Second, in terms of scale, while the theory of access is useful to analyse ecological processes and power relations in and around resource access at the household and com- munity level, FPE allows me to scale up and down these analyses, as well as trace links across various levels of analysis. Specifically, in this research, the analysis is extended up to global and national levels so as to link the gendered struggles to access local re- sources to the gender considerations regarding REDD+, the gendered politics of decision- making and policy formation (about who is entitled to what and why), and gendered dis- courses about development in Vietnam. The analysis also focuses on the most local level, the individual. At this level, gendered struggles to access local resources add another layer to their on-going and open-ended struggles to articulate their perceptions of surrounding environments as well as to conform or confront the state policies and intervention. As the analysis of access is scaled up and down within FPE, the concept of ‘everyday politics’ is useful to capture how non-state (including local people) and state actors engage in ne- gotiation and resistance in relation to natural resources. It is noted that FPE studies might have attended to everyday politics, yet they do not use the concept. In this research, to understand operationalise the theory of access within FPE, I first seek to understand what ‘everyday politics’ might mean and how they might interact with gender and other social identities and social relations in shaping one’s access to resources. Specifically, the con- cept of ‘everyday politics’ is inspired by Kerkvliet’s (2005) research on how peasants contribute to contesting and reworking state policies and the subsequent demise of col- lectivisation in Vietnam. Kerkvliet develops his concept of ‘everyday politics’ from a number of classic studies of peasant societies, especially Scott’s (1985, 1986) ideas of everyday resistance as well as his own research (Kerkvliet 2002) in other Southeast Asian contexts. ‘Everyday politics’, as Kerkvliet shows, is an articulation of local responses to state policies, most of which are concerned with resource allocation (i.e. agricultural and productive land in rural areas), and despite having different shapes and meanings, often emerges in a non-confrontational and unorganised manner.

In this research, I focus on various forms, subtle or direct, of everyday negotiation and resistance by local people, in relation to other social actors from the national level, to materialise their access claims. I find Kerkvliet’s concept of everyday politics relevant and effective to contextualise perceptions and attitudes of an individual regarding re- source access. In other words, it provides a tool with which to address the ‘horizontal’ interactions among individuals and trace the connections between villagers’ claims and

actions with those of outsiders (Kinh villagers from other villages, forest officers, NGO practitioners). However, ‘everyday politics’ is not limited to conflicts, disputes or re- sistance, as Kerkvliet suggests: it also includes negotiations, and in some exceptional cases, cooperation among social actors. This, on the one hand, shows how local agency might contribute to shaping their responses to others’ claims and actions; and on the other, it implies that such differentiation might be conditioned by other social identities and relations. Using ‘everyday politics’ as the operationalising concept within FPE recognises the various ways in which power operates in resource access in the Vietnamese uplands. The concept of ‘everyday politics’ is specifically useful in this case study as it also aims to: (1) factor ‘intersectionality’ into my analysis; (2) go beyond the class-based approach of Scott’s (1986) everyday resistance to address complex relationships among social ac- tors from various levels involved in resource access and governance (as shown above); and (3) better recognise the role of local agency, which has been seen as a shortcoming of Ribot and Peluso’s (2003) theory of access.

In summary, this research adopts a theoretical lens that builds upon Ribot and Peluso’s (2003) theory of access situating within FPE. While the theory of access metic- ulously points out the factors influencing access at the local level and how they link to one another, it lacks the necessary tools to analyse how resource access is gendered at individual and national levels. FPE, meanwhile, complements the theory of access with its strong grip on gender and gendered power relations, and couples productively with its agency approach. However, as I have shown in 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, neither the theory of ac- cess or FPE alone suffice for my conceptual framework. Instead, the theory of access should be situated within FPE and operationalised through the concept of everyday poli- tics. The coming together of the theory of access and FPE and the mediating of the oper- ationalising concept helps to deal with the existing limitations of both frameworks and bring out the strengths of the theory of access in conceptualising an individual’s relation to resources and of FPE in an agency approach and intersectional manner.

2.3. Summary

Throughout this chapter, I have reflected on the three bodies of literature that contribute to this research theoretically and methodologically. The first is gender and REDD+, which offers an entry point to develop the political ecology of resource access and control. This is due to the fact that the implementation of REDD+ raises questions about potential social and environmental impacts for involved communities. My findings suggest that currently, research on gender and REDD+ is still mainly about women’s participation. It

is the lack of knowledge about the connections and disruptions between gendered frame- works of REDD+ at the international and national levels and the existing structures of gendered perceptions of forest rights, responsibilities, knowledge, and power relations around forest use and management on the local level that inspires this research. However, I do not intend to engage only with gender issues and REDD+. In fact, the main literature I draw on relates to gendered access and control of natural resources within FPE and upland transformation in Southeast Asia and Vietnam. These two bodies of literature pro- vide a theoretical framework within which to investigate mechanisms of access to land and forests and to contextualise the case study within a legacy of studies of the up- land/lowland binary and upland socio-cultural and political struggles.

Based on insights from reviewing related literature, in the second section, I pro- pose a conceptual framework that fuses Ribot and Peluso’s (2003) theory of access and a FPE approach. The combination of theory of access and FPE helps to identify factors influencing access and how they are interconnected with one another, and highlights local agency and the gendered nature of resource access. The pairing of the theory of access and FPE in my conceptual framework, therefore, addresses the shortcomings of using either the theory of access or FPE alone. In this research, I adopt and adapt certain ele- ments of the theory of access and FPE and, at the same time, effectively deploy the con- cept of everyday politics to operationalise my conceptual framework. These concepts help to conceptualise and contextualise my case study within the chosen conceptual framework and offer theoretical tools to design my study and analyse my data at a later stage.