Underground Political Ecologies
Underground Political Ecologies
Underground Political Ecologies
Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 May 2012
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Extractive industries
Post-neoliberalism
El Salvador
Andes-Amazon
Socio-environmental conict
State and social movements
a b s t r a c t
Based on the 2011 Annual Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group Lecture, this paper makes the
case for a political ecology of the subsoil. Arguing that subsoil resources have received comparatively little attention within the wider corpus of political ecological writing, the paper explores several ways in
which the extraction of mineral and hydrocarbon resources is constitutive of, and constituted by, wider
capitalist political, economic and institutional arrangements. Drawing on material from El Salvador and
the Andean countries, the paper explores the contemporary governance of extractive industries, and
points to signicant convergence among the approaches taken by neoliberal and ostensibly post-neoliberal regimes alike. The intersections between the extractive economy, livelihoods and patterns of social
protest are also explored. Through these examples, the paper also highlights the ways in which activist
political ecologists play important roles in counter-movements seeking to re-govern the extractive economy. These countermovements are found in both civil society and different parts of the state. Such activist political ecologists are central to the broader enterprise of an underground political ecology and are
often vital to the success of scholarly interventions in such political ecologies.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
My primary concern in this paper is to discuss themes for a
political ecology of the subsoil.1 I will argue that the subsoil is a signicant topic for the broader enterprise of political ecology, even if
academic political ecology came to extractive industry relatively late
in the game certainly later than did networks of activist political
ecologists. Through a discussion of contemporary patterns in the
politics and governance of extractive industry in Latin America, I will
also claim that a political ecology of the subsoil raises issues of
importance that go well beyond the specics of oil, gas or mineral
extraction. This Latin American discussion will serve as an argument
within an argument, in that it is both a discussion of contemporary
processes in the region as well as a means of illustrating the broader
relevance of the subsoil for political ecology. I will suggest that the
ways in which post-neoliberal regimes govern the subsoil show
q
Editors note: this article is a full written version of the second Annual Lecture of
the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group of the Association of American
Geographers (AAG), which was given by the author at the AAG Meeting in Seattle in
2011. It has been subject to review prior to publication.
Tel.: +1 508 7937370; fax: +1 508 7938881.
E-mail address: abebbington@clarku.edu
1
I am very grateful to the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty Group and its
then President Peter Walker for the invitation to prepare this plenary lecture and then
for the prodding to turn it into text. Thanks also to Gavin Bridge for his understanding
and his comments on an earlier draft, as well as to Jody Emel, Jim Murphy, James
McCarthy, Denise Humphreys Bebbington and two anonymous reviewers for reading,
commenting, challenging and encouraging.
striking similarities to the strategies of far more conservative regimes, and in that regard appear considerably less progressive
than their post-neoliberal or socialist labels might imply, even
if in other regards they constitute alternative modes of governing
extraction. This, in turn, points to important ways in which resource
extraction becomes causally implicated in the relationships between
polity, economy, nature and society. At the same time, the Latin
American discussion reveals myriad ways in which activist political
ecologists seek to re-govern the extractive economy, pointing to
their own signicance in any broader political ecological enterprise.
I am not claiming that the subsoil should be the, or even a, primary
concern of political ecologists (although it will be for a subset of
them). I do, however, want to draw attention to the relative invisibility of minerals, oil and gas in the canons of political ecology, reect
on reasons for this invisibility, and suggest that there are important
political, methodological and conceptual issues surrounding the
subsoil that have wider resonance within our eld. I will also argue
that closer interactions with activist political ecologists operating
in various institutional domains would help keep academic enquiry
current and could also contribute to strategic thinking in the world of
activism. It is on this point that I begin the paper.
2. The underground surfaces
Beyond the academic world, there also exist political ecologists
who operate in other institutional realms that can remain easily
hidden from view in academic work. Who and where are these
0016-7185/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
7
These would include Auty (1993, 2001), Howitt (2001), Emel (Emel, 2002), Angel
(Emel et al., 1995), Bury (2002), Bradshaw (1998), Bridge (2000), Le Billon (2001) and
Watts (2001).
8
Other literatures are perhaps less far behind in particular those economists and
political scientists debating extraction, the resource curse and conict (e.g. Michael
Ross, Paul Collier, Joseph Stiglitz and others), and those activist researchers trying to
monitor this most recent round of expansion of extractive industry.
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
the costs of taking legal action). While one of these cases was
dropped in 2011 the other is still being considered by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).12
The FMLN government with its political ecologist Minister of
Environment is, then, caught between two pressures. Social
movement organizations, along with parliamentarians and bases
of the FMLN, are not happy that an ostensibly left of center government would not ban hard rock mining once and for all. They are
pressuring the government to follow through on what they view
as electoral promises to ban mining. Yet at the same time the government feels the pressure of scal imperative. On the one hand,
some ofcials wonder whether mining might generate tax and royalty revenue for government programmes, while on the other hand
these and others worry that ICSID will nd against the government
and impose nes on the scale of a hundred or more millions of dollars and that this would open the door to a slew of legal suits
from other companies, especially if the Moratorium were converted into law. The governments response was to buy time and
conduct a Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) of the mining
sector, with a view to crafting a policy on the basis of that SEA
the calculation being that if the results of the SEA were to recommend a policy restricting mining, then this technical justication
would offer more legal protection against future lawsuits from
other companies with concessions and exploration projects.13
However this process turns out, it represents a challenge to
both Salvadoran sovereignty and the strength of its democracy. If
the government responds to movement pressures, it risks having
sovereign decisions undermined by ICSID and ending up with a
public budget seriously compromised by the resulting nes. Conversely if it lifts the moratorium on mining as a way of avoiding
these nes, it will be viewed as having capitulated to international
capital and dismissed the concerns of the social movement organizations and grassroots groups within the FMLN that constitute an
important political base for the government. In either case the outcome will threaten the legitimacy of the FMLN government as well
as of the electoral process in securing institutional and policy
change in the face of transnational challenges to sovereignty.
In very many respects, these experiences reect and constitute
practical nature-society problems that are being worked through
by activists and thinkers who are themselves political ecologists
who move between engagement with conceptual discussions and
the challenges of political practice and policy formulation. They reveal how the actual or imagined extraction of the subsoil can elicit
rapid political economy changes in which extractive industries become part of everyday policy and political dilemmas for a range of
actors (see Warnaars, 2013). These experiences also constitute a
stark example of how both domestic and international academic
and research communities were caught completely off-guard by
an on-going political ecological change.14 And nally they reveal
12
The case that was rejected was being brought by the US company Commerce
Group; the case that is still active is being brought by Pacic Rim, a Canadian
company that has used a US registration of its company in order to sue under the
investment protection provisions of CAFTA. On June 1st, 2012 ICSID determined that
Pacic Rim could not proceed with its claim under CAFTA-DR provisions. However, it
also determined that the company could do so under El Salvadors Foreign Investment
Law.
13
For reasons of transparency I note that I have been involved in this process as
Chair of a Technical Committee of four members that monitored the SEA and reported
directly to the Minister of Economy and Minister of Environment.
14
Of course, it is legitimate to ask whether this should be viewed as a problem.
Were academics to respond too quickly with new theory to explain these
phenomena, such rapidly elaborated theory might simply be bad theory, inadequately crafted, tested or shown to be t-for-purpose. So perhaps the academic
response should be slow and deliberate rather than eet-footed. This, however, still
raises the question of who ought to be ahead of the curve and operating in fastresponse mode, and what forms the relationships between theory and these fast
responders might take. Thanks to Jim Murphy for raising this point.
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
19
Of course, in some territories the period of post-extraction may be consistently
delayed as technological and consumption shifts construct new resources as objects
of extraction, or push the potential frontier of economically viable extraction both
further out and deeper down. There is, however, no guarantee that this will occur
(thanks to an anonymous reader for this observation).
Concerns expressed by Afro-descendant movements in Colombia (Proceso de Comunidades Negras (PCN): Escobar, 2008), or
the indigenous and community based organizations AIDESEP and
CONACAMI in Peru, for instance, are not dissimilar. While the narratives of territorial autonomy, indigenous autochthony and another development of such groups should not automatically be
taken at face value, and nor should their democratizing credentials
be presumed (Watts and McCarthy, 1997), they remain nonetheless movements that counter the degrees of commodication and
transformation embodied in the expansion of the extractive
economy.
20
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
22
This may be a consequence of their longstanding collaborations with Arturo
Escobar and other scholars.
23
There is not space to discuss the press also, but it does merit a note. While across
the region the press has typically supported the expansion of extractive industry, not
all formal media have been equally convinced. For instance, during 2007 reporting by
the national newspaper La Repblica in Peru played an important role in raising
concerns about the expansion of mining in the northern highlands. Of course, the
boundaries between this press and other counter-movement processes are not clearcut. It can be argued that the presence of certain players on the editorial board of the
newspaper helped create space for such reporting and that as such it is better
understood as constituting an outgrowth of other movement processes. However, I
prefer to note it as a different domain, if only to suggest the importance of attending
to it empirically.
24
Examples here would include Alberto Acosta, former Minister of Energy and
Mines in Ecuador, and Jose de Echave and Hugo Cabieses, both former Vice Ministers
of Environment in Peru. Signicantly these short lives occurred within governments
declaring an intent to counter the excesses of neoliberalism (Correas government in
Ecuador, and Humalas in Peru).
25
Examples include: the withdrawal of a mining company from Tambogrande, Peru
(Haarstad and Flysand, 2007; de Echave et al., 2008); the slow down and redesign of
mining projects in the highlands of Piura (Bebbington et al., 2007; Bebbington, 2012);
the moratorium on mining in Esquel, Argentina; and the use of referenda and other
instruments to raise serious questions about the regulation of mining in Colombia.
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
ve such locomotives in total), and projects that the sector will account for 54% of all private investment and 41% of all public investment over the period.
The irony (or contradiction) of Colombia is that all this has happened at the same time as Colombia boasts one of the most progressive frameworks for ethnic rights protection in the world (NSI,
2011) enshrined in instruments such as the Political Constitution
of 1991, Ley 70 of 1993 (which recognizes the rights and ancestral
territories of Afrodescendent populations, along with their prior
rights to consultation and to exploration and exploitation of mineral resources on their territories) and Decree 1320 of 1998 which
establishes regulations for prior consultation. Meanwhile a 2010
Constitutional Court ruling (T-1045A) established a requirement
for free, prior and informed consent for mining projects on territories of Afrodescendent populations, as well as for plans to protect
the basic rights of these populations in the event that projects proceeded. Also in 2010, reforms to the mining code added high altitude grasslands (paramos) and RAMSAR sites as strategic areas to
be protected by the state against destruction by mining projects.
The far reaching and in some cases constitutional nature of
these provisions means that they cannot simply be viewed as a
green-washing of national policy. Instead they seem to reect the
sorts of regulatory double movements that one might expect if
one accepts the Polanyian argument. Understanding their nal effects as well as how they take form within the relatively hidden
and opaque worlds of courts, lawyers networks and the judiciary
are wide open elds of enquiry.
4.3. Negotiating extraction
Of course, many encounters with extraction will not fall easily
into those of opponents and proponents, of those who see risks
and those who see opportunities. Many processes will likely involve the sorts of negotiated bricolage that have been so skillfully
revealed by, for instance, earlier work on peasant politics and technical knowledge (Batterbury, 2001; Long and Long, 1992). Once
again there is not the space here to elaborate on this, except to note
two examples of the sorts of process that might merit attention
one at the local scale, the other national.
At the local and subnational scale, it is already clear from experiences in North America and Australasia that some indigenous and
local populations have concluded that engaging with extractive
industry can serve as a means of furthering other projects in particular ones of local economic regeneration, the recovery of territorial control and the reconstitution of identities. One gets a similar
sense in Latin America that some indigenous populations are
engaging with extraction not only for the very pragmatic reason
of extracting benets, but also in order to see how far the extractive economy can be used as a means of consolidating territories.
Given the sorts of Faustian pact that might be at play in such negotiations, as well as the huge asymmetries of power that are involved, the jury is still very much out on how far these might be
viable strategies. Nonetheless, these experiences and correlates of
them among other subnational populations and governments merit careful analysis. Such analysis will illuminate not only political
strategy but also the sorts of relationship between resource extraction and political forms that might come to be.
At another scale the emerging movement in Latin America
around transitions beyond extraction also merits attention. Here
the narrative is at a wholly different scale, and the goal is to imagine and bring into being post-extractive economies that no longer
depend so heavily on bringing minerals and hydrocarbons to the
surface (Alayza and Gudynas, 2011). Once again, though, these
transitions will also have to involve a carefully managed engagement with extraction because the transition will not occur from
one day to the next and early phases of any transition will be based
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
consciously or unconsciously a part (but just one part) (cf. Rocheleau and Roth, 2007; Birkenholtz, 2011).26 This way of viewing the
embeddedness of academic political ecology might lead one to
tweak the notion of regional political ecology to refer not just to
the political ecology of regions (Walker, 2003; Black, 1990) but also
to the conduct and pursuit of political ecologies within regions and
that might ultimately help constitute regions a pursuit in which
academic political ecologists are one among a number of players.
Such a framing can also help highlight other issues that may
have relevance beyond any political ecology of the subsoil. First,
for many academic political ecologists, being part of these political
ecologies within regions is a critical condition of possibility for our
own scholarly work. Embedding research might often be less of a
choice than a necessity, and can become even more so for work
on issues that are particularly contentious or opaque. Second,
when the academic political ecologist is concerned with processes
that are unfolding on a massive and multi-locational scale (such as
the associated large-scale infrastructural transformation of Latin
America that has accompanied the rise of extraction), to get a handle on such processes makes a link to far wider networks essential.27 Third, if the academic political ecologist is embedded within
such networks, collaborating with underground political ecologists, the question of how to analyze these networks and how to talk
about the mutually constitutive nature of these networks and the researchers own work is not an easy one to answer (cf. Riles, 2001). It
also becomes challenging to think through how to conduct critique
of processes of which one is a part, that involve colleagues and that
also involve some degree of risk for those colleagues. Fourth, this risk
which in the case of work on extractives can range from personal
and physical risk to legal risk of being sued by powerful interests
raises other challenges for the academic political ecologist. In particular, how might such risk be interpreted and assumed, and in what
ways can academic work either increase or divert risks borne by
other underground political ecologists in those networks. Fifth, given that, at least for the case of extractive industries, these networks
have a relatively poor record of prediction and have sometimes been
caught at-footed by developments within the industry (recall my
Salvadoran colleagues), how far can the political ecologist engage
in the business of prediction? While such prediction may not be of
the econometric or modeling kind (though conceivably could be),
is there scope for prediction based on operating within certain social
processes as a result of our research and our own professional
location?
The theme of last years CAPE plenary paper (Blaikie, 2012) was
whether political ecology is/could be/should be useful. While
this is an important question, it is not the one that motivates me
to raise the sorts of questions that I have just outlined. Instead I
want to draw attention to the extent to which academic political
ecologists are always working through, and are always part of,
broader political ecological networks that bind together activism,
technocracy and scholarly endeavor. Recognizing and making this
explicit (while also protecting identities) reveals the fuller scope
of the political ecological enterprise as an exercise in the co-production of different and ultimately counter-hegemonic socio-natures: alternatives. If contemporary capitalism is made possible
by the bundling of the subsoil with specic networks of power,
knowledge and technology, then any alternative way of governing
the subsoil and its relationships to life above the surface, will be
26
Some authors make this embedding of their own work in these regional networks
more explicit than do others. Two colleagues who are especially explicit in this regard
are Escobar, 2008; Kirsch, 2006.
27
This is a variant on the multi-sited ethnographies of world systems that various
scholars have called for in this rendering, the individual academic political ecologist
works only at one or two of these sites, and collaborates with wider networks that
reach across many more sites and that are not conned only to scholars.
brought into being through different networks of power, knowledge and technology. That is the project of a political ecology of
the underground and it is one whose challenge far exceeds the possibilities of academic political ecologists working alone.
References
Acosta, A., 2009. La Maldicin de la Abundancia. Abya-Yala, Quito.
Acosta, A., Schuldt, J., Barandiaran, A., Bebbington, A., Folchi, M., CEDLA, Alayza, A.,
Gudynas, E., 2009. Extractivismo, Poltica y Sociedad. CAAP/CLAES, Quito.
Alayza, A., Gudynas, E., 2011. Transiciones, post-extractivismo y alternativas al
extractivismo en el Per. RedGE, Lima.
Arana, M., 2002. Resolucin de Conictos Medioambientales en la Microcuenca del
Ro Porcn, Cajamarca 19932002. Masters thesis in Sociology, Pontica
Universidad Catlica, Lima. September 2002.
Arana, M., 2004. Retos y lecciones de la crsis del Quilish para la empresa minera.
Articulo No. 53, GRUFIDES. Cajamarca: GRUFIDES.
Arellano-Yanguas, J., 2011. Aggravating the resource curse: decentralisation, mining
and conict in Peru. Journal of Development Studies 47 (4), 617638.
Arellano-Yanguas, J., 2012. Mining and conict in Peru: sowing the minerals,
reaping a hail of stones. In: Bebbington, A. (Ed.), Social conict, economic
development and the extractive industry: evidence from South America.
Routledge, London, pp. 89111.
Auty, R., 1993. Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse
Thesis. Routledge, London.
Auty, R., 2001. Resource Abundance and Economic Development. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Ballard, C., Banks, G., 2003. Resource Wars: The Anthropology of Mining. Annual
Review of Anthropology 32, 287313.
Batterbury, S., 2001. Landscapes of diversity: a local political ecology of livelihood
diversication in south-western Niger. Ecumene 8 (4), 437464.
Bebbington, A., 2007. Minera, Movimientos Sociales y Respuestas Campesinas: una
ecologa poltica de transformaciones territoriales. Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos/Centro Peruano de Esudios Sociales.
Bebbington, A., 2009. The new extraction? Rewriting the political ecology of the
Andes? NACLA Report on the Americas 42 (5), 1220.
Bebbington, A. (Ed.), 2012. Social Conict, Economic Development and the
Extractive Industries: Evidence from South America. Routledge, London.
Bebbington, A., Bury, J., 2009. Institutional challenges for mining and sustainability
in Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 106 (41), 1729617301.
Bebbington, A. and Bury, J. (Eds.), 2013. Subterranean Struggles: new geographies of
extractive industries in Latin America. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bebbington, A., Humphreys Bebbington, D., 2011. An Andean Avatar: postneoliberal and neoliberal strategies for securing the unobtainable. New
Political Economy 15 (4), 131145.
Bebbington, A., Connarty, M., Coxshall, W., OShaughnessy, H., Williams, M., 2007.
Mining and Development in Peru: With Special Reference to the Rio Blanco
Project. Piura. Peru Support Group, London.
Bebbington, A.J., Humphreys Bebbington, D., Bury, J., Lingan, J., Muoz, J.P., Scurrah,
M., 2008. Mining and social movements: struggles over livelihood and rural
territorial development in the Andes. World Development 36 (12), 28882905.
Bebbington, A., Scurrah, M., Bielich, C., 2011. Los Movimientos Sociales y la Poltica
de la Pobreza en el Per. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos/CEPES/GPC).
Birkenholtz, T., 2011. Network Political Ecology: method and theory in climate
change vulnerability and adaptation research. Progress in Human Geography.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132511421532 (rst published on October 24,
2011).
Black, R., 1990. Regional political ecology in theory and practice: a case study from
northern Portugal. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers NS 15,
3547.
Blaikie, P., 2012. Should political ecology be useful? Geoforum 43, 231239.
Bradshaw, M., 1998. Going global: the political economy of oil and gas development
offshore of Sakhalin. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 12 (1), 147176.
Bridge, G., 2000. The social regulation of resource access and environmental impact:
production, nature and contradiction in the US copper industry. Geoforum 31
(2), 237256.
Bridge, G., 2004. Mapping the Bonanza: geographies of mining investment in an era
of neoliberal reform. The Professional Geographer 56 (3), 406421.
Bridge, G., 2009. The Hole World: scales and spaces of extraction. New Geographies
2, 4348.
Bridge, G., 2010. Resource geographies I: making carbon economies, old and new.
Progress in Human Geography.
Bridge, G., Frederiksen, T., 2012. Order out of Chaos: resources, hazards and the
production of a tin-mining economy in northern Nigeria in the early 20th
century. Environment and History.
Bridge, G., Le Billon, P., 2012. Oil. Polity Press.
Budds, J., 2010. Water rights, mining and indigenous groups in Chiles Atacama. In:
Boelens, R., Getches, D.H., Guevara Gil, J.A. (Eds.), Out of the Mainstream: Water
Rights, Politics and Identity. Earthscan, London.
Budds, J., Hinojosa, L., 2012. Restructuring and rescaling water governance in
mining contexts: the co-production of waterscapes in Peru. Water Alternatives
5 (1), 119137.
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
10
Bury, J., 2002. The Political Ecology of Transnational Gold Mining Corporations and
the Transformation of Livelihoods in Cajamarca, Peru. Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Geography, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Bury, J., 2004. Livelihoods in transition: transnational gold mining operations and
local change in Cajamarca, Peru. The Geographical Journal 170 (1), 7891.
Bury, J., 2005. Mining mountains: neoliberalism, land tenure, livelihoods and the
new Peruvian mining industry in Cajamarca. Environment and Planning A 37
(2), 221239.
Campbell, B., 2003. Factoring in governance is not enough. Mining codes in Africa,
policy reform and corporate responsibility. Minerals and Energy 18 (3), 213.
Cartagena, R., 2009. Metabolismo socio-natural y conictos ambientales en Costa
Rica y El Salvador, 19922007. Doctoral Thesis, Facultad Latinoamericano de
Ciencias Sociales. San Jos, Costa Rica.
Castree, N., 2007. Neoliberal Environments: a Framework for Analysis. Working
Paper 04/07 Manchester Papers in Political Economy. Centre for the Study of
Political Economy, University of Manchester, Manchester.
CCGT, 2010. Voto Resolutivo Reunin Departamental de Capitanas Zonales del
Pueblo Guaran y Tapiete de Tarija, 26 de enero, 2010. Consejo de Capitanes
Guaranes de Tarija, Tarija.
Correa, R., 2007. Cadena Radial, December 2nd, 2007. <redamazon.wordpress.com/
2007/12/05/ecuadorian-president-call-ecologists-terrorists>.
Coumans, C., 2011. Occupying spaces created by conict: anthropologists,
development NGOs, responsible investment, and mining. Current
Anthropology 52 (S3), S29S43.
Damonte, G., 2007. Minera y poltica: la recreacin de luchas campesinas en dos
comunidades andinas. In: Bebbington, A. (Ed.), Minera, movimientos sociales y
respuestas campesinas: una ecologa poltica de transformaciones territoriales.
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos/Centro Peruano de Esudios Sociales, Lima.
de Echave, J., 2008. Diez aos de la minera en el Per. Cooperaccin, Lima.
de Echave, J., Torres, V., 2005. Hacia una estimacin de los efectos de la actividad
minera en los ndices de pobreza en el Per. Cooperaccin, Lima.
de Echave, J., Diez, A., Huber, L., Revesz, B., Ricard, X., Tanaka, M., 2009. Minera y
Conicto Social. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos Lima.
Emel, J., 2002. An inquiry into the green nancial disciplining of capital.
Environment and Planning A 34 (5), 827843.
Emel, J., Huber, M., 2008. A risky business: mining, rent and the neoliberalization of
risk. Geoforum 39 (3), 13931407.
Emel, J., Angel, D., Bridge, G., 1995. New models of exhaustible resource
development. Business Strategies and the Environment 4, 200207.
Escobar, A., 2008. Territories of Difference. Place, Movements, Life, Redes. Duke
University Press, Durham.
Escobar, A., 2010. Latin America at a crossroads: alternative modernizations,
postliberalism, or postdevelopment? Cultural Studies 24 (1), 165.
Filer, C., 1991. Ok-Fly social monitoring project baseline documentation. Research
in Melanesia 15 (2), 121187.
Finer, M., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., Keane, B., Ross, C., 2008. Oil and gas projects in
the western amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous
peoples. PLoS One 3 (8), 22932, <http://www.plosone.org/article/
info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002932>.
Forsyth, T., 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science.
London, New York.
Fox, J., 1996. How does civil society thicken? The political construction of social
capital in rural Mexico. World Development 24 (6), 10891103.
Garibay, C., Boni, A., Panico, F., Urquijo, P., Klooster, D., 2011. Unequal partners,
unequal exchange: Goldcorp, the Mexican State, and Campesino dispossession
at the Peasquito goldmine. Journal of Latin American Geography 10 (2), 153
176.
Gudynas, E., 2010. Si eres tan progresista Por qu Destruyes la Naturaleza?
Neoextractivismo, Izquierda y Alternativas. Ecuador Debate 79, 6182.
Haarstad, H., (Ed.), 2012. New Political Spaces in Latin American Natural Resource
Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Oxford.
Haarstad, H., Flysand, A., 2007. Globalization and the power of rescaled narratives:
a case of opposition to mining in Tambogrande, Peru. Political Geography 26,
289308.
Hilson, G., 2009. Small-scale mining, poverty and economic development in subSaharan Africa: an overview. Resources Policy 34 (12), 15.
Hilson, G.M., 2010. Once a miner, always a miner: poverty and livelihood
diversication in Akwatia, Ghana. Journal of Rural Studies 26 (3), 296307.
Hilson, G., Potter, C., 2005. Structural adjustment an subsistence industry: artisanal
gold mining in Ghana. Development and Change 36 (1), 103131.
Himley, M., 2012. Regularizing extraction in Andean Peru: mining and social
mobilization in an age of corporate social responsibility. Antipode. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01001.x.
Hindery, D., 2004. Social and environmental impacts of World Bank/IMF-funded
economic restructuring in Bolivia: an analysis of Enron and Shells
hydrocarbons projects. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 25 (3), 281
303.
Hinojosa, L., 2011. Riqueza mineraly pobrezaen los Andes. European Journal of
Development Research 23 (3), 488504.
Horowitz, L.S., 2010. Twenty years is yesterday: Science, multinational mining,
and the political ecology of trust in New Caledonia. Geoforum 41 (4), 617626.
Howitt, R., 2001. Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, Sustainability and
Indigenous Peoples. Routledge, London.
Huber, M., 2009. Energizing historical materialism: fossil fuels, space and the
capitalist mode of production. Geoforum 40 (1), 105115.
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011
11
Please cite this article in press as: Bebbington, A. Underground political ecologies: The second Annual Lecture of the Cultural and Political Ecology Specialty
Group of the Association of American Geographers. Geoforum (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.05.011