X Close

Encyclopaedia of Political Ecology

Home

Menu

States of Nature: Environmental Policymaking: Sustainable Development through formal state-based regulation in the urban Global South

By ucfuwu2, on 10 June 2014

Mallika Kosolsak and Jiayi Wang

 

Key Words: sustainable development, hazard, eviction, housing upgrade, community participation, bottom-up approaches

 

Introduction

This essay examines the national slum and squatter upgrading programme (Baan Mankong) launched by the government in Thailand in 2003 and implemented through the Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI). We will evaluate whether this case met the criteria of sustainable development.

Background

The programme aims at providing housing loans and infrastructure subsidies to poor communities to help upgrading and improve new houses. This support is given to community organizations, which are formed by the poor people who take part in the projects as well as those who work with them, such as city authorities, other local participants, academies and national agencies. It attempts to “go to scale” by aiding thousands of community-driven initiatives on city-wide plan. Urban poor networks can design and manage plans themselves towards developing long-term, comprehensive solutions to land and housing issues in cities in Thailand (Boonyabancha, 2005).

 

Case Study: “Bang Bua community”

“Bang Bua community” was the first canal-wide community upgrading project in Bangkok. There are 3,400 families living in twelve informal communities along Bang Bua Canal. They joined this programme in 2004 after living in with the risk of fire hazards and eviction for a long time. The project involved building same size houses, which enhanced a more egalitarian neighborhood and encouraged connectedness between social groups. Furthermore, a public access pathway along the canal was built for walking, biking, vending, playing, and emergency vehicles (Smithsonian, 2011).

The result of upgrading does not only improve the built environment, but it has many social benefits within the community. For example, a baan klang (“welfare house”) was built for elderly and disabled people who need care and this has become a model for other communities. The community also set up a welfare fund to subsidize school fees for the poorest children, for libraries, and play groups for all children and so on (Smithsonian, 2011).

 

The Political Ecology Framework and Sustainable Development

The Brundtland Report (1987) defines sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (The Bruntland Report, 1987) Social, environmental and economic sustainability are the three main aspects of sustainable development. Sustainable development is the core principle of the “Baan Mankong” programme. It shows how sustainable actions can be undertaken in with a bottom-up approach and adapts sustainability to different scales (from local to national and from national to international).

Policy Implementation

The policy of upgrading and developing community housing at a national scale was “people-driven”, and consisted in a new form of governance that shifted away from top-down methods. Fig. 1 presents the administrative structure which divides the upper level, where most decision-making occurred, from the community level, where operations were implemented (Posriprasert and Usavagovitwong, 2006).

At the institutional level, the Thai government launched the  project in 2003 (Archer, 2010), regarded as one of its major policies. The Community Organization Development Institute (CODI), as the main actor and facilitator of program, was in charge of the overall process of the project, which involved guidance, supervising and funding processes and outcomes. CODI established a collaboration with other institutions including NGOs, banks, local universities, planners and architects for long-term investments (Archer, 2010). These organizations had the capacity to help communities use local resources sustainably and to control and manage pollution in the long run. Local government authorities were in turn responsible for financial support. This included housing and land loans, infrastructure subsidies and administrative subsidies.

On the “operations” level, the working group for housing development (WGHD) was set up to collect data, survey, to plan and manage the project. The community groups and organizations that fall in this bracket were key actors and stakeholders of the project.

The administrative structure therefore satisfied social justice, as the people’s voice was heard and put at the center of the city’s long-term development. It provided opportunities and created a space for interaction between poor communities, government authorities, professionals and NGOs to establish cooperative work on the housing problems and long-term development in cities.

 pupa

Fig. 1: The main administrative structure

The implementation of policy requires several steps that involve the programme’s key actors and stakeholders. Because each community had different degrees of willingness to participate, the first step was to explain its aim and identify stakeholders. The second was to organize meetings within communities to name a joint committee and continue to upgrade plans (Community Program and Lanka, 2008). The final stage was to integrate pilot projects in the city-wide development. In this process, every stakeholder had equal rights to participate and share his or her ideas.

 

Reasons for success

The main reasons why the implementation of the policies was successful fall under social, ecological and economic considerations. On the social level, people-driven policy was the key to effectiveness. A bottom-up policy implementation approach allows urban low-income community organizations to control their own funding. In terms of housing strategies, all stakeholders had equal rights to participate and design their own settlements. In this way, a strong sense of participation and inclusion came to flourish. Although the poor were perhaps “weak” in financial terms, they are particularly strong in terms of working collectively. Restoring balanced ecological conditions was a result of people demanding clean and secure shelter, safe water and infrastructure for long-term sustainable development. On the economic level, government agencies provide funding directly in the form of housing and land loans, infrastructure subsidies and administrative subsidies, allowing residents to invest their savings elsewhere. Each community has a savings group to manage budgets efficiently. “People-driven” policy was the inspiration behind the project that enabled stakeholders to control the overall process and ensured it was a success.

Conclusion

There are many lessons to be learnt from the programme. In order to acheive sustainable development we must be simultaneously concerned with the environmental, the social and the economic. The aim is to further a sustainable present and future. Sustainable development also aims to enhance a strong, healthy and socially just society, meeting the basic needs of all people within the communities, improving their wellbeing and building a strong society with equal rights. There are notable benefits that emerge from social groups, specialists, local authorities, local institutions and universities working together with local communities. Finally, bottom up approaches may be a sustainable way of implementing large-scale management. Local people should play an important role in driving change in their localities. This would help to create the sense of community, the sense of belonging and the sense of place. Local people should participate in every process, including in decision-making and in the management of budgets. Finally, investment should focus not only on community development but also on social growth, harnessing the potential of the people to build sustainable communities themselves.

 

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Kosolsak, M. and Wang, J. (2014). Bangkok – Slum Upgrading | UCL Encyclopaedia of Political Ecology. [online] Available at: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/esd/category/bangkok-slum-upgrading-project/

 

Bibliography

Archer, D., (2010), Empowering the urban poor through community – based slum upgrading : the case of Bangkok , Thailand. Empowering the urban poor, 46, pp. 1–11.

Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR), (2008), ‘A conversation about upgrading at Bang Bua’, International Institute for Environment and Development, pp. 1–10.

Baan Mankong Collective Housing Website. [Online]. Available at: http://www.codi.or.th/housing/aboutBaanmankong.html. [Accessed 11th March 2014].

Boonyabancha, S. (2005), ‘Baan Mankong: going to scale with ”slum” and squatter upgrading in Thailand’, Environment and Urbanisation, 17, pp. 21-46.

Design Other 90 Website, (2011), ‘Bang Bua Canal Community Upgrading’. [Online]. Available at: http://www.designother90.org/solution/bang-bua-canal-community-upgrading. [Accessed 3rd April 2014].

Posriprasert, P., and Usavagovitwong, N., (2006), ‘Communities’ Environment Improvement Network : Strategy and Process toward Sustainable Urban Poor Housing Development’, Journal of Architectural/ Planning Research and Studies, 4, pp. 53–70.

United Nations, (1987), ‘Brundtland Report, Our Common Future’, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

Communities, Locality, Resilience and Sustainability : Achieving Resilience in the Urban Global South.

By ucfuwu2, on 10 June 2014

Katherine Ma and Martina Heuser

 

Key words: sustainable development, resilience, locality, scale, urban development, community participation.

tk

Toilets in the slums in Mumbai before (left) and after (right) the implementation of the programme. Image 1: Mammoth Website (2011) Image 2: MHS Blog (2010)

.

Introduction

This essay examines the framework of sustainable development, with special attention to resilience, locality, scale and community. These terms will be analysed through the case study of the Mumbai Slum Sanitation Programme by Shack/ Slum Dwellers International (SDI). The case will be evaluated by illustrating its achievements and possible drawbacks.

Background of SDI

SDI is a transnational Federation, founded in 1996 that operates as a network of national federations of local slum dwellers at different scales in 33 countries worldwide. It links urban poor communities from cities across the Global South in order to transfer and adapt problem-solving strategies (Tandon, 2010). Their main aim is to develop inclusive, « pro-poor » cities, which can be achieved only when ‘the urban poor [are] at the centre of strategies for urban development’ (SDI Website).

Case Study Mumbai: Slum Sanitation Programme

The sanitation situation in Mumbai is an example where pro-poor provision is lacking, as half of the city’s population lack adequate toilets. Whereas the city provides public toilets in poor living areas, they are maintained by the Conservancy Department of the government. This leads to no real local « ownership » and the toilets quickly become defunct. Furthermore, communities typically cannot decide on the location of the toilet, which means that they are built where it is not necessarily convenient for the local population.

In 1994, the municipal authorities decided to start a new programme to provide toilets to one million people living in Mumbai’s slums. In order to improve the implementation of the programme, a new mechanism was put in place to involve communities in the process of design, construction, management and maintenance of the toilets. The SDI Federation was one of three contractors selected to construct these community toilets. By 2005 more than 328 toilet blocks and 5,100 seats were built (World Bank, 2007).

The positive outcomes are visible on multiple levels. First, the toilets were located so that all members of the population were able to access them. Moreover, the toilets have improved lighting and ventilation systems, so that it was safe to go to the toilets, an important consideration for women and children at night, who benefit from improved  privacy. In some blocks, small seats were built especially for children, as well as toilets suitable for the elderly and disabled. Finally, there was sufficient water for cleaning and the community-based maintenance means that the toilets are still functional years later.

The involvement of the community in the planning and implementation process of new toilet blocks meant that a less expensive and more efficient way of meeting the sanitation needs of slum residents was achieved.

Applying the Political Ecology Framework

a. Sustainable Development

In the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainable development is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Bruntland Report, 1987). Social, environmental and economic sustainability are the three main pillars of sustainable development.

Sustainable development is the core value of SDI. SDI aims to build sustainable communities and to show how sustainable actions can be undertaken with a bottom-up approach, especially in social and environmental aspects. It also adapts sustainability to different scales, from local to national and from national to international.

b. Resilience 

Resilience is a measure of persistence of systems and of their ability to absorb change and disturbance and still maintain the same relationships between populations or state variables (Holling, 1973). SDI introduced this system of adaptation and change to slums in Mumbai and other places by involving local people’s capacities. The process of planning and construction empowered people, and the new toilets improved people’s living standards.

SDI also acts as a bridge between communities and government to resolve local problems. This relationship can be straightened when the two parties work hand in hand to tackle the problem; or it can be weakened, if communities develop an ability to manage issues themselves, without any help from the government.

c. Community

Community resilience refers to people working together and helping themselves in times of adversity. It is often understood as a form of empowerment, with people attempting to manage their own problems. In this sense, SDI can be said to have empowered communities, which were place-based – shack or slum. The process of empowerment was positive for a redistributive sense of justice within classes or social strata, as people are involved in the process of planning and construction. This engenders an improved condition in what Fraser (2003) calls ‘politics of recognition’.

 d. Scale

As mentioned, sustainable development discourses are bound by scale. However, scales are always produced, rather than priori or neutral. They are the product of political decisions. When decisions are rescaled, different actors acquire influence and different values get promoted or relegated (Griffin 2013). In the SDI context, this could happen when empowerment takes place in the community and the roles of different actors changed.

 e. Locality

Local can be a site of agency in favour of changes. SDI has therefore adopted a bottom-up approach, implementing strategies at local levels. Where these have been successful, they have been applied to other regions. Hence, the local can be an effective scale at which to implement change.

.Conclusion

Is SDI moving in the right direction towards resilience in the Global South? In assessing the organization, we can find some weaknesses and some notable achievements. SDI uses a global network to reach governments, international organisations and donors. Moreover, their positive results from various cases around the world convince authorities of the effectiveness of the community-led approach. Furthermore, there is evident success of capacity-building processes at different scales –individual, organizational and systemic. Finally, SDI creates a space for local action and mobilisation, brings communities together and enables them to work on finding solutions to multiple issues including education, health and domestic violence.

However, we can also critique SDI’s scheme for resilience from different angles. While resilience can be used as a governance tool, we must pay attention to ‘who has the power to determine what is acceptable, to whom, via what political process’ (Hudson, 2009: 13). Moreover, as localism is not inherently sustainable or democratic (Brown and Purcell, 2005), it is worth examining power dynamics in the communities. For example, who speaks for the slum dwellers and what happens if there is disagreement? It is possible that the state displaces previous governmental responsibilities onto communities as a way of reducing its own responsibilities (Norris et al., 2007). These are the questions that require further investigation in order to unravel whether the implementation of resilience is truly successful.

.

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Ma, K. and Heuser, M. (2014). Communities, Locality, Resilience and Sustainability : Achieving Resilience in the Urban Global South. | UCL Encyclopaedia of Political Ecology. [online] Available at: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/esd/communities-locality-resilience-and-sustainability-achieving-resilience-in-the-urban-global-south-a-case-study-of-shack-slum-dwellers-international-sdi/

.

Bibliography

Brown, C. and Purcell, M. (2005) ‘There’s nothing inherent about scale: political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon’, Geoforum, 36 (5), pp.607-624.

Derissen, S., Martin F. Quaas, and Stefan Baumgärtner, (2011), ‘The relationship between resilience and sustainability of ecological-economic systems’, Ecological Economics, 70 (6), pp. 1121-1128.

Fraser, N., and Honneth, A., (2003), Redistribution or recognition?: a political-philosophical exchange, (London : Verso).

Gibbs, D., and Krueger R., (2007), ‘Containing the Contradictions of Rapid Development?’, in Krueger, R and Gibbs, D (eds.) The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the United States and Europe. (New York : Guilford Press),  pp. 95-122.

Holling, Crawford S., (1973), ‘Resilience and stability of ecological systems’, Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4, pp. 1-23.

Hudson, R., (2009), ‘Resilient Regions in an uncertain world: wishful thinking or practical reality ?’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society,3 (1),pp.11-25.

Mammoth (2011),  Website. [Online]. Available at: http://m.ammoth.us/blog/2011/09/fecal-politics/.

MHS Blog.  (2010), [Online]. Available at: http://microhomesolutions.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/european-style-shared-bathrooms-in-indian-slums-it’s-acceptable-workable/.

Patel, S., Burra, S., and D’Cruz, C., (2001),’Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI) – foundations to treetops’, Environment and Urbanisation 13 (2), pp.  45-60.

Satterthwaite, D., (2001), ‘From professionally driven to people-driven poverty reduction: reflections on the role of Shack/Slum Dwellers International’, Environment and Urbanisation 13 (2), pp. 45-60.

Shack/Slum Dwellers International (SDI) Website. [Online]. Available at: http://www.sdinet.org. [Accessed: 1st December 2013]

Tandon, S., (2010) ‘The South-South Opportunity Case Stories: Slum Dwellers International – Mutual learning for human development’, [Online]. Available at: http://www.impactalliance.org/ev_en.php?ID=49485_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC. [Accessed: 1st December 2013]

Watts, M. (2004), ‘The sinister political life of community: Economies of violence and governable spaces in the Niger Delta, Nigeria’, Berkeley, California: University of California, Institute of International Studies, Niger Delta Economies of Violence [Working Papers 3].

United Nations, (1987), ‘Brundtland Report, Our Common Future’, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.

Good Governance in the Niger Delta

By ucfuwu2, on 10 June 2014

Julia Mauer and Evelyne Saelens

.

Key Words: sustainable development, good governance, stakeholder negotiation.

.

Introduction

There have been many attempts at achieving sustainable development in the Global South. Good governance techniques that recognise the interconnection between nature and society have more of a potential to achieve sustainable development than those that do not. This report will assess the success and/or failure of such techniques in the case of the Niger Delta.

Background

The Niger Delta is an oil-rich region in the South of Nigeria that makes up about 7.5% of the country’s landmass. Nine of Nigeria’s 36 states are typically considered part of the Niger Delta regions – Abia, AkwaIborn, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo and their rivers.

There has been an on-going conflict in the Niger Delta since the 1990s over tensions between foreign oil corporations, who have a very strong presence in the area and the citizens of the Delta region, particularly minority ethnic groups, who feel they are being exploited and who are not receiving any socioeconomic benefits from the oil industry’s activity. Zalik describes the region as one ‘marked by a history of state and petroleum industry collusion both in social repression and environmental destruction’ (Zalik, 2004: 401). Social control of the Delta has largely relied on ‘petro-violence’, a term coined by Michael Watts (2001) to describe the joint security imposed by the Nigerian military and oil companies to police their installations and the environment of social unrest that surrounds petroleum extraction.

The rights of the inhabitants of the Niger Delta region have been undermined or ignored altogether both by the government and foreign oil corporations. Petroleum extraction is an environmentally destructive process, but one that has high economic returns. The inhabitants of the Delta are not being compensated for the destruction of their lands, and continue to lack basic needs. Shell is the most prominent corporation in the Delta and is a source of much controversy. As Zalik notes, ‘Shell remains the most visible manifestation of social control and regulation in a region that is otherwise bereft of basic services, including transportation and infrastructure’ Zalik (2004: 411). Resident of the Niger Delta reportedly complained that ‘in the Niger Delta Shell is the state’ (Zalik, 2004), indicating inadequate governance from the central government.

 

Applying the political ecology framework.

1.      Political Ecology

Michael Watts is a prominent scholar in the field of good governance and he defines Political Ecology as follows: ‘Political Ecology is the study of the relationships between political, economic and social factors with environmental issues and changes’ (Peet and Watts, 1996: 6). Political ecology understands the relationship between society and nature in the context of growing capitalism. Political ecology is, then, an appropriate lens through which to examine the Niger Delta because of the presence of foreign oil corporations fulfilling their capitalist imperative of profit accumulation through exploitative activity.

2.       Sustainable Development

For this case study we must consider the goals of sustainable development, which incorporate economic, social and environmental aspects. Achieving sustainable development should cover these 3 aspects:

sd

Figure 1. Sustainable Development Framework

Defining social injustice rather than social justice is more fitting here, given that social justice is achieved through the eradication of social injustices. We use Barry Levi’s definition of social injustice as the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens; or as he puts it, as the ‘denial or violation of economic, sociocultural, political, civil, or human rights of specific populations or groups in the society based on the perception of their inferiority by those with more power or influence’ (Levi, 2005). Environmental injustice relates to the following: unequal access to environmental resources, unequal distribution of hazards, and the interdependence of all species, and right to be free from ecological destruction (Principles of Environmental Justice, 1991)

An important notion within the framework is the distinction between processes and outcomes. In the context of the case study of the Niger Delta, we argue that both processes and outcomes are equally important. A just process does not guarantee a just outcome and vice versa. Good governance is the attempt to align just outcomes with just decision-making processes, in order to achieve socio-environmental justice.

3.       Good Governance

Swyngedouw defends that beyond-the-state-government (institutional arrangements of “governing”) is one of the new governance techniques. Graham (2003) argues that good governance should involve different actor groups.

jules

Figure 2.

Source: Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre, T., (2003), ‘Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century’ Policy Brief no.15, Institute on Governance, p.1

A dark shadow on the Niger Delta

The current problems in the Delta can be placed within the framework as follows:

  1. Social Injustice
  • Nigerian population stays poor despite abundant oil resource extraction
  • Local government fails to deliver basic services to the population
  • Oil revenues go to federal government

     2. Environmental Injustice

  • Oil spills are environmentally and thus socially destructive (political ecology position of link between environment and society)
  • Shell’s extractive practices cause the oil spills (through poor maintenance of pipes, etc.) but the inhabitants of the Delta are those that are burdened with the consequences
  • Petroleum extraction is a highly polluting activity

 

Shell’s Initiative

Over the past two decades, Shell has intervened in attempts of good governance initiatives in the Delta region. Initially, they had been working on a community assistance program but ‘in response to considerable social unrest and bad press in the mid-1990s, Shell adopted a new approach in dealing with the Niger Delta in 1998, known as partnership development’ (Lapin, 2000, cited  in Zalik, 2004: 402). They aimed to achieve a ‘social licence to operate’ – something many foreign oil companies sought at the time. They described the approach as being based on the 4 P’s: ‘peace, partnership, progress and prosperity’ (Zalik 2004: 408). The initiative arose because of a lack of state involvement and thus a need for a different form of governance.

Unfortunately, there were many problems with this initiative. The initiative was inherently contradictory ‘due to the financial incentive that is the industry’s bottom line […] the oil industry’s practices contribute to shaping the political economy of conflict in the Delta’ (Zalik, 2004:  407). Furthermore, the initiative was not sustainable because it was owned and therefore directed by Shell, as opposed to the local community. Lastly, Zalik noted that despite the improved image, violence has increased even further and states that ‘the partnership approach has not resolved the socio-environmental context of violence surrounding operations’ (Zalik, 2004: 410).

Developing Good Governance in the Niger Delta

More recently, there have been further efforts towards good governance in the Delta to improve social, economic and environmental justice and ultimately move towards sustainable development. The Department for International Development (DFID) funded a five year collaborative programme with Living Earth Foundation (a British NGO) and the Academic Associates Peace Works (A Nigerian NGO) ‘to encourage collaboration between government and civil society in the Niger Delta in order to improve governance and transparency in the region and by so doing, improve the delivery of basic services critical to the reduction of poverty’ (DFID website). The programme draws on the commitment and expertise of five Nigerian NGOs with ample experience of working with all stakeholders in the region. Working collaboratively, they offer a unique opportunity to engage government, civil society and the oil industry in engendering significant changes in behaviour and practice, which are pre-requisite to sustainable development (Living Earth website).

The project aims are the following:

  1. Better provision of basic services in Niger Delta
  2. Reducing poverty
  3. Enhanced effectiveness of civil society in the Niger Delta

The project activities are the following:

  1. Developing partnerships between local government, NGOs, communities and oil companies working in the Niger Delta
  2. Supporting the Nigerian government’s current SEEDS and LEEDS (State/Local Economic Empowerment Development Strategies) reforms through a participatory process involving a broad based stakeholder group
  3. Facilitating the implementation of pilot projects in order to demonstrate best practice approaches
  4. Building the capacity of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) to question malpractice and demand better governance
  5. Engaging the wider public in the Niger Delta to identify the principles of governance and to promote transparency with their own traditional core values

The project activities make clear that beyond-the-state-governance and the involvement of many different actor groups are extremely important aspects of this project.

Conclusion

The Living Earth Project was still in the process of being assessed at the time of writing. We therefore cannot comment on its success in achieving good governance in the Niger Delta. It is important to note that engaging civil society does not automatically lead to good governance and we must question who is “responsible” for governing space. However, to achieve a certain level of sustainable development, it seems more effective to look at a greater scope that includes many stakeholders despite Graham’s (2003) argument that including more stakeholders makes ‘governing’ more difficult. Hence there is an on-going tension between the outcome and the process of good governance that is difficult to resolve given the importance of both. Nevertheless, adopting a political ecology framework enables us to navigate between the two.

 

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Saelens, E. and Mauer, J. (2014). Good Governance in the Niger Delta | UCL Encyclopaedia of Political Ecology. [online] Available at: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/esd/good-governance-in-the-niger-delta/

.

Bibliography

Barry S., L., Victor W., S., (eds.) (2003), Social injustice and public health,   (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Delegates to the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, (1991), Principles of Environmental Justice, Washington DC, [Online]. Available at: http://www.ejnet.org/ej/principles.html. [Accessed 12th April 2014].

Graham, J., Amos, B., Plumptre, T., (2003), ‘Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century’ Policy Brief nNo.15, Institute on Governance.

Living Earth Website, [Online]. Available at: http://livingearth.org.uk/projects/developing-good-governance-in-the-niger-delta/. [Accessed 10th April 2014].

Peet, R. and Watts, M. J., (eds.), (1996), Liberation Ecologies: environment, development, social movements, (London: Routledge).

Swyngedouw, E., (2003), ‘Urban Political Ecology, Justice and the Politics of Scale’, Antipode35(5), pp. 898- 918.

The Department for International Development (DFID) Website, [Online]. Available at: http://goodgovernancenigerdelta.ning.com. [Accessed 10th April 2014].

Watts, M. (2001), ‘Petro-Violence: Community, Extraction, and Political Ecology of a Mythic Commodity’, in Watts, M. and Peluso, N., (eds)., Violent Environments, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).

Zalik, A. (2004), ’The Niger Delta: ‘Petro Violence’ and ‘Partnership Development’, Review of African Political Economy, 31(101), pp.401-424.