Barriers and Strategies to the Development of Co-Management Regimes in New Zealand: The Case of Te Waihora

Prystupa, Mark

doi:10.17730/humo.57.2.l13m215970882016

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several researchers have evaluated the results of various co-management initiatives with First Nations and report varying degrees of success (Osherenko 1988;Notzke 1994;Campbell 1996). Some have recently suggested that the ambitious goals of co-management such as power sharing and integration of knowledge systems as well as long-term goals of ecosystem sustainability, may be difficult to achieve in practice (Berkes 1991;Nakashima 1991;Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995;Beckley 1998;Prystupa 1998). Over the past several years, Canadian policy and regulations have encouraged and required consultation with First Nations and participation of First Nations in decision-making and environmental management.…”

Section: Co-managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing Knowledge Systems in the Management of Fish and Forests in the Pacific Northwest

King

2004

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Econo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper I investigate the interaction of knowledge and institutions in the context of First Nations in the Pacific Northwest of Canada who have evolved management systems for fish and forest resources over hundreds of years. These management systems are viewed as institutions that are based on and apply knowledge systems over time. In the Nisga'a and Haida nations, knowledge systems guide management regimes that govern access, rights and responsibilities, harvesting, allocation of benefits and costs, technology, education and training. For the past hundred years these institutions and knowledge systems have come into conflict with knowledge and management systems imposed first by missionaries, settlers and colonizers and later from Provincial and National governments and corporations holding tenure rights assigned by those governments. National and international regimes such as the Law of the Seas and the Exclusive Economic Zones conflict with traditional institutions and knowledge systems by privileging one level of governance and consequently one form of knowledge and devaluing others. The paper is based on research conducted in the Pacific Northwest over the past eight years, primarily through interviews with elders, decisionmakers, and resource users, as well as observation of cultural and resource practices. The research investigated the impacts of conflicting knowledge systems and the attempts to resolve those conflicts. The paper raises questions about knowledge systems and institutions, about institutional interplay, and the impact of international institutions on local institutions as they come into contact and conflict.

show abstract

Section: Co-managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing Knowledge Systems in the Management of Fish and Forests in the Pacific Northwest

King

2004

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Econo

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Formal agreements over such issues as entitlements, roles, responsibilities and commitments appear to contribute to the effectiveness of comanagement partnerships (Prystupa 1998). Other attributes such as mandate and authority, board size, organizational structure, membership, appropriate scale, and management perspective also influence the effectiveness of partnerships (Sen and Nielsen 1996, Noble 2000, Pomeroy et al 2001.…”

Section: Institutional Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

The John Prince Research Forest: Evolution of a co-management partnership in northern British Columbia

Grainger¹,

Sherry²,

Fondahl³

2006

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The John Prince Research Forest (JPRF) was established as a co-managed forest between Tl'azt'en Nation and the University of Northern British Columbia, as an opportunity for these partners to blend their respective ways of understanding and managing forests to contribute to ecological and social sustainability. Using four criteria of successful comanagement reported in the literature as critical to the early stages of partnership -partnership building, institutional structure, decision-making, and capacity -we discuss the JPRF's performance during the first half-decade of its existence. The JPRF's early experience provides an example of the evolution of a co-management relationship that, while facing constraints and challenges in regard to some of the criteria, has provided the foundation for a strong future partnership.Key words: co-management, research forest, Aboriginal, First Nation, British Columbia, criteria and indicators (C&I), community forestry, forest management, joint venture, Tl'azt'en Nation, traditional environmental knowledge, forest tenure, partnerships RÉSUMÉ La Forêt de recherche John Prince (JPFR) a été mise en place en tant que forêt en co-gestion entre la Nation Tl'azt'en et l'Université du Nord de la Colombie-Britannique, afin de permettre à ces partenaires d'utiliser en commun leur façon de comprendre et d'aménager les forêts dans le but de contribuer à la durabilité écologique et sociale. En utilisant quatre critères de co-gestion requis pour atteindre le succès tels que décrits dans la littérature en tant qu'éléments critiques dès les premières étapes du partenariat -l'élaboration du partenariat, la structure institutionnelle, la prise de décision et la capacité d'action -nous faisons état de la performance de la forêt de recherche après ses cinq premières années d'existence. L'expérience initiale de la JPRF constitue un exemple de l'évolution d'une relation de co-gestion qui, malgré les contraintes et les défis rencontrés relativement à certains critères, a permis l'établissement d'un solide partenariat pour les années à venir.Mots clés : co-gestion, Autochtones, Première Nation, Colombie-Britannique, critères et indicateurs (C & I), foresterie communautaire, aménagement forestier, co-entreprise, Nation Tl'azt'en, connaissance traditionnelle de l'environnement, tenure forestière, partenariat For personal use only.

show abstract

“…These initiatives may, therefore, precariously rest on the good faith efforts of the parties to the co-management agreement. Prystupa (1998) identifies three benefits of co-management: better decisions, more equitable decisions and stronger commitment to follow through with action based on group decisions. Other advantages include community-based development, decentralization of decision making and mobilization of local consent through participatory democracy (Benidickson 1992).…”

Section: Forest Co-managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Benidickson (1992) quotes Peter Usher as suggesting that comanagement may be aimed at encouraging Native people to become qualified to work as technicians and managers in the state system. Certainly, government and industry have superior human and financial resources to devote to co-management arrangements (see Prystupa 1998), and First Nations involved in co-management must ensure they have adequate support to participate as full partners and not become marginalized in the process.…”

Section: Forest Co-managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Features of First Nation forest management institutions and implications for sustainability

Treseder¹,

Krogman²

1999

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an overview of three approaches to forest management being applied by First Nations in Canada: industrial forestry, forest co-management and community forests. Industrial forestry, involving large-scale harvesting of timber, has been successful in increasing employment levels for some First Nations. However, industrial forestry is difficult to pursue due to the significant financial and timber resources it requires, and it may result in social conflicts between timber harvesters and traditional users of the forest. Forest co-management refers to shared management of forest resources by First Nations, government and/or industry. Benefits of co-management for First Nations can include better decision-making, increased employment opportunities, and cultural sensitivity toward First Nation forestry concerns. Disadvantages can include inequality of the partners in co-management arrangements and lack of public involvement in decision-making. Community forests often include local control, local investment of profits, and greater attention to the long term returns from the forest. The community forest approach may be hindered by a lack of profit, an absence of alternative tenure arrangements and other models to follow, and difficult access to financial resources and adequate land bases. The current state of institutional reform offers hope for the incorporation of Aboriginal objectives in sustainable forest management. New institutions can contribute to sustainability in forest-dependent Aboriginal communities by increasing commitment to and support of local forest management practices. Key Words: forest sociology, sustainable forest management, First Nations, social institutions, industrial forestry, forest co-management, community forests

show abstract

Barriers and Strategies to the Development of Co-Management Regimes in New Zealand: The Case of Te Waihora

Cited by 21 publications

References 5 publications

Competing Knowledge Systems in the Management of Fish and Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Competing Knowledge Systems in the Management of Fish and Forests in the Pacific Northwest

The John Prince Research Forest: Evolution of a co-management partnership in northern British Columbia

Features of First Nation forest management institutions and implications for sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About