TY - JOUR
T1 - Indigenous people and co-management
T2 - Implications for conflict management
AU - Castro, Alfonso Peter
AU - Nielsen, Erik
N1 - Funding Information:
Bangladesh shared a colonial history with India, and similar sorts of struggles occurred with the imposition of custodial forest management in East Bengal. Forest conflict continued through the Pakistan years and after independence. A complex and sometimes contradictory array of land laws, regulations, and policies made the forest tenure situation murky. Some of the most enduring and intense conflicts occurred in tribal areas. The Forest Department responded to the presence of so-called encroachers through police action, including increasing the fines for illegal timber removal. This practice proved ineffective as conflicts continued. By the 1980s some policy makers started exploring participatory-oriented strategies as a proactive response to long-standing conflicts over state forest reserves. The government launched the country-wide Social Forestry Project in the late 1980s with support from the United Nations Development Program (US $1.9 million grant) and the Asian Development Bank (US $44 million loan). The project incorporated resource-sharing arrangement into its design, proposing to establish co-managed woodlots and agroforestry plots on 16 000 ha claimed by the state but occupied or used by villagers. Benefit-sharing arrangements were also set up for strip plantations to be created along roadways, canals, and other sites. Planners viewed the project as a major step forward in conflict and resource management, especially compared to the practice of evicting or arresting encroachers on government land. However, some forestry and project staff primarily viewed the arrangements as a means “to re-establish the influence of the [Forest Department] on encroached state forest land” ( Castro, 1997, p. 7 ).
PY - 2001/8
Y1 - 2001/8
N2 - Co-management agreements among indigenous people, state agencies, and other stakeholders offer substantial promise as a way of dealing with natural resource conflicts in a participatory and equitable manner. However, experience shows that co-management regimes can set into motion new conflicts or cause old ones to escalate. In practice the result may not be power sharing but rather a strengthening of the state's control over resource policy, management, and allocation. Instead of contributing to local empowerment, such arrangements may further marginalize communities and resource users. We use case material, primarily from northern Canada and South Asia, to explore the pervasive role of conflict in generating, shaping, and influencing the performance of co-management regimes. The paper analyzes the divergent interests and motives of state agencies in planning and implementing co-management arrangements. It highlights the cultural, political, and legal obstacles encountered by indigenous people and other rural communities in trying to negotiate co-management arrangements. We also explore the conflicts that can arise in co-management regimes where local participation in decision making is very limited. General lessons and recommendations are drawn from our analysis.
AB - Co-management agreements among indigenous people, state agencies, and other stakeholders offer substantial promise as a way of dealing with natural resource conflicts in a participatory and equitable manner. However, experience shows that co-management regimes can set into motion new conflicts or cause old ones to escalate. In practice the result may not be power sharing but rather a strengthening of the state's control over resource policy, management, and allocation. Instead of contributing to local empowerment, such arrangements may further marginalize communities and resource users. We use case material, primarily from northern Canada and South Asia, to explore the pervasive role of conflict in generating, shaping, and influencing the performance of co-management regimes. The paper analyzes the divergent interests and motives of state agencies in planning and implementing co-management arrangements. It highlights the cultural, political, and legal obstacles encountered by indigenous people and other rural communities in trying to negotiate co-management arrangements. We also explore the conflicts that can arise in co-management regimes where local participation in decision making is very limited. General lessons and recommendations are drawn from our analysis.
KW - Bangladesh
KW - Canada
KW - Co-management
KW - Community forestry
KW - Conflict management
KW - India
KW - Indigenous people
KW - Natural resource conflicts
KW - Negotiations
KW - Participation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0001426149&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0001426149&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3
DO - 10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0001426149
SN - 1462-9011
VL - 4
SP - 229
EP - 239
JO - Environmental Science and Policy
JF - Environmental Science and Policy
IS - 4-5
ER -