Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:44:18.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

By
Esther Carmen ,
Juliette C. Young  and
Allan Watt
Edited by
Stephen M. Redpath ,
R. J. Gutiérrez ,
Kevin A. Wood  and
Juliette C. Young
Esther Carmen
Affiliation:
Natural Environment Research Council Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Juliette C. Young
Affiliation:
Natural Environment Research Council Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Allan Watt
Affiliation:
Natural Environment Research Council Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Stephen M. Redpath
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
R. J. Gutiérrez
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Kevin A. Wood
Affiliation:
Bournemouth University
Juliette C. Young
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Get access

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 Conservation
Navigating Towards Solutions
 , pp. 180 - 192
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev., 29, 1649–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit. Soc., 29, 485–514.Google Scholar
Anderies, J. M. and Janssen, M. A. (2013). Robustness of socio-ecological systems: Implications for public policy. Policy Stud. J., 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balmford, A. and Bond, W. (2005). Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. Ecol. Lett., 8, 1218–1234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, C. B., Lee, D. R. and McPeak, J. G. (2005). Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resource conservation. World Dev., 33, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bass, S., Bigg, T., Bishop, J. and Tunstall, D. (2006). Sustaining the environment to fight poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Reciel, 15, 39–55.Google Scholar
Beck, T. and Nesmith, C. (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
Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 15188–15193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brand, U. (2012). Green economy – the next oxymoron? Gaia, 21, 28–32.Google Scholar
Brockington, D. and Igoe, J. (2006). Eviction for conservation: a global overview. Conserv. Soc., 4, 424–470.Google Scholar
Brosius, J. P. (1997). Prior transcripts, divergent paths: resistance and aquiescence to logging in Sarawak, East Malaysia. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist., 39, 468–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capistrano, D. (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. Colfer, C. J. P., Dahal, G. R. and Capistrano, D. E., pp. 211–232. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Castro, A. P. and Nielsen, E. (2001). Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environ. Sci. Pol., 4, 229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, E. A. and Fleischman, F. D. (2012). Comparing forest decentralization and local institutional change in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda. World Dev., 40, 836–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, C., Mishra, A. and Ajay, R. (2002). Learning from self-initiated community forest management in Orissa, India. Forest Pol. Econ., 4, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, L. and Zommers, A. (2005). Exploring the frontiers of livelihood research. Dev. Change, 36, 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaw, C. M., Blomley, D. and Lescuyer, G. (2008). Elusive Meanings: Decentralisation, Conservation and Local Democracy. Abingdon: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Fox, H. E., Christian, C., Nordby, J. C., Pergams, O. R., Peterson, G. D. and Pyke, C. R. (2006). Perceived barriers to integrating social science and conservation. Conserv. Biol., 20, 1817–1820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gadgil, M. (1992). Conserving biodiversity as if people mattered: a case study from India. Ambio, 21, 266–270.Google Scholar
Haro, G. O., Doyo, G. J. and McPeak, J. G. (2005). Linkages between community, environmental, and conflict management: experiences from northern Kenya. World Dev., 33, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. D. and Brosius, P. (2013). Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development: an integrative framework. Issues Interdiscipl. Stud., 31, 99–122.Google Scholar
Hulme, D. (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
Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (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).
Karanth, K. K. and DeFries, R. (2010). Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: case studies from India. Biol. Conserv., 143, 2865–2869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. (2012). From Rio to Rio via Johannesburg: integrating institutions across governance levels in sustainable development deliberations. Nat. Resour. Forum, 36, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (2003). Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Klooster, D. (2000). Community forestry and tree theft in Mexico: resistance or complicity in conservation? Dev. Change, 31, 281–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kröger, M. (2012). The expansion of industrial tree plantations and dispossession in Brazil. Dev. Change, 43, 947–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, A. M. (2002). Natural resources and decentralisation in Nicaragua: are local governments up to the job? World Dev., 30, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, A. M. and Dahal, G. R. (2012). Forest tenure reform: new resource rights for forest-based communities? Conserv. Soc., 10, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, A. M. and Pulhin, J. (2012). Enhancing forest tenure reforms through more responsive regulations. Conserv. Soc., 10, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, A. M. and Ribot, J. (2004). Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens: an introduction. Eur. J. Dev. Res., 16, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madhusudan, M. D. and Shankar Ramen, T. R. (2003). Conservation as if biological diversity matters: preservation versus sustainable use. Conserv. Soc., 1, 49–59.Google Scholar
Mansfield, B. (2008). Global environmental politics. In The Sage Handbook of Political Geography, eds. Cox, K. R., Low, M. and Robinson, J., pp. 235–246. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute.
Miller, T. R., Minteer, B. A. and Malan, L. C. (2011). The new conservation debate: the view from practical ethics. Biol. Conserv., 144, 948–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negi, A. K., Bhatt, N. P., Todaria, N. P. and Saklani, A. (1997). The effects of colonialism on forests and the local people in the Garhwal Himalaya, India. Mount. Res. Dev., 17, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peluso, N. (1993). Coercing conservation? The politics of state resource control. Global Environ. Chang., 3, 199–217.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2005). The study of policy development. J. Pol. Hist., 17, 34–51.Google Scholar
Pisupati, B. and Warner, E. (2003). Biodiversity and the Millennium Development Goals. Colombo, Sri Lanka: IUCN.Google Scholar
Pulhin, J. M. and Dressler, W. H. (2009). People, power and timber: the politics of community-based forest management. J. Environ. Manage., 91, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rangan, H. (1995). Contested boundaries: state policies, forest classifications and deforestation in the Garhwal Himalayas. Antipode, 27, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribot, J. C., Agrawal, A. and Larson, A. M. (2006). Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev., 34, 1864–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, D. (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
Roe, D. and Elliott, J. (2004). Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: rebuilding the bridges. Oryx, 38, 137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saito-Jensen, M. and Jensen, C. B. (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
Scharpf, F. W. (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.
Sekhar, N. U. (2000). Decentralized natural resource management: from state to co-management in India. J. Environ. Plann. Manage., 43, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiva, V. (1991). Ecology and the Politics of Survival: Conflicts over Natural Resources in India. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Steelman, T. A. and Ascher, W. (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.
Vandergeest, P. and Peluso, N. (1995). Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theor. Soc., 24, 385–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, P., Igoe, J. and Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 35, 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. and Mawdsley, E. (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.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×