From Oslo, with Ubuntu: L4E's journey at the 2025 Oslo ISEE-Degrowth Conference

August 5th, 2025

By Justin Dempsey, Josh Farley, Geoff Garver, Liam Grima, Jukka Kilgus, Lizah Makombore, Juliana Neira, Nina Smolyar and Matías Vaccarezza Sevilla

The 2025 ISEE-Degrowth conference took place in Oslo from June 23-27, and Leadership for the Ecozoic was in the house! The whole of this experience is more than the sum of the parts, so we hope this collage of the memorable moments and perspectives from Justin Dempsey, Josh Farley, Geoff Garver, Liam Grima, Jukka Kilgus, Lizah Makombore, Juliana Neira, Nina Smolyar and Matías Vaccarezza Sevilla gives you a sense of this wonderful occasion for L4E to connect with the broader degrowth and ecological economics community.

GEOFF:  Wow! It was such a treat to be part of the L4E community that shared this very special experience in Oslo. I’m so grateful for the quality chill time we had together exploring that beautiful, leafy city with virtually no signs of down-and-out people on the streets. It’s great to know that videos of conference plenaries and special events are available for viewing – check them out here. Things got going for me at the Degrowth Assembly on June 23, where an impromptu circle formed around law and degrowth – it is very exciting to see how interest in that theme has exploded in recent years. A young fellow named Ezra offered up one of many gems I took home when he suggested the “spirit of the game” rule in Ultimate Frisbee has something to do with degrowth-aligned law. Yes! The conference offerings were overwhelming, with excellent plenaries and then too many great choices for the parallel sessions. The flash talk session I organized on ecological law and degrowth, in which I was pleased Josh Farley, Iván Vargas, Herman Greene and others participated, went well despite smaller than hoped for turnout.  In addition to several other sessions on law and justice themes, I learned a great deal from sessions on the role of Indigenous knowledge in protecting and restoring nature values, and on questions of need and sufficiency. The opening ceremony on June 24 was a big highlight, including the inspiring speeches of Irene Vélez-Torres (Director of the Colombian National Environmental Agency) and ISEE President Erik Gómez-Baggethun, whose call for more attention to militarization was notable and welcome.  I became an instant fan of Sámi artist and activist Ella Marie Haetta Isaksen, who performed and then shared the stage with the youth-themed opening plenary panel that included our one and only Lizah! Lizah, I had tears in my eyes watching you talk about how your community-engaged work on lawn conversion and more creates opportunities for youth, and I LOVED doing yoga with you on the roof of Bunks at Rode where many of us stayed.  What did you take away from this amazing conference?

LIZAH:  When I arrived in Oslo, I carried a quiet anxiety with me, the familiar kind that comes with presenting deeply personal, collective work on a global stage. But as I stood before a room full of scholars, activists, elders, and youth at the "Decolonizing the future: Youth struggles for intergenerational justice" plenary session, something shifted. I felt the warmth of hugs, the gentle nods of affirmation, and the quiet presence of my L4E community, both those physically in the room and those who walk with me in spirit. It was at that moment that I realized: I was not alone. We were not alone. It occurred to me that I wasn’t alone and that I was part of something bigger.

The reflections and positive comments that followed the plenary affirmed this. Hearing my L4E colleagues and friends like Juliana Neira, Meg Egler, Matias Vaccarezza Sevilla, Liam Grima, Justin Dempsey, Shaun Sellers, Nina Smolyar and L4E “cousins” like Ben Ryan, Jukka Kilgus, Carina Manitius, Bar - Lindsay Barbieri, Ayana Curran Howes and others connected to our community was a testament to the safety of space that I had felt whilst presenting. Most notable was Geoff Garver’s reflection of how he felt whilst I was speaking at the plenary, specifically how he was almost moved to tears, which was deeply validating and touching. He reminded me that our message had landed. It resonated because it was grounded in community ethics and reflected L4E’s central theory of change: that by investing in university-based projects and emerging leaders committed to restoring a mutually enhancing relationship between humans and the Earth, we can begin to build the Ecozoic Era. For me, that plenary wasn’t just a speaking opportunity; it was a moment of convergence. It became clear that Leadership for the Ecozoic (L4E) is not just a research initiative. It is a living practice of decolonising youth futures across generations and geographies.

I was humbled and honored to offer a small glimpse into the work that L4E supports, especially the Urban Agroecology Project in Burlington, Vermont, USA, and to speak on behalf of a broader community of practice and the project lead creator, my advisor, Josh Farley. After the session, I was moved by the number of people who came to share how the message touched them. One person said:

"You spoke with so much conviction and grace, especially in how you framed decoloniality from both a Global South and North perspective."

Another reflected on the power of Ubuntu and how, as I had shared, it is not simply a philosophy but a living ethic, a way of being rooted in interdependence, dignity, and shared responsibility. Ubuntu, I shared, is also a methodology for transformative agroecology and ecological economics. It values relationships over yields, collective care over extraction, and well-being for all over profit. In this way, Ubuntu makes decoloniality a practice, not just a theory. Someone else said they had never felt so seen in a plenary session, simply by witnessing a panel that represented their youth burdens, positionality, and hopes. That made me pause. Because I, too, felt seen and humbled to be in dialogue with my co-panelists: Riya Dani, degrowth activist and member of the ISEE/Degrowth 2025 Local Organizing Committee; Thea Birgitte Erfjord, leader of the youth environmental organization Spire; Ella Marie Hætta Isaksen, musician, actor, and Sámi rights activist. Together, we delivered a session that was raw, unapologetic, and grounded in self-determined youth futures. Another scholar’s sentiments to me captured what many of us felt: this was not just a panel, it was a powerful act of collective meaning-making. I left that space more grateful than I can express, for L4E, for all my advisors, colleagues, and especially for Josh Farley, my PhD supervisor. Josh took a chance on an African aspiring ecological economist, a first-generation graduate determined to use education as a tool of liberation for marginalized communities. That risk opened up pathways for me to participate in conversations that matter not just academically, but spiritually and politically. Another key highlight of the ISEE conference was being interviewed by John De Graaf for the upcoming Herman Daly film, an unexpected and deeply humbling moment. As I return to my writing and research, I carry with me not just memories but a renewed commitment to be present, engaged, and brave. And above all, I carry Ubuntu.

MATÍAS: In the current context of a lack of freedom of academia, speech, and violence, being in an environment with people who share similar values with the L4E and are working with passion and dedication for a future that I would describe as just, reciprocal, and in harmonic relation with the rest of nature, felt encouraging. Amid the current polarization, staying united and strong is a must, and I could feel that joy while at the conference. At the same time, it was a wake-up call for us academics to engage in critical discussions on how our work impacts the world we are trying to prescribe. Interventions by members of social movements, with courage, strength, frustration, and passion, made me realize the bridges we need to build to be effective agents of change, as our times require us. Feelings are to be felt, and I appreciated the powerful interventions to pull me out of my fairytale. 

I was pleased to attend and see many people working on North-South relationships and solidarities, calling for the decolonization of our current relationships and acknowledging the debt we owe to the South. This, for me, is crucial, especially to overthrow certain narratives from the North, such as “sustainable development”, which is and has been only possible through the exploitation of the South. That’s why it’s critical to explore alternatives to development, contrary to the discourse of “rethinking modernity” by Max Ajl in the last plenary. At the same time, the concept of international aid needs to be rethought as reparations, not in the vacuum of a financial discourse, but taking into account the territories of life that have been struggling and resisting the machinery of capitalism, losing their many lives, spirituality, culture, and languages, which are irreparable losses.

Lastly, I went to a documentary screening about Indigenous people resisting gold mining extractivism in Ecuador in which I got involved in a thought-provoking discussion, arguing with Joan Martinez Allier about “romanticism”, but that is a story for another blog as well as the fact that I ended partying with the documentary producers in a rooftop in Copenhagen.

Love you L4ers, thank you for such a great moment together!

NINA: Traveling to Oslo and participating in the ISEE-Degrowth Conference was a rich learningful experience, and I extend my gratitude to L4E, Gund Institute for Environment, and UVM for all the various support that made the experience possible. It was exciting to observe the breadth and depth of the combined effort to construct a learning exchange on Ecological Economics and Degrowth with scholars and activists from around the planet. Meeting academics whose publications I have cherished over the years felt fulfilling, as did witnessing spirituality, relationality, and rest being treated seriously as research topics within degrowth. The session celebrating the publication of the Routledge Handbook of Degrowth (2025) with several contributors discussing the contents of their interventions underscored my praiseful impressions of the wider recognition, versatility, and potential of degrowth as a concept and movement.

The movement continues to strengthen with events like the Degrowth Assembly that took place the day before the official conference, where members of the International Degrowth Network had the rare opportunity to connect face to face and engage in emergent strategizing and future planning for ongoing work that takes place online. The movement would also continue to strengthen if and when sufficient engagement with contradictions and taboos happens via respectful deliberation and effortful behavior in alignment with visionary principles of degrowth, and becomes a centered practice of the movement. Back at the Conference, the intellectual and cognitive load of exchanging academic research was balanced by ‘Slow space’ decompression and relaxation options of acro-yoga, meditation, and Nature walks, as well as by the creative entertainment during the Cabaret evening program.

I extended my learning the day after the official Conference ended, immersing myself for several hours in all the exhibits at the Nobel Peace Center. The Center curates art, history, and present day dangers, hopes, and strategies related to peace building work, in various human conflicts on Earth.  It also highlights all the Nobel Peace Prize winners’ experiences and legacies.

The current Echo Chamber exhibit discusses the dynamics of echo chambers in societies, and invites self-reflection on how each of us participates in reproducing this divisive social pattern, and what each of us can do regularly to exit the chamber. The Message to Humanity exhibit shares the stories of the members of Nihon Hidankyo organization. They are by now the elderly survivors of the 1945 atomic bombings of Japan, who have been advocating for a nuclear-free world for years, earning this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.  The day-long visit was moving and inspiring, and expanded my integration of the entirety of my impressions of the Conference.

I share a fraction of the Center’s teachings, that would generate peace, a prerequisite and a corequisite for achieving and maintaining transformation to desirable futures, to ecological economics, degrowth, and the Ecozoic: 

“An important strategy used by several Nobel Peace Prize laureates is to encourage different parties to share their experiences. In major conflicts, it is particularly important that victims of violence of oppression are also allowed to express their views…We often avoid topics where we disagree. This leaves little room for opposing views and may strengthen existing opinions. Dialogue should be a basic attitude.  All relevant parties must be included in a dialogue. Exclusion can create division, while inclusion provides a sense of belonging. More people then feel responsible for creating a successful process…Coming together to discuss difficult topics could build bridges.  Conversations about the past are needed to build a peaceful future…Forgiveness does not necessarily mean accepting or condoning something but rather to come to terms with the past.  In formal reconciliation processes, the abusers must be held accountable and those abused must be heard and able to share their experiences.”

“The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world’s ills, or one solution to humanity’s needs, has done untold harm throughout history - especially in the last century.”  Kofi Annan, Nobel Peace Prize 2001

JUSTIN: While the conference was certainly stimulating, my favorite thing about our time in Oslo was social. I had a chance to talk and joke with Kate Raworth, my academic idol for her book Doughnut Economics. I commiserated with her after Clive Spash joked about her during his talk, and I was there when Clive and she met for the first time and found common ground. Then, on Friday, I told some economics-based jokes at the open mic, and Kate was in the front row laughing charitably. She patted me on the shoulder and said well done, after, and I haven’t washed that shoulder since. Much of the best socializing came outside the conference, meeting like-minded academics, and pub-crawling around Oslo with the Farley gang. Josh taught us many things, like how much he loves his wife (it's a lot), how much he likes the marketization of essential resources (not at all), and why we should never do calculus (Newton liked to draw-and-quarter counterfeiters).

I also got to meet Inge Ropke in person, and it turns out that she is a badass. Dryly funny and incredibly insightful. During a session where Spash and Vatn were advocating for epistemological purity in ecological economics, Inge depicted the two as border guards, enforcing the parameters of what is and is not ecological economics. Her take was common sense, arguing against purity tests and for a structured pluralism. Ultimately, it was a week of building bridges. I think Josh convinced Spash that Ecosystem Services are permissible when viewed as contributions to the biotic community, and Kate convinced him that being agnostic about growth is not heresy when it comes to the global south. Progress!

LIAM: My late surrogate father was persistent and consistently reminded me of physicist John Archibald Wheeler’s metaphor that likens knowledge to an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance: as the island of knowledge grows, so does the shoreline of ignorance. Attending the 2025 International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) conference affirmed the truth and power of this metaphor. I felt deeply humbled to be surrounded by diverse activists and scholars whose work is politically courageous, marked by an ineffable theoretical elegance, and grounded in empirical depth. This exposure introduced me to new perspectives and ideas, which compelled me to question – and at times confront – longstanding assumptions and concepts I had previously taken for granted. In doing so, new questions emerged that challenged my conventional thinking and forced me to refine previously held beliefs. This epistemological process proved my surrogate father right: knowledge and ignorance are intimately connected. Knowledge precipitates ignorance, prompting further inquiry and learning, which in turn generates new knowledge – and thus the cycle begins anew.

While certainly biased – and perhaps nepotistic – it was my L4E colleagues’ presentations and our follow-up discussions that forced me to question my priors more than anyone else. This is one of many reasons I am eternally grateful and extremely thankful to be part of the L4E community. Here, I must give special thanks to my two mentors and dear friends, Joshua Farley and Matías Vaccarezza Sevilla. I learned more through communicating with them, probing their ideas, and listening to their insights – both inside and outside the conference – than from anything else. They are among the most compassionate, reflective, rigorous, and lucid thinkers I have had the privilege to meet. And the same can be said for everyone in the L4E.

In sum, the ISEE-Degrowth conference was a breeding ground for co-learning and for the discovery and generation of new knowledge. What I found especially meaningful and important was that most speakers — certainly everyone in the L4E — place empathy at the core of their work — explicitly acknowledging their positionality and their responsibility in addressing global injustices and ecological collapse. Cooperation is humanity’s superpower, and empathy may be one of the most impactful strategies for cultivating sustainable personal, professional, institutional, national, international, and biotic relationships.

JULI: I share the sentiments of joy already expressed. I feel fortunate to be part of a caring and intelligent community that continually challenges and grounds me. I met incredible new colleagues and strengthened friendships, and I confirmed how important social and less structured spaces are for deepening dialogue and sharing feelings. I should warn the reader, however, that my experience at this conference also left me a bit disappointed.

Naivety (or work in progress?): Although in discourse, the need for solidarity with “global south” initiatives, the imperative of decoloniality, and the Indigenous roots of ideas were constantly recognized, I experienced a lack of nuance in discussion and an almost absence of concrete initiatives. Acknowledging the complexity and difficulty of these endeavors, I felt strongly the eurocentricity of the movement and a slight naivety regarding class struggles and territorial realities in the ‘global south’.

More data: I learn incredible new evidence and metrics confirming unequal exchange. However, the phrase “We want radical ends but propose soft means” from an opening speech seems to be where we are stuck. We continue to generate important science, yet keep realizing isolated, inaccessible alternatives. Admirable and lots to learn from, but insufficient in the face of fascism, apartheid, genocide, war, and climate change. Sigh.

To end on an encouraging note, I once again experienced the multiple strengths of our community that are worth bringing to these venues; articulators, facilitators, intellectuals, networkers, listeners (could always improve), and carers!

JUKKA: This was the first academic conference I ever went to, and I loved it! Having only started my Masters last year and being new to the realm of academic research, I was very excited about going to Oslo, but also a bit nervous. How would it be to come to a space where so many people know so much about questions I’m interested in? How would it be to meet academics that, until then, I had only read papers from?

After all, this nervousness was pretty much unjustified. Everyone was very welcoming and appreciative. Discussions were open and most people made, at least in my perception, a good effort at deconstructing hierarchies. It was amazing to meet so many likeminded people and enter a room for exchanging ideas about a better future and how to get there. Something I particularly liked about this exchange is that a few times it got really intense and confrontative, especially during some of the plenary discussions. While that might have felt uncomfortable in the moment itself, I think such a discussion culture is crucial, both for the academic discourse but also for the larger EE and degrowth movement. We must be able to argue openly and sometimes withstand differences of opinion, ambiguities, and contradictions. Acknowledging this while at the same time remembering how much we have in common is one of my biggest take-aways from the conference.

Thanks to everyone who made it possible and for sharing this experience together!

JOSH:  I sometimes get discouraged about humanity’s current trajectory and our inability to consider alternatives. Most of my friends outside of L4E and ecological economics seem to think that ‘progress’, by which they seem to mean ever-increasing consumption, is the only appropriate goal for society, and that technology will solve all the problems that progress creates. When we call for radical change, we’re accused of wanting to burn the system down when in reality the system is already on fire. Our goal is to take away the matches from the arsonists. We must halt and reverse the radical changes driven by endless, unequal growth that threaten the future of the global ecosystems upon which humans and all other species depend for survival.  

From the opening ceremony onwards, the Oslo conference helped restore my confidence that we can proactively change our suicidal trajectory before it is too late. Many speakers outlined attainable visions of a better future and proposed viable paths for achieving them, all solidly grounded in both ethics and science. Participants were engaged and energized. I have often lamented the problem of circular firing squads among ecological economists and our allies, yet I saw the opposite at this conference, as some of you have already alluded to.  I saw fewer demands for ideological purity and a greater willingness to put our shared values and concerns over minor differences. The ultimate source of power in human society is social coalitions. This conference helped strengthen ours.  

Like Justin, what I enjoyed most about the conference was socializing, reconnecting with old friends, meeting new ones, and hanging out with the always-entertaining L4E group. What most inspired me was the energy and enthusiasm of the next generation of ecological economists who are dedicating their lives to a socially just sustainability transition. Among these, I thought the L4E contingent, broadly interpreted, stood out for their enthusiasm and the quality of their presentations. Lizah’s opening keynote has already received glowing praise in this blog post, but I also thought the session Matias led was among the best I attended. Many of you also had great questions for other presenters. I know I’m not the only one who noticed the quality of the L4E students and alums. I was incredibly proud to be associated with all of you.