Comanagement of Natural Resources

TLDR

Indigenous beliefs and practices are increasingly valued for resource management, yet comanagement is framed in three ways—cooperative, collaborative, and community‑led—each offering a distinct view of state‑community relations. Negotiating collaborative arrangements is hampered by the state's need to distinguish traditional indigenous knowledge from non‑indigenous community knowledge and to integrate the latter into its management framework while actively engaging the former. The authors find that engagement in comanagement is problematic because of divergent interpretations, but a New Zealand case study shows that state‑indigenous collaboration, combining both knowledges, can maximize indigenous input into decision‑making.

Abstract

The beliefs and practices of indigenous groups are increasingly recognized as being of value for resource management. But engagement in comanagement has proved problematic for indigenous communities. The authors argue that this results from different interpretations of what is meant by comanagement. Three interpretations are proffered, presenting different perspectives on the state-community duality: cooperative management, collaboration in management, and management by community. Referring to a New Zealand study of the potential for joint management of freshwater resources, the authors argue collaboration between state and indigenous people (and mutual engagement of their knowledges) promises to maximize indigenous input into resource management decision making. Negotiation of such collaborative arrangements is made difficult however by the need for the state to (a) differentiate between traditional resource management knowledge and nonindigenous community-based knowledge and (b) incorporate the latter within a state perspective on resource management while specifically identifying and engaging with the former.