Brokering justice: global indigenous rights and struggles over hydropower in Nepal

Abstract

This article explores the dynamics of brokerage at the intersection between the justice conceptions enshrined in global norms and the notions of justice asserted in specific socio-environmental struggles. Using the case of a small hydropower project in Nepal, we trace the attempts of an indigenous activist to enrol villagers in his campaign against the background of villagers' everyday negotiations with the hydropower company. The study shows how global norms, such as indigenous peoples' rights, may fail to gain traction on the ground or even become sources of injustice in particular contexts. RÉSUMÉ Cet article explore les négociations et les dynamiques d'intermédiation qui interviennent à l'intersection des conceptions de la justice inscrites dans les normes internationales et celles qui sont revendiquées dans des luttes socio-environnementales spécifiques. À partir du cas d'un petit projet hydroélectrique au Népal, nous décrivons comment un activiste autochtone a tenté de convaincre les villageois de se joindre à sa campagne, dans le contexte de négociations quotidiennes entre les villageois et l'entreprise hydroélectrique. L'étude montre que les normes internationales, comme les droits des peuples autochtones, risquent de ne pas être respectées sur le terrain ou même d'être des sources d'injustice dans certains contextes.

Norm Entrepreneurs Sidestep REDD+ in Pursuit of Just and Sustainable Forest Governance

“…Our findings from Uganda and Nepal illustrate that those who manage to do so can truly be considered to have exhibited norm entrepreneurship. Studies have described aspects of the political maneuvering and negotiation of power undertaken by intermediaries [43], yet the complexity of pathways taken to overcome political barriers and further recognition of justice have seldom been elaborated. Norm entrepreneurship in our study entailed not just a single tactic or opportunistic event, but a cumulative strategic web involving multiple actions and interactions across diverse forums at various scales.…”

“…In the face of barriers to facilitating norm travel, the 'politics of scale' becomes critical as intermediaries make choices about the norms they choose to mobilise, and which they prioritise to articulate their concerns and make gains, the types of forums they seek to influence and the other actors they interact and cooperate with, for both their own personal and organisational objectives as well as those they seek to represent [40][41][42]. Yet the role of norm entrepreneurs has received limited scholarly attention or empirical study within the wider norm travel literature [30,43]. To account for the practices of these intermediaries, we therefore draw on related research on 'boundary work' in sustainable development, notably the interface between multiple sources of knowledge and multiple decision-making settings [44][45][46].…”

Timescapes of Himalayan hydropower: Promises, project life cycles, and precarities

“…Once construction begins, new temporal patterns and practices emerge. Local residents quickly become familiar with the rhythms of hydropower development, procedures of stakeholder engagement, and the ecosystem of contracts modulating project timelines (Lord, 2016;Rai, 2005;Sikor et al, 2019). Aggrieved locals or project workers use a variety of temporally-oriented tactics to slow or interrupt the progress of projects-ranging from roadblocks and labor strikes to sit-ins and hunger strikes-forcing companies to recognize their demands and negotiate (Arora, 2009;Dixit & Gyawali, 2010;Drew, 2017a;Menon, 2019).…”

“…Scholars have repeatedly shown how citizen responses to hydropower development are incredibly uneven across the imagined hydropower frontier (Drew, 2017b; Dukpa, Joshi, & Boelens, 2018; Huber & Joshi, 2015; Lord, 2016; Rai, 2005; Suhardiman & Karki, 2019), suggesting the Himalayan region is a site where the “pluralization and fragmentation in the transnational movement against dams” becomes apparent (Pfaff‐Czarnecka, 2007, p. 448; cf. Forbes, 1999; Jones, 2012; Sikor, Satyal, Dhungana, & Maskey, 2019). Internal divisions within project‐affected communities are common—shaped by contestations over who exactly should be consulted, whose claims are legitimate, and how differently impacted groups should be compensated (Ete, 2017; McDuie‐Ra, 2011; Rai, 2005; Shrestha, Lord, Mukherji, et al, 2016).…”

“…Because people living in the “project‐affected areas” are unevenly impacted and implicated over the life cycle of hydropower projects, local discourse often revolves around who should expect what, and when exactly? Scholarship on Himalayan hydropower repeatedly shows that local positions and responses to hydropower development vary in time and over time —ranging from desires for development and economic opportunity (Ete, 2017; McDuie‐Ra, 2011; Rest, 2012), to outright resistance and contestation (Drew, 2014; Dukpa et al, 2019; Menon, 2019), to more qualified or negotiated forms of endorsement or acceptance (Drew, 2017a, 2017b; Dukpa et al, 2018; Lord, 2016; Sikor et al, 2019). Put simply, a “local community's desire for development should not be viewed as something static, or unchanging over time” (Suhardiman & Karki, 2019, p. 529).…”