Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Georgina Mace
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction to conservation and conflict
- PART II Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
- 3 The value of ecological information in conservation conflict
- 4 Environmental history and conservation conflicts
- 5 The political ecology of conservation conflicts
- 6 Understanding conservation conflicts: an economic perspective
- 7 Anthropological approaches to conservation conflicts
- 8 Law and conservation conflicts
- 9 The relevance of psychology to conservation conflicts
- 10 Conservation conflicts: ethical issues
- 11 A view from sociology: environmental movement mobilisation over old-growth temperate rainforests in British Columbia
- 12 Peace research and conservation conflicts
- 13 Linking conflict and global biodiversity conservation policies
- Part III Approaches to managing conflicts
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
13 - Linking conflict and global biodiversity conservation policies
from PART II - Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Georgina Mace
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction to conservation and conflict
- PART II Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
- 3 The value of ecological information in conservation conflict
- 4 Environmental history and conservation conflicts
- 5 The political ecology of conservation conflicts
- 6 Understanding conservation conflicts: an economic perspective
- 7 Anthropological approaches to conservation conflicts
- 8 Law and conservation conflicts
- 9 The relevance of psychology to conservation conflicts
- 10 Conservation conflicts: ethical issues
- 11 A view from sociology: environmental movement mobilisation over old-growth temperate rainforests in British Columbia
- 12 Peace research and conservation conflicts
- 13 Linking conflict and global biodiversity conservation policies
- Part III Approaches to managing conflicts
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
Summary
Policies come about as a result of a series of decisions based on a dynamic and complex process involving a continuous interplay of discussions, political interests and different people that define the goals and actions of organisations (Keeley and Scoones, 2003). This process of policy development and subsequent implementation can lead to conflict (Pierson, 2005; Saito-Jensen and Jensen, 2010). In some cases, conflict itself can lead to policy change (Castro and Nielsen, 2001; Haro et al., 2005). Although policy processes are complex, and conflict between groups may only be one factor within the policy process (Anderies and Janssen, 2013), a broad perspective on the link between policy and conflict (as illustrated in Chapter 15) is needed for understanding and managing conservation conflicts.
In this chapter we examine conservation conflicts as a potential component of the global biodiversity policy process. We outline the potential links to conflict as biodiversity policies move from a focus on protected areas to diversified approaches that acknowledge wider socio-economic objectives. We also highlight the different layers, such as the ecosystem services framework or the green economy, which have been progressively added to these policies to help practitioners reframe recognised conflicts. We then illustrate some of these issues with the example of the Joint Forest Management (JFM) policy in India before concluding with the need to be more explicit about conflicts in policy development.
An overview of global biodiversity conservation policies
There have been a number of conservation policies adopted at the global level since the 1970s. These policies can be approached using two main integrative dimensions (see Hirsch and Brosius, 2013). The ‘horizontal’ dimension represents the interplay between conservation objectives and wider socio-economic– political goals, while the ‘vertical’ dimension represents the hierarchical structure of multiple stakeholders and institutions involved in managing natural resources (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, 2012). Both these dimensions link closely to conservation conflicts.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Conflicts in ConservationNavigating Towards Solutions, pp. 180 - 192Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
(2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev., 29, 1649–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit. Soc., 29, 485–514.Google Scholar
and (2013). Robustness of socio-ecological systems: Implications for public policy. Policy Stud. J., 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecol. Lett., 8, 1218–1234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2005). Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resource conservation. World Dev., 33, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2006). Sustaining the environment to fight poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Reciel, 15, 39–55.Google Scholar
and (2001). Building on poor people's capacities: the case of common property resources in India and West Africa. World Dev., 29, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 15188–15193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Prior transcripts, divergent paths: resistance and aquiescence to logging in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist., 39, 468–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2008). Decentralization and forest governance in Asia and the Pacific: trends, lessons and continuing challenges. In Lessons from Forest Decentralization: Money, Justice and the Quest for Good Governance in Asia–Pacific, eds. , and , pp. 211–232. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
and (2001). Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environ. Sci. Pol., 4, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2012). Comparing forest decentralization and local institutional change in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda. World Dev., 40, 836–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002). Learning from self-initiated community forest management in Orissa, India. Forest Pol. Econ., 4, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). Exploring the frontiers of livelihood research. Dev. Change, 36, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2008). Elusive Meanings: Decentralisation, Conservation and Local Democracy. Abingdon: Earthscan.Google Scholar
, , , , and (2006). Perceived barriers to integrating social science and conservation. Conserv. Biol., 20, 1817–1820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1992). Conserving biodiversity as if people mattered: a case study from India. Ambio, 21, 266–270.Google Scholar
, and (2005). Linkages between community, environmental, and conflict management: experiences from northern Kenya. World Dev., 33, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2013). Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development: an integrative framework. Issues Interdiscipl. Stud., 31, 99–122.Google Scholar
(2009). The Millennium Development Goals: A Short History of the World's biggest Promise. BWPI Working paper 100. Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
and (2003). African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation. London: James Currey.Google Scholar
IIED (2012). Sharing Solutions for a Sustainable Planet. Fair Ideas Highlights. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
and (2010). Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: case studies from India. Biol. Conserv., 143, 2865–2869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2012). From Rio to Rio via Johannesburg: integrating institutions across governance levels in sustainable development deliberations. Nat. Resour. Forum, 36, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
(2000). Community forestry and tree theft in Mexico: resistance or complicity in conservation? Dev. Change, 31, 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2012). The expansion of industrial tree plantations and dispossession in Brazil. Dev. Change, 43, 947–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Natural resources and decentralisation in Nicaragua: are local governments up to the job? World Dev., 30, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2012). Forest tenure reform: new resource rights for forest-based communities? Conserv. Soc., 10, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2012). Enhancing forest tenure reforms through more responsive regulations. Conserv. Soc., 10, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens: an introduction. Eur. J. Dev. Res., 16, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Conservation as if biological diversity matters: preservation versus sustainable use. Conserv. Soc., 1, 49–59.Google Scholar
(2008). Global environmental politics. In The Sage Handbook of Political Geography, eds. , and , pp. 235–246. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.
, and (2011). The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol. Conserv., 144, 948–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1997). The effects of colonialism on forests and the local people in the Garhwal Himalaya, India. Mount. Res. Dev., 17, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global Environ. Chang., 3, 199–217.Google Scholar
and (2003). Biodiversity and the Millennium Development Goals. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IUCN.Google Scholar
and (2009). People, power and timber: the politics of community-based forest management. J. Environ. Manage., 91, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1995). Contested boundaries: state policies, forest classifications and deforestation in the Garhwal Himalayas. Antipode, 27, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2006). Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev., 34, 1864–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2008). The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx, 42, 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: rebuilding the bridges. Oryx, 38, 137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2010). Rearranging social space: boundary-making and boundary work in a joint forest management project, Andhra Pradesh, India. Conserv. Soc., 8, 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). The choice for Europe: social purpose and state power from Messina to Maastricht. J. Eur. Publ. Pol., 6, 164–168.Google Scholar
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2000). Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 5), Decision 6. Nairobi, Kenya.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2010). Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montreal, Canada.
(2000). Decentralized natural resource management: from state to co-management in India. J. Environ. Plann. Manage., 43, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991). Ecology and the Politics of Survival: Conflicts over Natural Resources in India. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
and (1997). Public involvement methods in natural resource policy making: advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs. Policy Sci., 30, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNCED (1992a). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.
UNCED (1992b). Rio Declaration. United Nations Conference of Environment and Development, Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development.
UNEP (2012). Functions, operating principles and institutional arrangements of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecsosystem services. t.-s. A. Second session of the plenary meeting for IPBES, 2012. Panama City, Panama.
United Nations (2002). Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. United Nations Division on Sustainable Development.
United Nations (2012). Rio + 20: Outcomes document – The Future We Want. Rio de Janeiro, June 2012.
and (1995). Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theor. Soc., 24, 385–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 35, 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Postcolonial environmental justice: Government and governance in India. Geoforum, 37, 660–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. United Nations Environment Programme.
- 3
- Cited by