Search

Enticing economic benefits for host nations and the notion of large areas of land considered available are often put forward as the main reasons for large-scale land acquisition in many areas of sub-Saharan Africa. However, country-level datasets of land acquisitions seem to indicate a clear divide between a majority of countries engaged in land acquisitions as investors and those involved as targets. We posit that there are socio-economic and governance factors that make the engagement between targets of land acquisitions and investors both unequal and attractive to large-scale investments. We then ask the question: what are the factors that make communities vulnerable to an unequal engagement with large-scale land-investing interests in Sierra Leone? We explore this question using local-level socio-economic data of households and communities in two settings where land acquisitions have occurred in Sierra Leone. We find that socio-economic characteristics of local populations, such as levels of education, the powerful role of traditional chiefs and corruption, make these areas easier targets for such land investments. Investors also exploit the poor economic situation of local areas by making alluring promises of development opportunities. The vulnerability of local people to land investors is further undermined by poor governance at the national level and external politico-financial interest in favor of such investments. Local populations are vulnerable to organized campaigns of land acquisitions by multi-national companies. Proper legal and institutional frameworks are required to protect local interests in these land deals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Political capabilities are vital for marginalised people to negotiate equitable resilience in climate change responses. • How to strengthen resilience in practice and through engaged and empowering research methods remains poorly understood. • Our analysis shows that dynamics of inclusion, exclusion, and oppression are pervasive, even in seemingly inclusive methods settings. • Contestation and resistance are essential to avoid the voices of disadvantaged populations being co-opted in the name of 'resilience building' • Engaged research methodologies to nourish political capabilities require self-reflexivity among development and resilience scholars. Critical scholarship on the intersection of development pathways and climate change responses highlights the roles of power, agency, social difference, intersecting inequalities, and social justice in shaping people's resilience in a rapidly transforming world. Yet, how to precisely increase the spaces in which people experiencing marginalisation can address power asymmetries and strengthen their resilience, particularly from a methodological perspective, remains poorly understood. Here, we build on recent insights into political capabilities and their relevance for equitable resilience practice to assess the role research methods play in not only locating political capabilities but also enhancing them in the context of climate resilience. We present the findings from an in-depth analysis of 57 articles, out of a larger set of 200+ papers, that have employed co-learning/cooperative inquiries, participatory action research, participatory methods, workshops, and/or interviews combined with other approaches as most engaging and potentially empowering methods. Methodological insights through this analysis allow us to examine if and how resilience-in-the-making materialises across uneven power relations and often flawed decision-making processes. We show the pervasiveness of power differentials, even in research settings designed to be inclusive, and how disempowering processes in adaptation, mitigation, disaster management, and social transformation further marginalise already disadvantaged actors. At the same time, we illustrate the transformative role of alliances, resistance, shared learning, and sustaining inclusive approaches. Such nuanced insights into best processes as well as detrimental pitfalls are essential for development scholars and practitioners to help anchor deliberative resilience practice in the everyday lives of disadvantaged populations and foster political capabilities for more just climate action and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]