Organizers: Francis Massé (Dept. of Geography, York University), Jared Margulies (Department
of Politics, University of Sheffield)
Discussant: Dr. Bram Büscher (Wageningen University)
From extralegal rhino and elephant hunting, to illegal timber harvesting, to illegal, unregulated,
and underreported fishing (IUU), and the sourcing and trade of birds and reptiles, wildlife crime
and the responses to it are gaining increasing scholarly and policy attention. The International
Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) defines wildlife as “all fauna and flora”
(CITES, 2017). It defines crime as “acts committed contrary to national laws and regulations
intended to protect natural resources and to administer their management and use” (Ibid). At the
same time, wildlife crime is also transnational in scope, as the transport and sale of illicitly
harvested or otherwise protected species of fauna and flora make up the growing illegal wildlife
trade (IWT), a multi-billion dollar a year industry (UNDP, 2015).
Studying wildlife crime and the responses to it thus requires multiscalar research including the
spaces and sites of extraction, transit, and consumption of wildlife, to the connections and flows
in-between that span the local to the global. This includes spaces of conservation, the open seas,
surrounding communities, ports of entry and exit, global meetings, and (il)legal sites of purchase
and consumption both online and offline (Hansen et al., 2012; Hübschle, 2016a, 2016b; White,
2016). Efforts to combat wildlife crime similarly take us from local areas of sourcing, such as
protected areas (Lemieux, 2014; Lunstrum, 2014), to international forums and regional policing
agreements (White, 2016), and demand-reduction campaigns (TRAFFIC, 2017). Such efforts
involve communities (Massé et al., 2017; Roe et al., 2015) and increasingly more-thanconservation
actors, both state and non-state (Nurse, 2013). Put simply, wildlife crime and the
ways in which it is responded to are not relegated to a certain scale or political-ecological space.
Moreover, while much of the above might reflect or embody familiar geographical, politicalecological,
and socio-ecological dynamics, we are also seeing new and changing dynamics and
spatialities concerning wildlife crime and efforts to combat it (Büscher, Forthcoming). These
dynamics are shaped by a variety of factors including the very labelling of the illicit harvesting
of wildlife as “crime” and those who engage with harvesting as “criminals.” Wildlife crime is
also increasingly framed as a crisis, “war”, or a security issue connected to organized crime and
terrorism that enfold wildlife crime in geopolitical dynamics that are shaping responses to it and
where such responses take place (Büscher, Forthcoming; Duffy, 2014, 2016; Marijnen, 2017).
The result is that wildlife crime, responses to wildlife crime, and the studying of each is taking
place in new spaces and at new scales prompting an engagement with what might be termed
more-than-conservation spaces, actors, and interests. It is these changing geographies and related
political-/socio-ecological dynamics that this session is primarily interested in. Drawing on the
above, there are three key areas of focus for this session:
1. The spaces (and places) of wildlife crime and responses to it;
2. The ways in which the political-ecological and socio-ecological dynamics of wildlife crime
intersect with the geopolitical and political-geographic;
3. How these changes might influence or necessitate new approaches to studying wildlife crime.
Of particular interest are presentations that bring light to novel developments and/or changes to
each with a view to why such changes are occurring and what the implications might be.
Specific topics might include, but are not limited to:
• The changing spatialities and geographies of wildlife crime and the responses to it.
• Legal geographies related to the illicit harvesting of wildlife and the production of
“crime” and “criminals.”
• New understandings and problematizations of what might be considered “wildlife crime”
and wildlife law enforcement.
• The multi-scalar nature of wildlife crime and the connections between local and global
ecologies and political-dynamics.
• Shifting and new geopolitics and political-geographies of wildlife crime and responses.
• The intersection of wildlife crime and related enforcement measures with other sectors
and geopolitical, political-geographical, and political-ecological dynamics.
• Theoretical and conceptual approaches to studying wildlife crime.
• Innovative ways to study wildlife crime and responses to it.
Please e-mail abstracts of up to 250 words to Francis Massé (email@example.com) and Jared
Margulies (firstname.lastname@example.org) by October 15th. Successful applicants will be
contacted no later than October 20th and will need to submit their abstract online to the AAG
Francis Massé, Ph.D. Candidate, York University
Jared Margulies, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, University of Sheffield
Büscher, B. (Forthcoming). From Biopower to Ontopower? Violent Responses to Wildlife Crime
and the New Geographies of Conservation. Conservation and Society.
CITES. (2017). Wildlife Crime. from cites.org/eng/prog/iccwc.php/
Duffy, R. (2014). Waging a war to save biodiversity: the rise of militarized conservation.
International Affairs, 90(4), 819-834.
Duffy, R. (2016). War, by conservation. Geoforum, 69, 238-248.
Hansen, A. L. S., Li, A., Joly, D., Mekaru, S., & Brownstein, J. S. (2012). Digital surveillance: a
novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade. PLoS One, 7(12), e51156.
Hübschle, A. (2016a). Security coordination in an illegal market: the transnational trade in
rhinoceros horn. Politikon, 1-22.
Hübschle, A. (2016b). The social economy of rhino poaching: Of economic freedom fighters,
professional hunters and marginalized local people. Current Sociology,
Lemieux, A. M. (2014). Situational prevention of poaching: Routledge.
Lunstrum, E. (2014). Green Militarization: Anti-Poaching Efforts and the Spatial Contours of
Kruger National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(4), 816-
Marijnen, E. (2017). The ‘green militarisation’of development aid: the European Commission
and the Virunga National Park, DR Congo. Third World Quarterly, 1-17.
Massé, F., Gardiner, A., Lubilo, R., & Themba, M. (2017). Inclusive Anti-poaching? Exploring
the Potential and Challenges of Community-based Anti-Poaching. South Africa Crime
Quarterly, 60, 19-27.
Nurse, A. (2013). Privatising the green police: the role of NGOs in wildlife law enforcement.
Crime, law and social change, 59(3), 305-318.
Roe, D., Cooney, R., Dublin, H. T., Challender, D. W., Biggs, D., Skinner, D., et al. (2015).
Beyond enforcement: engaging communities in tackling wildlife crime: International
Institute for Environment and Development
TRAFFIC. (2017). Consumer Behaviour Change leading to Demand Reduction. Retrieved Sept.
1, 2017, from www.traffic.org/demand-
UNDP. (2015). Combating poaching and wildlife trafficking: A priority for UNDP.
White, R. (2016). Building NESTs to combat environmental crime networks. Trends in
Geopolitics of Displacement and Exclusion: Making and Unmaking of Refugees
AAG, April 10-14, 2018
New Orleans, LA
Organizers: Kara Dempsey (Appalachian State University) and Orhon Myadar (University of Arizona)
As the number of refugees reaches record high globally, refugee issues have been brought to the forefront of political and public debates both nationally and internationally. The public views towards these refugees have been shaped by various mediums that disseminate images and ideas of and about refugees.
This session seeks to conceptualize refugee migration as a critical geopolitical issue and examine the theoretical and practical assumptions surrounding the humanitarian crisis. Invoking Judith Butler’s Precarious Life and Giorgio Agamben’s Bare Life, the session aims to explore the politics of making and unmaking refugees at different scales and in different milieus. Central to our understanding of the politics of refugees is the contradiction between the basic International Relations assumption based on the sanctity of the states and the forces that defy the assumption and the rigidity that comes with it. In exploring the processes of making and unmaking refugees within this contradiction, this session thus seeks to bring together discussions on topics including but not limited to: geopolitics of displacement and bordering (that of exclusion and inclusion; the travel ban); the biopolitics of making/unmaking refugees (coding, registration, incarceration, representation, exploitation and subjugation of refugee bodies); precariousness of refugee lives; refugee stories (production, narration, animation, fetishizing and silencing of refugee narratives; documenting refugee voices), racializing and essentializing tropes of refugees.
CFP: Dimensions of dispossession: Spatialities, temporalities, and (im)materialities
2018 American Association of Geographers Annual Conference, New Orleans Louisiana
Joel E. Correia, University of Arizona Center for Latin American Studies
Max Counter, University of Colorado at Boulder Department of Geography
To be confirmed
Cultural and Political Ecology, Political Geography, Cultural Geography Specialty Groups
Dimensions of dispossession: Spatialities, temporalities, and (im)materialities
Dispossession is a central concept in the critical human geography lexicon with expansive use across various subfields that could almost certainly qualify it as one of Raymond Williams’ famed “keywords” (Williams 1976). The literature on dispossession and its relation to capital accumulation bears witness to its enduring theoretical and empirical significance (See, for example, Marx 1976 ; Harvey 2003; Glassman 2006; Hart 2006; Li 2010a; 2010b; Ballvé 2012; Chakravartty and Fernando da Silva 2012; Perreault 2012; Levien 2015; inter alia). Post-colonial, feminist, and critical social theorists have provided further perspectives that center on the affective aspects of dispossession as a more-than-material process (See, for example, Fanon 1952; Agamben 2005; Casolo and Doshi 2013; Coulthard 2014; Bhandar and Toscano 2016). Building from recent scholarship (Butler and Anthanisou 2013; Gordillo 2014; Fernandez 2017; Counter 2017; Bryan 2017), this session invites papers that explore the multiplicity of dispossession, taking as its point of departure that dispossession is a spatial process shaped by capital accumulation, but also more-than-material, affective, and temporal. In sum, we are interested in work, that through both empirical rigor and theoretical sensitivity, explores the very idea of “dispossession” and how it is manifest through an array of different dimensions.
Relevant questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
- How are multiple facets of the concept dispossession effective for understanding current processes of dispossession as a lived experience?
- What are the limits to the various ways the term “dispossession” is understood and utilized in contemporary critical geographic scholarship? In what ways can those limits be overcome?
- What new aspects might the term further encapsulate?
- How is dispossession manifest vis-a-vis temporal, spatial, and (im)material geographies?
- And, importantly, how might geographers develop a sensitivity to illuminating these multiple dimensions of dispossession in their empirical work?
If interested, please email you 250 word abstract to Joel Correia (email@example.com) or Max Counter (firstname.lastname@example.org) by October 9th. We will notify selected participants by October 15th 2017.
Agamben, G. 2005. State of exception. Atell, K. trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bryan, J. 2017. Oil, indigeneity, and dispossession. In Other geographies: The influences of Michael Watts. Chari, S. Freidberg, S., Gidwani, V., Ribot, J., and Wolford, W. eds. p. 157-168. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Ballvé, T. 2012.. Everyday state formation: Territory, decentralization, and the narco landgrab in Colombia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(4), 603-622.
Bhandar, B. and Toscano, A. 2016. Representing Palestinian dispossession: Land, property, and photography in the settler colony. Settler Colonial Studies, 7(1): 1-18.
Butler, J. and Athanisou, A. 2013. Dispossession: The performative in the political. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Casolo, J. and Doshi, S. 2013. Domesticated dispossessions? Towards a transnational feminist geopolitics of development. Geopolitics, 18(4): 800-834.
Coulthard, G.S. 2014. Red skins, white masks: Rejecting the colonial politics of recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Counter, M. 2017. ‘La doble condición’: landmine victims, forced displacement, and disability in Colombia’s Magdalena Medio. Social & Cultural Geography, 1-25.DOI:10.1080/14649365.
Chakravartty, P. and Fernando da Silva, D. 2012. Accumulation, dispossession, and debt: The racial logic of global capitalism-an introduction. American Quarterly, 64(3): 361-385.
Fanon, F. 1965. Black skins, white masks. New York: Grove Press.
Fernandez, B. 2017. Dispossession and the depletion of social reproduction. Antipode, DOI: 10.1111/anti.1235.
Glassman, J. 2006. Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession, and accumulation by ‘extra-economic’ means. Progress in Human Geography, 30(5): 608-625.
Gordillo, G. 2014 Rubble: The afterlife of destruction. Durham: Duke University Press
Hart, G. 2006. Denaturalizing dispossession: Critical ethnography in the age of resurgent imperialism. Antipode, 38(5): 977-1004.
Harvey, D. 2003. The new imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levien, Michael. 2015. “From Primitive Accumulation to Regimes of Dispossession: Theses on India’s Land Question.” Economic and Political Weekly 50(22): 146-157
Li, T.M. 2010a. Indigeneity, capitalism, and the management of dispossession. Current Anthropology, 51(3): 385-414.
______. 2010b. To make live or let die? Rural dispossession and the protection of surplus populations. Antipode, 41(s1): 66-93.
Marx, K. 1976 . Capital: A critique of political economy volume one. Fowkes, B. trans. London: Penguin Books.
Perreault, T. 2012. Dispossession by accumulation? Mining, water, and the nature of enclosure on the Bolivian Altiplano. Antipode, 45(5): 1050-1069.
Williams, R. (1976). Keywords: a vocabulary of society and culture. Fontana/Croom Helm, London.
Emergent politics of REDD+ governance
Organizers: Adeniyi P. Asiyanbi (University of Sheffield); Jens Friis Lund (University of Copenhagen)
Emerging in the mid-2000s, REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhance of forest carbon stocks) quickly became an important symbol of optimism not only for international action on climate change but also for forest governance, biodiversity conservation, market-based environmental governance, and development. However, a decade on, hope in the scheme has plummeted. Not only has the scheme been largely ineffective, we have also seen fears of ‘green grabbing’ materialize despite the development of safeguards. REDD+ discourse has been mobilized for a variety of purposes, including as innovative financing for private wildlife conservation, for a variety of NGO projects and to finance state budgetary deficits. Above all, REDD+ has remained mired in technical and political challenges that raise important questions (Leach and Scoones, 2015; Beymer-Farris and Bassett, 2012; Cavanagh et al., 2015). Increasingly, critical scholars ask whether REDD+ is another fleeting conservation fad (Lund et al., 2017), and whether it might be time to ‘move on’ (Fletcher et al., 2016).
Yet, REDD+ stumbles on, and emergent global environmental imperatives warrant that we critically examine it and its future within the broader global environmental governance arena. The Sustainable Development Goals agreed in 2015, the New York Declaration on Forests in 2014 and the 2015 global climate deal (the Paris Agreement) all give REDD+ a renewed significance (Angelsen et al. 2017; Savaresi, 2016). Meanwhile, outright and outspoken resistance to REDD+ among forest-dependent and indigenous groups across the world is growing, partly in response to failed expectations. And at a more general level, increasing nationalism raises new challenges for multilateral governance of climate change mitigation and REDD+.
This session invites theoretical, empirical and review papers that reflect on the current and future politics of REDD+ governance. Some questions of interest include: How are actors at various levels reacting to the learnings generated over the past decade? In what ways can nations now be seen to be more ‘ready for REDD+’ than they were a decade ago? How are the major international REDD+ institutions interpreting, evaluating and responding to local outcomes of REDD+ implementation? What discursive strategies are being deployed among REDD+ actors to reframe narratives of the poorly performing scheme? We are also interested in contributions that situate REDD+ within the wider global climate change mitigation, forest conservation, and energy debates. Under the emergent global environmental imperatives, we ask: how are REDD+ institutions, structures and processes being reworked? How are these new imperatives shaping the emergent governance of REDD+? Is REDD+ governance undergoing important structure shifts (e.g. from market-based to aid-based; from centric to polycentric approaches)? What are the implications of these shifts?
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Duchelle, A. E., Larson, A., Martius, C., Sunderlin, W. D., … & Wunder, S. (2017). Learning from REDD+: a response to Fletcher et al. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 718-720.
Cavanagh, C. J., Vedeld, P. O., & Trædal, L. T. (2015). Securitizing REDD+? Problematizing the emerging illegal timber trade and forest carbon interface in East Africa. Geoforum, 60, 72-82.
Beymer-Farris, B. A., & Bassett, T. J. (2012). The REDD menace: Resurgent protectionism in Tanzania’s mangrove forests. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 332-341.
Fletcher, R., Dressler, W., Büscher, B., & Anderson, Z. R. (2016). Questioning REDD+ and the future of market‐based conservation. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 673-675.
Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (Eds.). (2015). Carbon conflicts and forest landscapes in Africa. Routledge.
Lund, J. F., Sungusia, E., Mabele, M. B., & Scheba, A. (2017). Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Development, 89, 124-139.
Savaresi, A. (2016). The Paris Agreement: a new beginning?. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 34(1), 16-26.
I am willing to organize a session or more to electoral geography for the AAG meeting in New Orleans April 10-14, 2018. If you have research devoted to recent elections, gerrymandering, and related aspects to electoral geography please get in touch with me.
University of Wisconsin, River Falls
Urban Geography; Political Geography; Ethics, Justice & Human Rights; Socialist & Critical Geography Specialty Groups
Call for Papers: AAG New Orleans, 10-14 April 2018
Entreprepreneurial urbanism 2.0: Local and comparative perspectives
Session organizers: Ugo Rossi (University of Turin, Italy) and June Wang (City University of Hong Kong)
We live in times of ambivalence in which many traditional wisdoms are now revisited/retaken to allow two-sided readings. Gaining centrality of such scholarly debates are cities, which illustrates the ambivalences, contradictions and promises of existing global societies. Using “urban entrepreneurialization 2.0”, this session invites reflections on the present urban process that has unfolded both new-neoliberal economies and insurgent practices of municipal, community-based democracy.
First of all, the term entrepreneurship deserves revisiting. Post-recession societies offer a powerful illustration of what Michel Foucault identified as the ‘entrepreneur of the self’ in his writings on neoliberal governmentality (Foucault, 2005). In this regard, one can observe a qualitative shift with respect to the entrepreneurialization of urban governance that David Harvey brought to light in the late 1980s (Harvey, 1989). The writing by Hard and Negri in their recent book Assembly retakes the word to argue for collective bio-political agency of the multitude to demonstrate autonomy in the production in factories and beyond. Nevertheless, the flip side of the happy and self-actualisation project promised by “self-entrepreneualism” and “everyone has become an entrepreneur” has also witnessed an array of well documented critiques on self-disciplinary and self-exploitation. With an emphasis put on procedural reading, we uses the term ‘entrepreneurialization of city life’ to call for studies that involve not only the governance structures of capitalist cities but the mobilization of society at large and life itself for both capitalist and non-capitalist purposes.
Amalgamating urban and entrepreneurialization, this session also tends to revisit the machinic assemblage. In other words, how to study the relational interaction of body-environment and the anthropogenetic constitution of urban economies and societies. For some, the ‘mobilizing potential of place’, that is, the ambient power of place is a process of encounter, where various human and non-human elements assemble in a way that particular moral value or social norm is enacted, sensed, felt, and also reacted (Allen, 2006; Roberts, 2012; Thrift, 2007). For some others, machinic subjectivity is inherent in the ‘cooperative intelligence’ of human being, such that “a multitude is formed capable of ruling and leading itself to conceive and carry out strategic goals” (Hardt and Negri, 2017). In one way or another, today’s urban environments offer evidence of a wide array of practices, projects and experiments – on both capitalist and non-capitalist sides – that draw on what we have defined ‘the mobilizing potential of place’ and the cooperative intelligence of human being.
If you are interested in taking part in this session, please contact June (email@example.com) and/
Ahmed, S. (2010) The Promise of Happiness. Durham, NC: Duke UP
Davies, W. (2015) The Happiness Industry: How the Government and Big Business Sold us Well-Being. London: Verso.
Foucault, M. (2008), The Birth of Biopolitics. Lectures at the College de France, 1978–79, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2017). Assembly. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler B: Human Geography 71(1)
June Wang. PhD : Assistant Professor of Urban Studies : Dept of Public Policy : City University o Hong Kong : Phone: (852) 3442 8707 : Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
CfP AAG 2018 – Contemporary U.S. colonialisms: Crises and Politics.
Organizers: Sasha Davis (Keene State College) and Scott Kirsch (University of North Carolina)
Recent hurricane disasters in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the targeting of Guam during disputes between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, have highlighted the dangers and oppressions that accompany contemporary colonial relationships in U.S. territories. Given the continued relevance and impact of colonialism in the current era, this session invites papers that examine the consequences of modern colonialism as well as help develop theories, tactics and strategies – legal and extralegal – for transforming these colonial relationships.
While the political statuses between the U.S. and territorial possessions formalize the second-class citizenship of many territorial residents, the contemporary imposition of colonial processes extends beyond ‘official’ colonies. While there are places with territorial or commonwealth statuses such as Puerto Rico, Guam, The U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands that are clear examples of formally restricted governance, there are other places such as foreign communities hosting U.S. military bases, countries in ‘Free Association’ with the U.S., and culturally distinct spaces within the official boundaries of the U.S. such as Hawai’i and indigenous lands across North America that are subject to U.S. policies, but which have limited or non-existent formal mechanisms for producing or affecting these policies. We therefore invite papers that focus on any geographical context where U.S. colonial political processes continue to operate.
Possible topics can include, but are not limited to:
The production of vulnerability in colonies (environmental, infrastructural, military)
Legal geographies of contemporary colonialism
Colonialism, austerity and neoliberalism
‘Insularity’ as political category
Militarization and colonialism
Research methodologies in colonial contexts
Theoretical perspectives on sovereignty and territory
Case studies of resistance and sovereignty movements
Solidarity activism and colonized places
Migration, mobilities and citizenship in colonial settings
United Nations decolonization processes
Resource extraction in colonial settings
- Please submit an abstract or description to the organizers by October 20th, 2017 for consideration in the session.
- You must complete your registration and abstract submission at annualmeeting.aag.org/submit_
an_abstract by October 25th, 2017.
Sasha Davis, Department of Geography, Keene State College. Sasha.email@example.com
Scott Kirsch, Department of Geography, University of North Carolina firstname.lastname@example.org