4.6.6 Self-determination for the Global South

The capacity of the Global South and other marginalised communities to self-determine (make choices without the coercion of more powerful actors) has sometimes been undermined in diverse ways. Firstly, some commentators (e.g. Lyon and Maxwell, 2011) have argued that sustainability has been used as a cynical ploy: Western-led development frameworks and models have promised to uplift ‘vulnerable’ communities with payments for ecosystem services (Bottazzi et al., 2018), carbon trading and renewable energy projects, but which result in weakening or disregarding local structures and creating new structures and feedbacks that largely benefit developers. Evidence of the controversial impacts on local communities of Payment for Environmental Services (PES) has only recently become well known (Bottazzi et al., 2018). Although farmers have in some cases been willing to accept compensation for their nature conservation efforts in PES programmes (Geussens et al., 2019), such payments are often too little to cover their social and economic opportunity costs. (Hayes et al., 2022; Vedeld et al., 2016). As a consequence, a system is created which promotes new forms of value (often monetary at the expense of other values), and which exacerbates existing inequalities and injustices and cultivates division within communities. 

Creating a more decolonised future in the PTP or transformation landscape involves allowing local voices and capacities to surface in and by themselves (Scoones et al., 2015), to self-organise, self-determine and design changes as they see and need them (Rocha et al., 2022). By decolonial, we refer to the move away from the colonial worldview that anything differing from a Eurocentric worldview is inferior, marginal, irrelevant or dangerous (Santos, 2021) towards an appreciation of multiple temporalities, knowledges and praxes of living (emphasising the prefix ‘de’ rather than the prefix ‘post’) (Mignolo, 2021).

Supportive resources should also be chosen according to local needs and framings without stringent, unrealistic or exploitative terms and conditions. It is important to note that resources may come from various sources, ranging from development aid to compensation for historic damage (e.g. loss and damage payments due to historic GHG emissions), to payments for whatever international donors care about, such as investments in conservation projects. Investment in a specific agenda for the ‘global good’ – for example, to avoid negative tipping points – cannot be undertaken at the expense of local needs without commensurate change in the behaviours of wealthy countries whose development has largely led to this crisis. Hickel et al., 2022; Hickel and Slamersak, 2022

As recommended by Obura et al., (2023), any positive changes in the human-nature discourse must uphold and respect local rights and voices, and as such enable agency to undertake the necessary changes. 

With this in mind, there needs to be a deeper engagement to understand what kinds of information, knowledge and interventions can lead to PTPs that are truly equitable and spread the burden of change to those who have benefited most from the current system, rather than further marginalising the most vulnerable. Scientists, practitioners and their organisations who create decision-making tools and solutions need to explicitly recognise the risks and trade-offs associated with them. The power dynamics of global models of carbon sequestration – for example, tree planting schemes – that impact local people and communities need to be carefully considered (Pereira et al., forthcoming). It is of critical importance for researchers and practitioners working on positive and negative tipping points to reflect on how their findings might be used by other actors to drive agendas that aim to dismantle an unjust system (Engler and Engler, 2021). This requires a decolonisation of the solution space of what is needed to address tipping points. Space for alternatives that do not come from a Western-dominated perspective needs to be opened up and imaginations engaged (Pereira et al., forthcoming; Yusoff and Gabrys, 2011). In particular, there needs to be an openness to alternative economic models based on regeneration beyond growth.