Advancing ‘Environmental Subjectivity’ in the realm of neoliberal forest governance: Conservation subject creation in the Lokkere Reserve Forest, India

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Advancing ‘Environmental Subjectivity’ in the realm of neoliberal forest governance: Conservation subject creation in the Lokkere Reserve Forest, India ⁎

Manasi Anand ,a, Mari Mulyanib a b

School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK School of Environmental Sciences, Universitas Indonesia, Salemba Raya No. 4, Central Jakarta 10430, Indonesia

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Conservation subject Environmental subject Neoliberal NGO apparatus Conservation network Knowledge production Environmentality

State-based governance mechanisms, such as the ‘fortress model’ and ‘regulatory community’, have proven to be ineffective to overcome forest degradation. Neoliberal interventions adopted by NGOs that provide economic incentives for communities to govern forests are presented as an alternative approach. This article suggests that different neoliberal interventions produce different modes of governance and may involve multiple environmentalities. The work of the NGO ‘Junglescapes’ in the Lokkere Reserve Forest was examined through its community engagement in, (a) lantana craft making in the village and, (b) restoration in the forest. Interviews, focus group discussion, and shadowing research took place during ten field-visits between June 2017 and June 2019. Within the neoliberal governance domain, communities engaged in village occupations were provided with economic incentives through a top-down ‘neoliberal NGO apparatus’. ‘Environmental subjects’ resulted, by which individuals regulate their actions by reducing their dependence on the forest but not necessarily inculcating environmental norms or values. In contrast, actors employed in the forest exhibited independence, effected their own strategies, incorporated local knowledge, and achieved improved ecosystem conditions. This occurred due to the facilitation of local social interaction and leadership through a non-hierarchical ‘conservation network’. An advanced form of environmental subjects emerged and are proposed as ‘conservation subjects’. The latter argued as actors that are produced within a neoliberal conservation model, and are empowered and self-mobilised to act independently to conserve the ecosystem, thereby achieving more-sustainable conservation. Research results have the potential for replication across similar ecosystems, particularly within severely-degraded landscapes in India and globally.

1. Introduction The global landscape of nature-based governance has centred around regulating people’s actions to behave in a positive and ‘no-harm’ manner towards the environment (Fletcher, 2010; Agrawal, 2005a; Rutherford, 2007). In the context of India’s forest governance, the state largely employs ‘command and control approaches’ or ‘fortress conservation’ (Igoe, 2004; Brockington, 2002) by restricting the mobility of communities living in forested landscapes (Rai et al., 2019). For example, the State of Karnataka implemented the ‘1963 Karnataka Forest Act’ which prohibits economic activities inside reserve forests and creates a coercive environment through the imposition of fines and imprisonment. Within this region, another governance approach that establishes an official partnership between the government and local communities was introduced (Agrawal, 2005a; Negi et al., 2012). The ⁎

‘Joint Forest Planning and Management Order’ was established in 1993 to involve villagers in the local governmental apparatus with activities including the creation of micro-plans to protect the ecosystem and monitor resource utilisation (Rao et al., 2002). The state-based mode of governance is top-down, highly bureaucratic and often results in the disenfranchisement of local communities (Rai et al., 2019; Negi et al., 2012; Lele, 2017). The degradation and profusion of invasive species within protected forests occurred subsequently (Rai et al., 2019), with over forty percent of India’s forest cover degraded (Lang, 2015), and fifty percent of households continuing to utilise resources from reserve forests (Chopra and Dasgupta, 2008). An alternative mode of forest governance beyond the state is therefore required. ‘Neoliberal conservation’ has become an increasingly popular approach in the realm of biodiversity conservation (Barnes et al., 2017; Sullivan, 2006; Igoe and Brockington, 2007). It is presented as a ‘win-

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Anand), [email protected] (M. Mulyani).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.025 Received 15 March 2019; Received in revised form 24 January 2020; Accepted 30 January 2020 0016-7185/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Manasi Anand and Mari Mulyani, Geoforum, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.025

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

informant interviews, focus group discussions, and shadowing work in order to understand how different forms of neoliberal-based intervention shaped the subjectivity of community members. This article reports findings on how certain village-based neoliberal strategies effect results similar to those taken by state-based mechanisms, wherein the actions of local communities were regulated to follow the agendas of external agencies, in the process creating ‘environmental subjects’ (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Agrawal, 2005a). Moreover, it highlights how villagers engaged in occupations in the forest (i.e., away from the constant visibility of the superior organisation) may be empowered to mobilise their own context-driven conservation work within the umbrella of neoliberal-governance introduced by the NGO, resulting in the improvement of ecosystem conditions. This article suggests that the subjects formed as a result of these active forest occupations are ‘advanced’ forms of environmental subjects, conceptualised as ‘conservation subjects’. Through examining the creation of this form of subjectivity and its impact on the conservation of a degraded landscape, this study contributes to the current debate within the theoretical realm of forest ‘environmentality’ and ‘governmentality’ (Agrawal, 2005a; Foucault, 2007; Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017). Specifically, this research focuses on determining which ‘technologies of government’ (Dean, 1996) or modes of engagement were used by ‘neoliberal institutions’ to shape the ‘conservation subjects’ in the Lokkere Roserve Forest. The following section outlines the different forms of government operating in degraded forests and the resulting subjects that are produced. This is followed by the empirical section and discussion that unpacks the mode of government used to create ‘conservation subjects’ in the study area, together with its associated implications and challenges for neoliberal conservation.

win’ mechanism that involves the provision of economic incentives to individuals to protect their surrounding ecosystem and overcome land degradation (Bluwstein, 2017; Gubbi et al., 2008; Fletcher, 2010). In this regard, conservation policy is developed to accommodate neoliberal modes of environmental governance such as creating markets for resource consumption, the privatisation and commodification of natural capital, and decentralising resource governance through the involvement of local communities and NGOs (Fletcher, 2010). Decentralisation of resource management has gained traction in India post 1990s through the implementation of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects and other neoliberal projects adopted by NGOs (Gubbi et al., 2008; Mahanty, 2002; Barnes et al., 2017). Whilst argued by its proponents as an effective means to achieve conservation and community livelihood goals, these approaches have been criticised for providing external agencies such as NGOs, corporations and international agencies with increased ownership over the ecosystem, often resulting in the disempowerment of locally-situated stakeholders (Fletcher, 2010; Levine, 2002; Sullivan, 2006; West, 2006; Mahanty, 2002; Gubbi et al., 2008). Thus, increased and meaningful community participation needs to become a central tenet within neoliberal-based governance mechanisms to overcome this challenge. This article contributes to literature by determining how different forms of ‘neoliberal occupations’, provided for and engaged by local communities, play a key role in creating different modes of forest governance and forms of ‘subjectivity’ (i.e., the means through which individuals act towards the environment). Different approaches towards community livelihoods can result in either ‘environmental protection’ or ‘conservation’. The former focuses on regulating individual actions towards the environment which can lead to the creation of ‘environmental subjects’ (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Agrawal, 2005a). The latter involves departing from a centralised hierarchical mode of governance to a participatory egalitarian approach which allows locally-situated actors to incorporate socio-economic aspects and biophysical attributes of an ecosystem into their thought process (Jepson, 2015; Soulé, 1985; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). As will be discussed throughout this article, the ‘conservation’ mode of governance, stimulates a community’s ability to act beyond regulating and restricting their actions in the forest. It empowers and mobilises them to act independently and improve their surrounding ecosystem’s conditions, in the process creating a more advanced form of environmental subjectivity proposed by this study as ‘conservation subjects’. This article argues that ‘conservation subjects’ are more effective in achieving conservation within extremely degraded landscapes. Paying particular attention to the engagement of local communities within the ecological setting of a degraded forest, this study examined the work by the NGO ‘Junglescapes’1 in the Lokkere Roserve Forest, Karnataka. The region is severely degraded due to excessive grazing, rampant collection of wood for fuel, and the invasion of Lantana camara 2 (Venkataraman, 2015). Junglescapes addressed this issue by facilitating community development, including the provision of economic incentives in the form of alternative livelihoods such as, (a) Lantana craft-making in the village, and (b) restoration in the forest (Junglescapes, 2017). The implementation of these modes of employment serves as an appropriate case study to examine how local communities respond to different modes of governance and its implications for conservation. A total of ten field visits took place between June 2017 and June 2019, involving forty research participants including local community members, Junglescapes volunteers and external villagers not associated with the NGO. Empirical data collection was conducted through key

2. Technology of government and the production of knowledge ‘Governmentality’ is the study of the “practices, techniques, and rationalities involved” in shaping the subjectivity of an individual by influencing his or her beliefs and actions (Foucault, 1980, 1990; Rutherford, 2007; Dean, 1996, p. 47; Fletcher, 2010; Behrent, 2013). Governing takes place through a ‘technology of government’ which refers to “the ways in which modern social and political systems control, supervise, and manipulate populations as well as individuals” (Behrent, 2013, p.55; Dean, 1996). In the context of environmental governance, ‘governmentality’ takes the form of ‘environmentality’ (Agrawal, 2005a). Through a particular technology of government, the ‘environmental subject’, i.e., one who comes to care for his or her surrounding environment, is created (Agrawal, 2005a; Rutherford, 2007; Singh, 2013). Multiple environmentalities, including ‘sovereign’, ‘disciplinary’, ‘neoliberal’ and ‘liberation’ environmentalities, coexist at any given point of time and either act in conjunction or in conflict with one another (Foucault, 1990, 2008; Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017). These are implemented by different governing bodies which use various forms of engagement between communities with the surrounding ecosystem that result in the production and circulation of different bodies of knowledge (Agrawal, 2005a; Rutherford, 2007; Singh, 2013; Fletcher, 2010). The state is one governing body whose intervention is carried out through the ‘Fortress Model’ (Fletcher, 2010; Foucault, 1979) and makes use of ‘sovereign environmentality’. It governs through top-down ‘command and control’ approaches, such as the deployment of surveillance mechanisms to ensure and convince individuals not to break the law (Brockington, 2002; Igoe, 2004; Fletcher, 2010; McGregor et al., 2015). The law imposes severe punishment on those who do not adhere to regulation, creating an environment where individuals are afraid to violate the moral code in fear of its consequences (Hart, 2008). For example, the 1963 Karnataka Forest Act attempts to ensure that consumptive activities within reserve forests, such as grazing or timber collection, is restricted unless permitted by a forest official. Through this apparatus knowledge is created that makes one an obedient subject

1 The first author has been involved with Junglescapes since 2012. Preliminary interaction with the organisation till 2015 pertained to studying the effect of alternative occupations on the livelihoods of the community. 2 An invasive species present across peninsular India

2

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

and social dynamics within communities are altered (Sullivan, 2006; West, 2006). This process results in the creation of environmental subjects that regulate their actions, but who are not necessarily empowered to effect sustainable changes in their socio-ecological environments. To this end, NGOs that adopt neoliberal governance need to forge different relationships between humans and their surrounding environment by encouraging context-driven approaches and local knowledge systems (Ostrom et al., 1999; Sullivan, 2006). This cannot be achieved by merely altering the cost-benefit ratio of managing resources, but requires changing the governance structures of resource management from a top-down to a participatory apparatus (Fletcher, 2017). A participatory governance structure involves effecting neoliberal governance through a combination of environmentalities that accounts for economic incentives, local social interaction, trust, and community values (Bluwstein, 2017; Fletcher, 2010; Ostrom et al., 1999). A ‘conservation network’ model (Jepson, 2015; Sørensen and Torfing, 2016) formed between the community members and the NGO is advocated through which both an incentive driven ‘neoliberal environmentality’ and ‘liberation environmentality’ (Fletcher, 2010) are championed. The latter form of environmentality pays attention to the ways through which “local people could self-mobilise to exercise relatively autonomous and locally-directed forms of environmental governance”, and marks a shift from a ‘centralised hierarchical’ towards a horizontal mode of governance (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017 p. 313; Singh, 2013; Cepek, 2011). This ‘conservation network’ governance model supports “democratic, egalitarian and non-hierarchical forms of natural resource management” (Fletcher, 2010, p.178; Fletcher, 2017) including engaging communities in ‘active occupations’ in the forest (Jepson, 2015; Sørensen and Torfing, 2016). Continuous participation in activities within the forest shapes the way individuals perceive their surrounding environment, resulting in the creation of non-material products such as new knowledge, information, and social norms (Ingold, 2000; Ferguson, 1994; Hardt, 2007; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015). Within this setting, environmental monitoring is based on practical exposure and qualitative indicators rather than conventional scientific rigour where empirical knowledge is generated through observation, experimentation and interpretation (Berkes and Berkes, 2009; Klubnikin et al., 2000; Moller et al., 2004; Becker and Ghimire, 2003). Forest landscapes take the role of ‘living laboratories’ or experimental spaces, where experience is used to inculcate and circulate new bodies of knowledge amongst those engaging with it (Almirall and Wareham, 2011; Bulkeley and Broto, 2012). The interaction amongst locally-situated actors and their ecosystem results in the emergence of phenomena such as local leadership (Jepson, 2015; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015). While achieving the larger agenda of the governing NGO, this apparatus empowers the community to implement their own context-driven strategies to conserve the ecosystem and reverse environmental degradation (Gupta, 2005). Implementing this technology of government is critical within regions that are resource-scarce and face changing climatic conditions such as within the study-area of Lokkere Reserve Forest. This study draws on the ‘conservation network’ model to discern the phenomena observed, including the development of ‘empowered and self-mobilised’ community members and how this can be explained in relation to the ‘active and continuous conservation work’ implemented within forest ‘living laboratories’ in the study area.

to the normative (Foucault, 1979). A negative effect of this approach is that it causes one to commit acts which resist the totality of the government (Scott, 1985). Individuals are governed by their local geography and the complex spatial interaction with the surrounding landscapes, often distant from the state’s governing body (Rutherford, 2007). An apparatus is needed to ensure that subjects inculcate moral norms and value systems that make their actions in the forest self-regulated (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017). In this regard, Agrawal (2005a) proposed the concept of a ‘regulatory community’ which counteracts the negative aspects of the fortress model by creating an ‘intimate relationship’ between the community and government. The ‘Regulatory community’ emphasises the establishment of ‘governmentalised localities’ through the adoption of ‘forest councils’ at a local level (Agrawal, 2005b) which are synonymous with an ‘intimate government’. Through this close knit relationship between local communities, leaders, and state officials under one realm, the forest department does not officially constrain the actions of villagers. Instead, this approach employs ‘disciplinary environmentality’ where individuals develop internal belief systems that make them conform to what the state deems as ethically and morally correct (Agrawal, 2005b; Fletcher, 2017; Fletcher, 2010). Within this setting, community members become junior partners of the forest council in protecting the ecosystem and are included in decision-making (Agrawal, 2005a). For example, Village Forest Committees (VFC’s), established in Karnataka since 2005 under the 1993 Joint Forest Practice and Management order, involve community members in the management of forests through casual labour and the monitoring of resource appropriation (Kumar and Reddy, 2007). External parameters such as crime and state enforcement do not play a prominent role. Instead, through resource monitoring villagers understand that if they regulate their actions in the forest and “restrain their current consumption levels their needs will be met indefinitely into the future” (Agrawal, 2005a, p. 229). Through this form of participation new bodies of knowledge emerge from the community’s members. Nonetheless, such strategies are considered to be incomplete and ineffective and seen to represent the interests of central government, thereby maintaining state authority over the forest (Sahu et al., 2017; Singh, 2013; Cepek, 2011). The proliferation of NGOs within the neoliberal community-based conservation domain is regarded as a means to address the abovementioned challenge (Barnes et al., 2017). These organisations commodify natural resources in order to develop sustainable income generation schemes for local communities (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Bluwstein, 2017). They employ a ‘Neoliberal NGO apparatus’ which uses economic incentives to regulate the actions of the community to behave in an environmentally-friendly manner, and marks a shift towards a ‘neoliberal environmentality’ (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Bluwstein, 2017). Rather than changing the internal norms and value systems of individuals, external mechanisms are used to alter the environment and its subjects (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Foucault, 2008; McGregor et al., 2015). Individuals are viewed as rational actors who exhibit environmentally-friendly behaviour through the manipulation of incentive structures, including the introduction of alternative livelihoods (Fletcher, 2010; Gubbi et al., 2008; Mahanty, 2002). For example, communities are engaged in occupations away from the forest, such as tailoring, ecotourism and bicycle repair (Hughes and Flintan, 2001; Mahanty, 2002), although these forms of employment are criticised as often failing to inculcate conservation norms into people’s rationality (Gubbi et al., 2008). Such an approach has also been criticised as it gives excess power to NGOs, international agencies and corporations that use technocratic and expert-driven knowledge to dictate how resources are used and appropriated (Levine, 2002). In the process community members are not provided with adequate autonomy and authority sufficient to act effectively in governing the surrounding ecosystem (Gubbi et al., 2008; Mahanty, 2002; Negi et al., 2012; Lele, 2017). Moreover, local values

2.1. Technology of Government: From a neoliberal ‘environmental subject’ to ‘conservation subject’ in a degraded landscape A key aspect of the ‘environmentality’ literature is the creation of subjects who act positively towards the environment (Fletcher, 2010; Agrawal, 2005b). ‘Environmental subjects’ refers to those “whose thoughts and actions would bear some reference to the environment as 3

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

Fig. 1. The transformation from ‘Environmental Subject’ to ‘Conservation Subject’

Soulé, 1985; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). A ‘conservation network’ that encourages a ‘liberation environmentality’ within the frame of ‘neoliberal governance’ (Fletcher, 2010; Bluwstein, 2017) is proposed as an alternative holistic mechanism. Such a mode of governance caters to community participation and recognises the complex spatiality and socio-ecological impacts of local livelihoods (Darkey, 2012; Jepson, 2015; Roth, 2008). While individuals’ actions in this regard are stimulated by a neoliberal rationality, the interaction between human and non-human elements in the forest ‘living laboratory’ coupled with social interaction and leadership formation at the local level enables them to inculcate novel epistemologies and become empowered and self-mobilised to produce their own ideas and strategies (see e.g., Almirall and Wareham, 2011; Bulkeley and Broto, 2012; Fletcher, 2010; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015; Ostrom et al., 1999). This study proposes ‘conservation subjects’ as an advanced form of ‘environmental subjects’ that have emerged from this process. In summary, ‘conservation subjects’ refers to empowered actors who act independently within the frame of neoliberal decentralised resource governance and adopt context-driven knowledge systems by engaging in active occupations in the forest. This subject-creation process involves the application of biological principles through experimental learning (Soulé, 1985; Almirall and Wareham, 2011; Bulkeley and Broto, 2012) and the incorporation of aspects of human wellbeing such as economic stability from alternative livelihoods (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012). Through this mechanism individuals understand how to improve the condition of the particular ecosystem and socio-economic means through which they benefit. The proposed ‘conservation subjects’ can be seen as an advanced form of neoliberal ‘environmental subjects’ and are not different forms of subjectivity. The subjects go beyond regulating their actions in the forest as they incorporate context-driven knowledge systems, are independent and more interventionist, while achieving the agenda of the expert-driven authority. They are formed through governance mechanisms that champion ‘liberation’ as well as a ‘neoliberal’ environmentality that uses forest livelihoods to empower subjects to collectively develop their own interventions to govern nature. Fig. 1 represents the underlying transformation from neoliberal ‘environmental subjects’ to ‘conservation subjects’ respectively.

they imagine it” (Agrawal, 2005a, p.14). Different forms of environmentality and technology of government create various types of environmental subjects (Fletcher, 2010). For example, state-based ‘sovereign’ and ‘disciplinary’ environmentalities create subjects who in general act in a manner that upholds environmental ethics (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Agrawal, 2005a). ‘Sovereign environmentality’ creates subjects who alter their behaviour in fear of punishment (Fletcher, 2010; Brockington, 2002; McGregor et al., 2015), while ‘disciplinary environmentality’ conditions individuals to understand that certain activities are immoral and need to be altered (Agrawal, 2005a; Cepek, 2011; Fletcher, 2010). The former are generally implemented within the fortress model of government and the latter through the regulatory community. Whilst these environmental subjects have different internal states of being (Fletcher, 2010; Agrawal, 2005a,b), they are all governed to regulate their actions in the forest in order to achieve the state’s agendas. NGO-driven ‘neoliberal environmentality’ aims to shape environmental subjects who are rational, and regulate their actions and conserve the ecosystem by reducing their dependence on the forest as a result of the provision of external economic incentives (Fletcher, 2010; Bluwstein, 2017; Gubbi et al., 2008). In the process, certain forms of expert-driven environmental knowledge, produced by a ‘higher authority’ comprised of conservation elites, is inculcated by the local environmental subjects. This includes the sustainable appropriation of forest resources, reduction in dependence on the forest, and viewing forests as ‘pristine ecosystems’ free from human interference (Gubbi et al., 2008, Mahanty, 2002; Bluwstein, 2017). As evidenced in sections to follow, this study argues that these forms of environmentality and technology of government are not effective in forests that have undergone major degradation. Severely degraded landscapes require individuals who are more interventionist and independently action-driven (Pimbert, 2003) representing a form of ‘advanced environmental subjects’ who are empowered to incorporate local knowledge and implement context-driven solutions. This study argues for a governance mechanism that marks a transition from ‘environmental protection’ (i.e., regulating individual actions through a technocratic approach) to ‘conservation’. The latter promotes a participatory egalitarian mechanism which allows locallysituated actors to incorporate socio-economic aspects and biophysical attributes of an ecosystem into their thought process (Jepson, 2015; 4

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

3. Case study: Lokkere reserve forest

stakeholders such as academics, researchers, NGOs, and state officials. This support included expertise from the Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystem (CEMDE) to provide guidance on scientifically sound methodologies that eradicate Lantana camara, the French Institute of Pondicherry (IFP) was engaged to provide a master list of native species, and the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) catalysed community engagement. The Agasthya Foundation contributed advice on afforestation techniques, and private sector companies provided financial funding through their CSR schemes. This resulted in Junglescapes adopting an expert-driven socio-ecological framework to ensure effective conservation work. The organisation developed a two-fold approach which encompasses, (i) the restoration of ecosystems in a scientific manner, and (ii) providing alternative livelihoods for the community. Interviews and shadowing work revealed the following:

The Lokkere Reserve Forest is located adjacent to the Bandipur Tiger Reserve, the State of Karnataka. The region is drought prone and receives a maximum of 600 mm of rainfall per year (Venkataraman, 2015). The forest landscape has undergone degradation over the past fifty years due to the collection of firewood and the rampant grazing of cattle resulting in the proliferation of invasive species. Research involved interacting with non-tribal (Alukurumbas) and tribal (Jennukurumbas) communities. The former, farming communities that practice agriculture and raising cattle, have been situated permanently in the Lokkere Village. The latter historically resided in the forest as honey collectors but were relocated in 1972 and settled in the Guddakere Village. As the region was resource scarce opportunities to practice their traditional livelihoods did not exist resulting in their seasonal employment as casual farm labourers. During the field-work research three groups of community members were engaged by the first author. The first group were not involved with Junglescapes’ activities, including financially independent farming villagers in the Lokkere Village. The second group involved individuals engaged in Lantana furniture and craft making, including women in the Lokkere Village. The third were community members engaged in restoration activities, encompassing males in Lokkere and males and females in Guddakkere3. Sections 3.1–3.3 below reveal findings from interviews, focus group discussions, shadowing work, as well as reviews of official documents from Junglescapes.

(i) Restoration of ecosystems in a scientific manner Junglescapes aimed to restore ecosystems in a scientific manner. Firstly, they aimed to plant the correct species in the forest with one interviewee stating decisively that, “only native vegetation should be brought back to the landscape”. Positive discourses towards native vegetation were accompanied by a negative outlook towards invasive species, especially Lantana camara. Another interviewee felt strongly that, “the species should be eradicated”, calling it a major fire hazard as it prevented the growth of native vegetation. Secondly, interviewees wanted restoration to occur in a manner that accommodated the local climatic conditions. Given the occurrence of sporadic rainfall in the region it was understood that planting saplings alone was insufficient for restoration to take place, and therefore interviewees proposed that water harvesting be implemented in tandem with afforestation. This led to the organisation working to develop a restoration approach that incorporated scientific temperament and rigour.

3.1. Governance mechanisms in the Lokkere Reserve Forest The activity of individuals in the Lokkere Reserve Forest is regulated by state-based mechanisms such as the 1972 Wild Life Protection Act which prohibits entry to the Bandipur Tiger Reserve, and the 1963 Karnataka State Forest Department Act that prevents the grazing of cattle and collection of forest produce in the Reserve Forest region. In addition to these ‘command and control’ approaches, Village Forest Committees (VFCs) or decentralised governmental bodies were formed in 2005 under the 1993 Joint Forest Planning and Management Order marking a formal partnership between the State and local communities. These committees consist of elected representatives from the local community and members of the Forest Department. The intention was to involve villagers in the management of their surrounding landscape through conceptualising micro plans on forest protection, and engage them in livelihood activities such as casual labour to reduce their dependency on forests and restrict resource usage. However, the laws and the VFCs had little effect on the continuing forest degradation as individuals continued to take their livestock into the reserve forest on a daily basis. Interviewees’ responses suggested that after some initial work the VFC’s existed only as a paper entity and did not play a definitive role in the economic empowerment of community members. These formal structures reinforced hierarchy and slowed decision-making. Over a period of time meetings became infrequent and engagement discontinued with one village interviewee stating that, “a VFC is just a name.” The NGO Junglescapes was established during the same period in 2006 with the initial goal of restoring degraded forests outside protected areas through community engagement, also serving as an alternative governance mechanism to the traditional apparatus used by the state. However, the founders of the organisation had neither prior expertise in forest restoration nor in community-based conservation. Addressing this issue they sought support from a varied group of

(ii) Providing alternative livelihoods for the community Members of Junglescapes wanted the community to reduce their livelihood dependence on the forest but did not believe that ‘command and control’ approaches would be effective. Instead, they sought to regulate the community’s interaction within the forest through the introduction of alternative livelihoods wherein communities were paid to protect their ecosystem. In the words of the CEO of Junglescapes: “You cannot expect communities to carry out conservation on a pro-bono basis”. Livelihood incentives were introduced, (a) in the forest through restoration resulting in direct conservation, and (b) in the village through Lantana craft and furniture making as attempts to ensure that conservation and restoration occurs in a tacit manner. Focus group discussion with Junglescapes employees revealed that the organisation had adopted the mentioned two-fold approach, although dialogue with community members and shadowing work indicated gaps in the implementation. Multiple factors shaped communities’ subjectivities which are addressed in the following section. 3.2. Factors influencing the incorporation of Junglescapes’ objectives and the resulting impact Initially, multiple challenges were faced by Junglescapes including community members’ reluctance to collaborate as they were unsure if they would be paid regularly. Some individuals in the Lokkere Village only engaged with the organisation during drought prone years, preferring to return to farming during periods of abundant rainfall. Others initially showed reluctance to work with members in the Guddakkere Village due to social status and caste difference. Interviews and shadowing revealed that the types of engagement with Junglescapes, i.e., active engagement in the forest or top-down engagement in the village, shaped different perceptions of the community towards, (a) partaking

3 It should be noted that Guddakkere is located in much closer proximity to the forest, and is isolated from the other villages located around the Lokkere Reserve Forest. Therefore, pre-existing employment opportunities for these community members is much less.

5

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

c. Perception towards Junglescapes

in the alternative livelihood model, (b) the forest, and (c) their relationship with Junglescapes.

All three groups of community participated in the research experienced different relationships with Junglescapes. While villagers not involved with the organisation were appreciative of the restoration work their attributions were external in nature. Factors such as hierarchy, self-mobilisation, and empowerment played a dominant role in influencing how the different categories of employees viewed and interacted with the NGO. A top-down relationship between Junglescapes and villagers active within the Lantana craft centre was evident. The community members felt that it was their duty to sell a certain number of Lantana craft items per year with an employee stating, “Only if we sell more pieces can we ask Junglescapes for more income”. They were of the opinion that these products must be of high quality with one elaborating,“We always wonder how Junglescapes feels about the product we are making. If there is any damage we feel scared.” They rigorously followed the training that was provided; “Every day we make up to five or six frames, clean the Lantana barks and apply varnish to the finished product. This is the training that we got from Junglescapes.” Community members became skilled with regard to handling the raw material and were able to produce finished products during a short span of time. “It initially took us four to five days to make a chair, now it takes us only three days.” However, they demonstrated barely any autonomy in the craft production process. No new practices, products and techniques originated during this period. “Whatever Junglescapes tells us to do we do, otherwise we don’t know.” A different dynamic was observed between the organisation and employees partaking in forest restoration where the exchange was symbiotic and non-imposing in nature. The next section elaborates on this point and explores how this relationship led to the formation of a network-based governance mechanism which incorporated contextdriven knowledge systems towards restoration.

a. Perception towards the alternative livelihood model The majority of community members were keen to adopt the alternative livelihoods introduced by Junglescapes, creating a significant socio-economic impact on the region. People engaged in both village and forest-based occupations credited the organisation with augmenting their economic condition, and an increase in pay scales had motivated them to increasingly engage in Junglescapes activities. One interviewee stated, “Previously we were making Rs 150 a day as casual labourers, now through restoration we earn Rs 200”. Activities initiated by the organisation were sustained throughout the year, whereas agricultural labour was seasonal. Another villager engaged in the Lantana craft centre stated, “When we did casual labour we had contracts where we obtained wages for a few days in a year; now we are doing regular work and are getting paid regularly”. Individuals who were not involved in the activities were also appreciative that employment was being generated in the village. These villagers were either too old to take part in physical activity or were occupied on their own farms. Overall, interviews and shadowing suggest that ‘economic actors’ were created and motivated to implement the activities introduced by Junglescapes. b. Perception towards the forest There were multiple layers of perception with regard to how the community viewed the forest, pertaining to what a forest should look like and forest ownership. All interviewees were asked, “What species belong in the forest?” and, “Should Lantana exist in the surrounding landscape?”. During a focus group discussion all the employees engaged in the Lantana craft centre acknowledged that the forest should be healthy, though they were unable to articulate what the forest should look like and which species should be present. It was noteworthy that despite working with Lantana on a daily basis they were uninformed regarding the reason behind the usage of the specie as a raw material, with one mentioning, “We have seen the plant since childhood and use it for firewood. Now, we are trained to use Lantana for furniture and crafts”. Lantana’s role as an invasive species, that prevented the generation of indigenous forest varieties, had not been understood by them. Similar views were propagated by individuals not involved with Junglescapes. For instance, a villager engaged in farming mentioned that Lantana existed in the local landscape over five decades ago, stating, “As children, we used to take the fruit, fry it, dry it and eat it”. Contradictory views were propagated by those engaged in restoration who emphasised that only indigenous trees can grow in the forest. In the word of a villager: “You cannot plant papaya or eucalyputus there”, with many interviewees actively propagating the discourse that Lantana must be eradicated. Another restoration employee highlighted, “I realised that by taking out Lantana in certain plots it helped native vegetation to come back. Lantana causes fire to spread, and is very dangerous.” With regard to forest ownership, a villager not involved with Junglescapes explicitly stated: “The forest belongs to forest officials”, whereas individuals employed in restoration fostered a greater sense of forest ownership. One interviewee said: “Criminal activities cannot occur in our forest, and if outsiders cut trees the restoration community will prohibit them and report it”. When asked to compare the Lokkere Reserve Forest and Badipur Tiger Reserve, many said, “Bandipur is full of Lantana. The kind of trees and wildlife that you see here you will not see anywhere else”. However, this kind of stewardship was not demonstrated by those working in the Lantana craft centre as these women spent most of their time in the village and could not distinguish between the two forests. One of them said: “We do not go into the forest regularly and I think both are okay.”

3.3. Creation of a network-based governance mechanism Initially the relationship between Junglescapes and employees engaged in restoration was hierarchical. During the preliminary visits to the field by the first author between 2012 and 2015, community members followed the exact instructions dictated by the NGO. During this period the landscape was barren and degraded; the conditions had drastically improved as observed during subsequent visits between 2016 and 2019. Research results suggest that this improvement can be attributed to the changing dynamic between the restoration workforce and Junglescapes with the former no longer subservient to the latter. Members of Junglescapes visited the restoration site once every two months which provided the community members with space to better understand the landscape and implement their own decisions without undergoing constant monitoring by the superior organisation. Time without NGO members’ presence in the field allowed them to select local leaders who are well-respected and knowledgeable about the complexity and challenges in implementing restoration. The communities were able to effect changes that they believed were important, and their leaders acted as the interface between them and Junglescapes. One leader stated: “You need to decide how to do an activity in joint decisions with them (community members), treat them with respect, and take the input of elders into consideration”. Another leader highlighted that he would encourage community members to learn from each other: “We always tell them, listen to your teammate, see how he is carrying out restoration.” Additionally, elderly members constantly provided advice to younger villagers: “I would say, dig a little deeper, see how I have done it.” This process facilitated social interaction and allowed community members to work with each other and develop their own strategies based on local knowledge and were context-driven. This resulted in the greater exchange of knowledge and ideas between Junglescapes and the communities. For example, Junglescapes suggested various expert-driven methods of restoration for 6

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

Fig. 2. The network-based governance structure. Note: V1, V2 represents the villages Lokkere and Guddakere present in and around the Lokkere Reserve Forest, while L1 and L2 signifies the leaders who emerged in the process. The red figures denote actors who funded the project, while the blue squares portray institutions or individuals who provided guidance and expertise to the organisation.

technique considered better as it “Helped the soil collect moisture and better retain water”, as argued by a village interviewee. Through monitoring, the restoration employees found that this method allowed many species to repropagate and flourish. With regard to the management of invasive species, Junglescapes suggested that Lantana be removed using the cut-root stock method which involved, “Chopping off the tap root of Lantana to ensure that it does not spread”, as strongly recommended by one of the key research informants. Field observations revealed the use of experimental plots where the technique was piloted, with one villager emphasising: “This is the correct method. While using fire or a machine is easier the seed will get released, and in place of one plant, ten of them will come up”. Villagers initially found this technique challenging, with one stating, “In the process of finding the main stem we had to ensure that we did not kill native plants.” Restoration members tirelessly engaged themselves in perfecting the technique, ensuring that the shrub was chopped at the correct place, leaving it overturned to dry in the sun. Due to these efforts many community members acknowledged the success with the oft-stated comment that, “Many native saplings and even big trees come back”. Over recent years community members who are restoration employees provided training to the forest department in pioneering the ‘cut-root stock’ method to remove Lantana in the Bandipur Tiger Reserve. Having evolved from the community, these new knowledge systems contributed significantly to improving the conditions of the surrounding ecosystem. Field observations made between 2015 and 2019 revealed a stark improvement in ecosystem conditions where trenches were dug, with the hills more densely vegetated. Another notable result was that re-propagation of Lantana is minimal in plots where it was removed, with a community leader stating, “Every three to six months I revisit the plots where restoration has taken place and observed that there is far more native vegetation growth”. In February 2019, and for the first time, the restoration site was caught by forest fire, with community members mentioning that the forest was badly affected. A subsequent field-visit conducted one month later showed that the ecosystem had already made a partial recovery. “If the forest still had Lantana, the impacts of the fire would have been much worse. The saplings have not been too badly effected only because of the trenches,” mentioned one villager.

consideration. Testing was undertaken by the communities based on local knowledge and inherited practices to determine their effectiveness. The resulting techniques were modified in order to suit the conditions of the local landscape. In short, there was a transition from a top-down model to a participatory network-based governance structure which enabled greater autonomy and decision-making by the local community. The network-based governance structure is depicted in Fig. 2. Observations through shadowing work made between 2017 and 2019 highlight how community members demonstrated autonomy, stewardship, and self-mobilisation to adopt their own strategies with regard to afforestation, water harvesting, and invasive species management. Afforestation techniques involving tree planting in hilly regions was the main restoration method used until 2015, with community members noting the trees’ low survival rate and that saplings did not grow properly. Since the region was drought prone, Junglescapes suggested the adoption of water harvesting to help generate green cover through digging large contour trenches on hills. The community, being wellversed with the lay of the landscape, believed that this method would be ineffective in a region that is hilly and rocky with sporadic rainfall. One villager stated, “By digging these trenches we realise it is difficult to maintain a uniform depth of the trench throughout, water will migrate to the lowest depth, and uniform benefits will not be generated for all the vegetation present”. Instead, they considered that a segmented approach would be more beneficial, with one stating, “A short trench as opposed to a large trench is good for the vegetation and minimises damage to the landscape”. These small trenches were initially tested on one hill and were dug next to newly-planted or existing saplings. The communities realised that this action made the ground remain wet for one to one and a half months, resulting in the generation of green cover. This approach was subsequently expanded to other hills and regions. In barren non-hilly regions devoid of vegetation, Junglescapes suggested that the Miyawaki method be used which involved planting saplings close together in levelled square mounds. This was tested in a couple of plots adjacent to the Guddakere Village. The community was of the opinion that this method was not suitable in soil that was dry and decided to loosen the mud to create multiple depressions in 5000 square feet plots. Saplings were planted in each of these depressions, a 7

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

Employees became ‘neoliberal environmental subjects’ as they regulated their actions in the forest because they were paid to do so. However, there were no internal changes in attitudes, perceptions, and values; neither were they self-mobilised to take independent decisions towards the environment. Ultimately, the outcome of this governance structure is similar to that resulting from state-based ‘technologies of government’. Conversely, a ‘conservation network’ (Jepson, 2015; Sørensen and Torfing, 2016) was formed between employees engaged in forest restoration and the NGO, wherein a ‘neoliberal environmentality’ operated in tandem with a ‘liberation environmentality’ (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; McGregor et al., 2015). This mode of governance, as deployed within earlier studies to discern the illegal trapping of the ‘Bali Starling’ and REDD + in Indonesia (e.g., Jepson, 2015; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015), shows that local actors have greater agency in implementing positive outcomes if they are empowered and their economic and cultural needs are recognised and respected. This occurred in the Lokkere Reserve Forest because community members spent time away from the ‘constant visibility’ of the ‘superior organisation’ and were able to implement restoration as a daily ‘epistemic practice’ (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1982). This resulted in collaboration, reduced hierarchy, and stimulated the formation of local leadership. While restoration employees initially acted out of short-term economic interest, progressively they created environments or ‘living laboratories’ (Almirall and Wareham, 2011) within the forest through which they deployed observation and experimentation to understand the effectiveness of certain conservation practices in achieving positive outcomes (Klubnikin et al., 2000; Becker and Ghimire, 2003). This allowed community members to inculcate non-material products in the form of new bodies of knowledge and develop their own ideas; research results conform with previous studies (Hardt, 2007; Rutherford, 2007; Singh, 2013). Knowledge production, as demonstrated within the restoration activity, was not necessarily based on conventional modes of scientific inquiry (Moller et al., 2004), but rooted in local experiences and qualitative indicators (Klubnikin et al., 2000; Berkes and Berkes, 2009). This was demonstrated by the community members developing a revised version of the Miyawaki Method, incorporating a contextdriven water harvesting mechanism through the creation of small trenches, and pioneering the implementation of the ‘Cut Root Stock’ method without harming native vegetation. As research evidenced, since 2007 community members have been engaged in this ‘living laboratory’ that has allowed them to develop a comprehensive restoration methodology which combines the removal of invasive species, water harvesting, and afforestation. To this end, this research argues that the ‘subjectivities’ formed during Junglescapes’ interventions in forest restoration have transitioned from ‘environmental subjects’ to ‘conservation subjects’. There was a notable shift from an environmental protection to a conservation perspective. The ‘conservation subjects’ are empowered and self-mobilised to develop their own ideas and strategies and act to improve the conditions of the surrounding ecosystem. This occurs within the frame of a neoliberal and scientific epistemology generated by the NGO such as the adoption of alternative livelihoods, planting of native species, and the removal of invasive species on the ground. To summarise, conservation subjects in the study area emerged through a governmental apparatus that deployed a ‘neoliberal environmentality’ acting in tandem with a ‘liberation environmentality’, and occurred through the provision of economic incentives and an egalitarian ‘conservation network’ that is self-mobilising and empowering. This article proposes that ‘conservation subjects’ are an advanced form of ‘environmental subjects’, rather than a different form of subjectivity. They are distinct from the subjects produced by other participatory governance mechanisms such as Common Property Regimes, wherein community members develop their own norms and values as opposed to achieving the agendas of an external governing body (Agrawal, 2001; Agrawal, 2007). Attaining such a regime would be

In short, Junglescapes used different types of ‘alternative occupations’ (i.e., in the village and forest) to govern the actions of local communities to improve forest conditions. This created different layers of perceptions in the community with regard to adopting an alternative livelihood, the forest, and their relationship with Junglescapes. The following section discusses how this resulted in the creation of distinct types of subjects and the implications for conservation. 4. Discussion There are ‘multiple environmentalities’ (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017) operating in the Lokkere Reserve Forest. Some of these mechanisms have produced ‘subjects’ which act positively towards the environment, while others have been unsuccessful in their approach. For instance, ‘sovereign environmentality’ involving the ‘fortress model’ (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Igoe, 2004; Brockington, 2002), and ‘disciplinary environmentality’ through the ‘regulatory community’ (Agrawal, 2005a; Fletcher, 2010), have not been effective in shaping subjects that reverse land degradation. Despite the implementation of the 1963 Karnataka Forest Act that restricts communities’ mobility and reduces their consumption of forest resources, individuals commit acts of resistance (Scott, 1985) by taking their cattle into the forest. Moreover, ‘intimate government’ structures such as Village Forest Committees (VFCs) continue to perpetuate bureaucracy and hierarchy (Sahu et al., 2017). It was in this setting that the NGO Junglescapes was established. The organisation departs from the traditional ‘technologies of government’ perpetuated by the state with the two-fold goal of, (a) restoring forests in a scientific manner, and (b) reducing community dependence on the forest. They aimed to achieve this through implementing a ‘neoliberal environmentality’ (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Bluwstein, 2017; McGregor et al., 2015), wherein economic incentives were provided to effect conservation work by engaging communities in, (a) the Lantana craft centre in the village, and (b) restoration in the forest. Such initiatives have existed within India’s conservation domain since the 1990s through the introduction of alternative livelihoods such as bicycle repair, tailoring, beekeeping, and ecotourism (World Bank, 1996; Gubbi et al., 2008; Mahanty, 2002). While local communities welcomed new economic opportunities provided by Junglescapes, the distinct forms of employment impacted differently on how the forest is perceived by the villagers and their relationship with the organisation. Though members engaged in the Lantana craft centre reduced their dependence on the forest for their livelihood, they lacked the ability to integrate conservation into their thought process, a phenomenon also observed in other studies of community-based conservation (see e.g., Jepson, 2017; Soulé, 1985; Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Gubbi et al., 2008). They held views similar to those of community members not involved with NGO activities. Limited access to the forest resulted in a lack of incorporation of empirical knowledge, thus reducing their capacity to become environmental stewards. For example, they were unaware of the necessity to use lantana when making craft items, treating it like any other raw material, which is consequential for desired conservation outcomes as other more potent timber-yielding species could be used to create the same product. This phenomenon can be argued as resulting from the top-down mode of governance experienced between the community and the NGO. Conversely, those engaged in restoration-based occupations which interacted with the forest on a daily basis were able to demonstrate a scientific temperament and ownership over the forest. Thus, their relationship with Junglescapes was non-hierarchical. To this end, this study showed that the ‘neoliberal environmentality’ deployed by Junglescapes had varied effects on the two groups of employees, creating different governance structures and different forms of environmental subjects. In the case of those involved in village-based alternative livelihoods, the governance structure resembled a ‘neoliberal NGO apparatus’. 8

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

Similar to state-based governance mechanisms, village-driven neoliberal occupations produced ‘environmental subjects’ or actors who regulate and restrict their actions in the forest. Such modes of government are not effective in combatting environmental degradation. In contrast, the forest-livelihood component implemented by Junglescapes resulted in the creation of ‘advanced environmental subjects’ or ‘conservation subjects’, i.e., actors who are empowered and self-mobilised to act independently to improve the conditions of the ecosystem within the frame of neoliberal conservation advocated by the NGO. This occurred because ‘local social interaction’ was facilitated by engaging individuals in ‘active occupations’ in the forest, hence allowing them to see the transition of context-driven biological interventions into conservation outcomes. In order to create such subjectivities, a case is made for the implementation of a ‘technology of government’ that combines a neoliberal and liberation environmentality through ‘economic incentives’ and an egalitarian ‘conservation network’. The inculcation of ‘conservation subjectivity’ is impactful as it incorporates holistic context-driven approaches and local knowledge systems into the governmental apparatus. Thus, while there are challenges pertaining to overcoming social barriers and attaining financial self-sufficiency, this model has the potential to create a paradigm shift in forest governance. The impact of the project and the conception of the conservation subject is not only restricted to implementing conservation outcomes in a degraded landscape, but also significant with regard to broader research pertaining to neoliberal natural resource governance and policy. It suggests that it is integral to involve locallysituated individuals in conservation, allowing them to establish an experimental space through which they learn and become stewards in protecting their environment.

ideal for both the communities and Junglescapes to ensure the conservation of the Lokkere Reserve Forest in the long term. In order to do this, Junglescapes must take the necessary steps to overcome the challenges faced including funding and the complexities associated with culture and social status. Firstly, the organisation is fully dependent on CSR funding from the private sector, and other than the Lantana craft centre there is no means to self-fund. Still in its infancy, the centre needs to be expanded and made more profitable. Without a stable income there is a risk that the community will not continue working with Junglescapes. Moreover, evidence from previous studies suggests that external funders that adopt neoliberal schemes may impose conditions resulting in reduced ownership over the forest by local communities (Fletcher, 2010; Fletcher, 2017; Bluwstein, 2017; McGregor et al., 2015; Mahanty, 2002). Though CSR sponsors do not currently interfere with field activities there is no guarantee that this will prevail in the future. Secondly, the NGO has not conducted an adequate study of the prevalent social dynamics such as ‘gender roles’ and ‘caste-based interaction’ in the region. In a traditional ‘scheduled caste’ village such as Lokkere, women’s restricted mobility reduces their opportunity to work in the forest, though this phenomenon is not significant in a tribal village such as Guddakere. Given that only a limited number of the Lokkere Community members were engaged with Junglescapes initially, their reluctance to work with individuals from Guddakkere can be attributed to either caste difference or the prevailing social order. These issues pertaining to identity and culture are noteworthy and inhibit the ability of bodies to carry out effective forest governance in the Global South (Cepek, 2011; Singh, 2013). Overcoming these challenges will mark a shift to a governance model that is completely ‘liberational’, wherein external neoliberal governance modes are not necessarily required. Similar approaches have taken place to restore forests in Indonesia (Budiharta et al., 2016), Nepal (Pokharel et al., 2005; Nagendra et al., 2005), and Orissa in India (Singh, 2013). Despite these challenges, the creation of ‘conservation subjects’ within the current neoliberal regime has resulted in the reversal of land degradation to a significant degree in the Lokkere Reserve Forest. This occurred because the ‘neoliberal environmentality’ adopted by the NGO empowered subjects through a participatory non-hierarchical mode of governance, resulting in the production of a modified restoration method consisting of expert-driven restoration techniques infused with local knowledge. Thus, the creation of ‘conservation subjects’ through a ‘conservation network’, and the provision of neoliberal economic incentives, has deep-seated implications for forest governance. Such a ‘technology of government’ encourages pragmatic and context-driven conservation which is potentially replicable for degraded forests throughout geographies in the Global South. This approach could be relevant in achieving ‘carbon sequestration’ targets through mechanisms such as REDD + in a sustainable and inclusive manner (McGregor et al., 2015; Mulyani and Jepson, 2013). Furthermore, the concept of ‘conservation subjectivity’ can be extended to make a case for incorporating ‘common property resource regimes’ (Agrawal, 2001; Ostrom, 1990) and the recognition of forest rights and land tenure (Barnes et al., 2016; Lee and Wolf, 2018) within the current neoliberal forest governance paradigm.

CRediT authorship contribution statement Manasi Anand: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Mari Mulyani: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Resources, Writing - review & editing, Supervision. Acknowledgements The first author would like to thank Mr. Ramesh Venkataraman, CEO of Junglescapes for letting her use the field site in the Lokkere Reserve Forest, Karnataka. This research was funded by both the School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, and St. Cross College, University of Oxford. References Agrawal, A., 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev. 29 (10), 1649–1672. Agrawal, A., 2005a. Environmentality. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Agrawal, A., 2005b. Environmentality. Curr. Anthropol. 46 (2), 161–190. Agrawal, A., 2007. Forests, governance, and sustainability: common property theory and its contributions. Int. J. Commons 1 (1), 111–136. Almirall, E., Wareham, J., 2011. Living Labs: arbiters of mid-and ground-level innovation. Technol. Analy. Strategic Manage. 23 (1), 87–102. Barnes, C., Van Laerhoven, F., Driessen, P.P., 2016. Advocating for change? How a civil society-led coalition influences the implementation of the forest rights act in India. World Dev. 84, 162–175. Barnes, C., Claus, R., Driessen, P., Dos Santos, M.J.F., George, M.A., Van Laerhoven, F., 2017. Uniting forest and livelihood outcomes? Analyzing external actor interventions in sustainable livelihoods in a community forest management context. Int. J. Commons 11 (1), 532–571. Becker, C.D., Ghimire, K., 2003. Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conservat. Ecol. 8 (1). Behrent, M.C., 2013. Foucault and technology. History Technol. 29 (1), 54–104. Berkes, F., Berkes, M.K., 2009. Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and holism in indigenous knowledge. Futures 41 (1), 6–12. Bluwstein, J., 2017. Creating ecotourism territories: Environmentalities in Tanzania's community-based conservation. Geoforum 83, 101–113. Brockington, D., 2002. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game

5. Conclusion Examining the work conducted by the NGO Junglescapes in the Lokkere Reserve Forest, this paper aims to determine which ‘technology of government’ plays a key role in shaping what is proposed by this study as ‘conservation subjects’. Arriving at a precise answer is a challenge as ‘multiple environmentalities’ operate within a reserve forest setting to produce various forms of environmental subjects. The research findings suggest that different types of neoliberal occupations produced subjects that are distinct from one and another. 9

Geoforum xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

M. Anand and M. Mulyani

Lee, J.I., Wolf, S.A., 2018. Critical assessment of implementation of the Forest Rights Act of India. Land Use Policy 79, 834–844. Lele, S., 2017. Forest governance from co-option and conflict to multilayered governance? Econ. Polit. Weekly 52, 55–58. Levine, A., 2002. Convergence or convenience? International conservation NGOs and development assistance in Tanzania. World Dev. 30 (6), 1043–1055. Mahanty, S., 2002. Conservation and development interventions as networks: The case of the India Eco development project, Karnataka. World Dev. 30 (8), 1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(02)00039-6. McGregor, A., Challies, E., Howson, P., Astuti, R., Dixon, R., Haalboom, B., Gavin, M., Tacconi, L., Afiff, S., 2015. Beyond carbon, more than forest? REDD+ governmentality in Indonesia. Environ. Plann. A 47 (1), 138–155. Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P.O.B., Kislalioglu, M., 2004. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecol. Soc. 9 (3). Mulyani, M., Jepson, P., 2013. REDD+ and forest governance in Indonesia: a multistakeholder study of perceived challenges and opportunities. J. Environ. Dev. 22 (3), 261–283. Mulyani, M., Jepson, P., 2015. Social learning through a REDD+ 'village agreement': insights from the Kalimantan Forests Climate Partnership (KFCP) in Indonesia. Asia Pacific View Point 56 (1), 79–95. Nagendra, H., Karmacharya, M., Karna, B., 2005. Evaluating forest management in Nepal: views across space and time. Ecol. Soc. 10 (1). Negi, B.S., Chauhan, D.S., Todaria, N.P., 2012. Administrative and policy bottlenecks in effective management of Van Panchayats in Uttarakhand, India. Law, Environ. Dev. J. 8, 141. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B., Policansky, D., 1999. Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science 284 (5412), 278–282. Pimbert, M., 2003. Reclaiming diversity and sustainability in community-based conservation. Section I: The complexities of governing protected areas 76. Pokharel, B.K., Stadtmüller, T., Pfund, J.L., 2005. From degradation to restoration: An assessment of the enabling conditions for community forestry in Nepal. Intercooperation, Swiss Foundation for Development and International Cooperation, Switzerland 273, 13. Rai, N.D., Benjaminsen, T.A., Krishnan, S., Madegowda, C., 2019. Political ecology of tiger conservation in India: adverse effects of banning customary practices in a protected area. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 40 (1), 124–139. Rao, R.J., Murali, K.S., Ravindranath, N.H., 2002. Joint Forest Planning and Management (JFPM) in Karnataka: Current status and future potential. Wasteland News 17 (3), 14–27. Roth, R.J., 2008. ‘Fixing’ the forest: The spatiality of conservation conflict in Thailand. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 98 (2), 373–391. Rutherford, S., 2007. Green governmentality: insights and opportunities in the study of nature's rule. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 31 (3), 291–307. Sahu, G., Dash, T., Dubey, S., 2017. Political economy of community forest rights. Econ. Polit. Weekly 52, 25–26. Scott, J., 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven. Singh, N.M., 2013. The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects: Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India. Geoforum 47, 189–198. Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., 2016. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Springer. Soulé, M.E., 1985. What is conservation biology? Bioscience 35 (11), 727–734. Sullivan, S., 2006. The elephant in the room? Problematising ‘new’ (neoliberal) biodiversity conservation. Forum Dev. Stud. 33 (1), 105–135. Venkataraman, R., 2015. Report on the Lantana Management and restoration of scrub forest ecosystem at Lokkere Reserve Forest, Bandipura, Karnataka. [online] p. 7. Available at: < http://indiabiodiversity.org/biodiv/content/projects/projectfc210795-5976-42f6-ad1b-7f96a02dd819/198.pdf > (accessed 26 Aug. 2017). West, P., 2006. Conservation is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua. Duke University Press, New Guinea. World Bank, 1996. India Ecodevelopment Project–– Project Document. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Reserve. Indiana University Press, Tanzania. Budiharta, S., Meijaard, E., Wells, J.A., Abram, N.K., Wilson, K.A., 2016. Enhancing feasibility: incorporating a socio-ecological systems framework into restoration planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 64, 83–92. Bulkeley, H., Broto, C., 2012. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans. Inst. Brit. Geogr. 38 (3), 361–375. Cepek, M., 2011. Foucault in the forest: Questioning environmentality in Amazonia. Am. Ethnol. 38 (3), 501–515. Chopra, K., Dasgupta, P., 2008. Nature of household dependence on common pool resources: an empirical study. Econ. Polit. Weekly 43, 58–66. Darkey, D., 2012. Democratisation of environmental governance: perceptions and attitudes of township women towards the environment. Urban Forum 23 (2), 209–219. Dean, M., 1996. Putting the technological into government. History Human Sci. 9 (3), 47–68. Dreyfus, H., Rabinow, P., 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond Hermeneutics and Structuralism. Harvester Press, Brighton. Ferguson, J., 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: ‘Development’, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Fletcher, R., 2010. Neoliberal environmentality: towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conserv. Soc. 8 (3), 171–181. Fletcher, R., 2017. Environmentality unbound: multiple governmentalities in environmental politics. Geoforum 85, 311–315. Foucault, M., 1979. Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books, New York. Foucault, M., 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Pantheon Books, New York, pp. 1972–1977. Foucault, M., 1990. Governmentality. In: Burchell, G., Gordon, C., Miller, P. (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, pp. 87–104. Foucault, M., 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Springer. Foucault, M., 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Gubbi, S., Linkie, M., Leader-Williams, N., 2008. Evaluating the legacy of an integrated conservation and development project around a tiger reserve in India. Environ. Conserv. 35 (4), 331–339. Gupta, A., 2005. Comments on ‘Environmentality’. Curr. Anthropol. 46 (2), 181. Hardt, M., 2007. Foreword: what affects are good for. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Duke University Press. Hart, H.L.A., 2008. Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press. Hughes, R., Flintan, F., 2001. Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. Igoe, J., 2004. Conservation and Globalization: A Study of National Parks and Indigenous Communities from East Africa to South Dakota. Thompson Wadsworth, Belmont. Igoe, J., Brockington, D., 2007. Neoliberal conservation: a brief introduction. Conservat. Soc. 5 (4), 432–449. Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Psychology Press. Jepson, P., 2015. Saving a species threatened by trade: a network study of Bali starling Leucopsar rothschildi conservation. Oryx 50 (3), 480–488. Jepson, P., 2017. Nature conservation. In: Richardson, D., Castree, N., Goodchild, M.F., Kobayashi, A.L., Liu, W., Marston, R.A. (Eds.), The International Encyclopaedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment, and Technology. Wiley, pp. 8464. Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2012. What is conservation science? Bioscience 62 (11), 962–969. Karnataka State Forest Act, 1963, c.2. Available at: < http://dpal.kar.nic.in/5%20of %201964%20(E).pdf > (accessed: 10 August 2017). Klubnikin, K., Annett, C., Cherkasova, M., Shishin, M., Fotieva, I., 2000. The sacred and the scientific: traditional ecological knowledge in Siberian river conservation. Ecol. Appl. 10 (5), 1296–1306. Kumar, P., Reddy, B.S., 2007. Ecology and Human Well-Being. SAGE Publications India. Lang, C., 2015. India plans to hand over ‘degraded’ forests to plantation companies | REDD-Monitor. [online] Redd-monitor.org. Available at: < http://www.reddmonitor.org/2015/09/24/india-plans-to-hand-over-degraded-forests-to-plantationcompanies/ > (accessed 22 Aug. 2017).

10