What
is TGER
The Theme on Governance, Equity and Rights (TGER) is
one of the main work Themes mandated
to CEESP by the IUCN General Assembly in the Third
World Conservation Congress in Bangkok (November 2004).
While the Theme is new, its members and accumulated
experience are not. The Theme, in fact, directly evolved
from the work of the pre-existing CEESP Collaborative
Management Working Group (CMWG),
active since 1996. CMWG successfully promoted and supported
field-based co-management (CM) initiatives, derived
lessons and methods from experience, supported the development
of CM policies, and advocated the inclusion of CM principles
and practices in the programmes and structures of IUCN
and other organizations.
Besides following the CEESP mandate, TGER takes inspiration
from a number of IUCN Resolutions
endorsed by the IUCN
General Assembly in Bangkok (November 2004). These
include Resolution
3.012 as well as Resolutions 3.015,
3.018, 3.047 , 3.049, 3.050,
3.055, 3.056, 3.065, 3.067
and Recommendation 3.081.
Goal
|
TGER's
goal is to engage IUCN members and partners in
better understanding and acting about governance
of natural resources, equity and human rights.
|
Governance of natural resources
If one issue is central for the conservation of biodiversity
and the sustainable and equitable use of natural resources
this is-undoubtedly-governance. Yet,
governance is a relative latecomer in the conservation
community, and for decades was generally eschewed
by the relevant institutions. Recently, however, due
in part to the impulse of the World Conservation Union
and its Commissions, it has come into the policy
spotlight. Soon
all parties interested in conservation may have to
contend with 'governance'. Governance has to do with
power, relationships, responsibility and accountability.
A specific “governance setting” for a
body of natural resources reflects what a society
enables as fair, or is prepared to accept as such;
the setting defines the whos and hows of authority,
responsibility and accountability regarding natural
resources. Clearly, governance depends on formal institutions,
processes, tenure and access to resources and other
legal rights. For instance, governance settings change
dramatically when authorities open up to pluralism
and recognize multiple interests and values in society.
But governance also depends on history, culture, customary
rights, access to information, presence of markets,
financial flows and a variety of informal influences
on decisions. Governance affects the achievement of
the relevant management objectives (effectiveness),
the sharing of costs and benefits (equity) and the
generation and sustenance of community, political
and financial support towards sound management of
natural resources.
Top
Ambiguity
of the concept
The
concept of governance is both complex and ambiguous,
and it can even be used with nearly opposed intentions
in mind. For some, improving governance means "curbing
the power of the state, releasing a country's trade
barriers and opening up as much as possible to the
influence, the values and the working style of the
private sector (liberalisation, decentralisation,
"corporate governance&", transforming the
"political" into a decision mode analogue
to the one of markets).[1]
In this sense, requirements of "good governance"
practices may be an excellent means through which
Western perspectives can be imposed on governments
in the South. For others, it means highlighting debate,
fair procedures, negotiation processes and the seeking
of consensus among a plurality of actors as the best
foundations for decision-making in society (deliberative
processes, participatory democracy).[2]
By curbing the power of the state and favouring the
appreciation of differences-in particular cultural
differences- pluralistic governance would have a liberating
value, and it might even usher the dissolving of uncritical
certainties about the foundations of power, laws and
knowledge in society.[3] For
others still, "good governance" is the meeting
point of "performance"and "equity",
an evolving process through which fundamental principles
and values, including environmental rights and human
rights, can percolate in society. This is the position
often advanced by some United Nations agencies [4]
and by many members of TGER, who believe that a fundamental
tenet of good governance should be decent, fulfilling
and sustainable livelihoods. Another interesting set
of opposing views deals with governance of natural
resources in relation to governance in a country's
politics at large. Some believe that the first can
only happen as a result of the second. Others consider
that improved natural resource governance can be an
effective entry point to improve governance in other
sectors in society as well. The above set of seemingly
incompatible perspectives on ";governance"
render the concept in need of unpacking and clarification.
The term "good governance", in particular,
implies that governance can also be "bad"
or, at least, that "it can be improved".
In fact, In this sense, "improving governance"
becomes a crucial area of inquiry and concern for
the IUCN and all interested in sound natural resource
management and equity. The lessons learned thereby
ought to be understood and applied in policy and practice.
Top
Improving
governance
From the early 1990s, a form of governance called co-management
of natural resources (CMNR) has become an increasingly
visible governance option for natural resources under
common property, communal property or mixed property,
and has been increasingly "adopted" in a variety
of settings. Co-management is based on the recognition
of a multiplicity of entitlements and/or valid claims
of social actors interested to have a say in the management
of a given body of natural resources. It implies a partnership
among such actors, and a process by which they negotiate
management agreements and institutions among themselves.
The partnership can involve local communities, organised
resource users, local authorities, governmental agencies,
non-governmental organisations, private operators, and
many others. A strong rationale for CMNR has been built
on a variety of considerations, including the fact that
a fair sharing of the costs and benefits of managing
natural resources requires the active involvement of
all relevant stakeholders. Among such stakeholders,
primary attention has to be given to indigenous peoples
and local communities.
IUCN
and the CEESP’s Collaborative
Management Working Group have played a non negligible
role in the understanding and diffusion of lessons learned
in co-management experiences and in the promotion of
co-management practices. At times this has resulted
in improved community control over natural resources
and environment-related rights, and has managed to raise
issues of fairness and equity in the sharing of costs
and benefits of conservation.[6]
Overall, however, it is not clear, to what extent co-management
experiments have helped communities to find a legitimate
role in deciding about natural resources, or to what
extent such experiments have prevented harming and impoverishing
indigenous peoples or ensuring a better respect of human
rights. In some cases co-management processes may have
even "hurt" communities, for example in bringing
land that had been theirs by customary rights into the
public domain or helping introduce "alien"
stakeholders who carved out new entitlements over the
resources of historical "rightholders". In
general, it is thus not clear whether co-management
efforts "perform"in terms of both sound environmental
management and lasting improvements in the livelihood
conditions of the relevant communities. Can we thus
affirm that co-management has "improved" the
governance of natural resources? Moreover, avenues other
than co-management may be equally or more effective,
rapid and/or long-lasting in effectively managing natural
resources and mainstreaming equity, accountability and
environment-related rights. For instance, how do co-management
experiences fare when compared with specific legal procedures,
top-down policy change, well-organised and media-backed
civil disobedience (e.g., land occupation), union-supported
movements or even outright collective buying of land
and natural resources, possibly with the help of third-party
financing? These different avenues refer to different
forms and scales of interventions, and may be hardly
comparable. Their analysis, however, can shed light
on ways to improve NR governance, provided that the
questions are asked and answered by people directly
involved.
The rapidity with which co-management initiatives have
emerged is both remarkable and worrying. On the one
hand, they offer tremendous scope for sustaining natural
resources and expanding the active involvement of local
actors in social and ecological dynamics that have a
direct bearing on their livelihood security and well-being.
On the other, they may be misapplied and used to "pacify"
grievances and water down the legitimate rights of communities.
This is especially so in the case of ambitious initiatives
that scale-up pilot interventions and spread innovations
under a tight time schedule. In such cases the façade
(of participation, co-management, and the like) may
hide a different reality and actually contribute to
destroying the hopes and goodwill of people engaged
in initiatives that take them nowhere. In these circumstances,
attention to ways of "improving governance"
might help the affected parties to analyse the full
implications of a processes. It might help them to figure
out-beyond co-management- what specific governance changes
are needed and how to bring them about.
It is quite understandable, especially in view of the
ambiguous and evolving meaning of the concept, that
different societies and cultures may have different
appreciations of what "improving governance"
is all about. Inspiration, however, is often taken from
a variety of principles that have been discussed and
endorsed internationally. First among those are the
"do no harm!" imperative
and the respect of human rights -in
particular with regard to indigenous peoples and local
communities. Other basic criteria that have been broadly
discussed include "legitimacy and voice",
"rule of law", "subsidiarity",
"equity -including gender equity--in
the sharing of costs and benefits of managing natural
resources","direction/ shared vision",
"performance", "transparency"
and "accountability".
TGER's activities will continue and expand the work
that has been carried out from 1996 to 2005 by the Collaborative
Management Working Group, broadening its perspective
towards improving the governance of natural
resources and the respect of human rights.
At least part of its focus will be on understanding
and capacity building through a variety of national
and local learning groups. TGER members will promote,
animate and support such Learning Groups in particular
contexts and distil/derive lessons towards further capacity
building and policy advice.
Particular attention will be given to ways of improving
governance in large scale contexts, such as across landscapes,
ecosystems, and transboundary protected areas, and ways
of involving indigenous and local communities and the
civil society in general. Transboundary
protected areas and the Model Forests promoted by
CIFOR will also serve as learning examples. The Model
Forests are landscape-scale arrangements involving voluntary
partnerships across a range of interests, values and
land uses and span various management and governance
models related to municipalities, logging concessions,
conservation areas, community forests and agro-forests.
Top
A
rights-based approach to conservation
Throughout
history, conquerors subjugated the conquered by confiscating
their lands or otherwise limiting their access to
property. Especially in agrarian societies, control
of land, water and other natural resources by ruling
elites has been the principal mechanism employed for
consolidating the monopoly of political, economic
and social power throughout society. Present-day rights
that regulate access and tenure of resources among
diverse social actors are extremely varied from country
to country and within them among different localities.
In all cases, however, the rules regulating the use
of, and control over, land and other natural resources
inevitably reflect the interests of dominant social
actors at the time these rules were institutionalised
by custom or law. These rules, however, also evolve
in response to social change and it is not unthinkable
that- as human rights hopefully become better understood,
recognised and protected- the communities hitherto
excluded from the control of natural resources will
better come to the fore. Indigenous peoples, landless
workers, small producers, mobile communities, low-income
consumers, and all others who are dependent on natural
resources, but without property rights over them,
will hopefully acquire some form of rights entitling
them to an equitable participation in managing those
resources and benefiting from them.
Currently,
new social movements and peoples' coalitions throughout
the world are reaffirming both the importance of human
rights over economics and the rule of market forces
[7], and their intent to be
active makers and shapers of the realities that affect
their lives.[8] These arguments
draw their legitimacy from the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and resonate with political traditions
that uphold citizen empowerment and action and celebrate
diversity, empathy and virtue.[9]
Adopted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations on 10 December 1948, the Declaration of Human
Rights is not legally binding but is considered as
an international instrument of tremendous political
and symbolic importance. After the adoption of this
Declaration, the UN Commission on Human Rights began
drafting legally binding documents. The International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) were adopted in 1966. Both
uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination
and development. Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, commonly
known as ILO 169 stresses the need for the participation
of indigenous peoples in the decision-making process
regarding resources and lands on which they have claims
of dependence. Environmental rights were first spelled
out in the Declaration of the United Nations Conference
on the Human Environment in 1972, later expanded by
the 1982 World Charter for Nature. Agenda 21, adopted
at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development,
called for effective participation in all the elements
of planning and development.
More
recently, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
has stressed the need to involve indigenous and other
local communities in the conservation of biological
diversity. Its 2004 Program of Work on Protected Areas
emphasized that communities should enjoy a fairer
sharing of conservation benefits and that indigenous
peoples cannot be resettled to make room for protected
areas without their prior and informed consent. Besides
the international instruments just mentioned, others
address the rights of refugees, children and women,
and prohibit torture, discrimination and genocide.
Conservation practices and human rights are critically
linked, but their relationship remains complex and
ambiguous. Conservation is essential to livelihood
sustainability, poverty eradication, and security—
themes often understood as central to human rights.
Yet there are also far too many known cases of conservation
efforts carried out in ways that directly violate
human rights, not least through forced resettlement,
exclusion and direct economic and cultural impoverishment
of entire communities. Similarly, while supporting
human rights often has positive consequences for the
environment, there are cases in which human rights
initiatives (e.g. provision of housing and shelters
of refugees) have directly caused serious environmental
problems. It may also be that fear of infringing upon
human rights may restrict conservationists from initiating
needed measures to protect endangered ecosystems and
species.
Over the past 60 years, the world community has thus
endorsed international conventions that detail civil,
political, social, and economic rights, and the right
of all people to enjoy a healthy and sustainable environment.
These conventions are meant to reduce human suffering
all over the world, promote human well-being and ensure
the sustainability of life on our planet. And yet,
the right to work, food, education, and a safe environment
are far from being enjoyed by a large portion of humanity.
Under current political, economic, and financial realities
there appears to be little immediate prospect for
improvements. If the fulfillment of human and environmental
rights is the responsibility of all who have it within
their means to act, it can be maintained, then, that
action towards such rights should guide the distribution
of the material benefits and limit the environmental
costs of economic growth. This may demand profound
reforms in current policies governing international
trade, investment and development. New regulatory
frameworks, binding agreements, and commitments may
be required to ensure that the private sector also
assumes a larger share of responsibilities towards
the fulfillment of human and environmental rights.
TGER has just started its own reflection on this topic
and further work is needed. Ultimately, we wish to
identify a clear strategic direction towards "a
rights-based approach to conservation".
Top
Partnerships
Within
CEESP, TGER will nurture a very close cooperation
with TILCEPA
- mostly about governance type and good governance
for protected areas; with E&S,
on improving governance in specific security-challenged
sites; with SEAPRISE, about
promoting and supporting Citizens' Advisory Councils
around major development initiatives; and with TSL,
on demonstrating mutual support between improved governance
of natural resources and enhanced livelihoods. Outside
CEESP, the Theme is engaged in learning from field
initiatives in partnership with IIED,
FIBA,
CIFOR, the
IUCN Regional
Office for West Africa, the IUCN
Regional Office for Central Africa, the IUCN
office in Burkina Faso, Coope
Sol y Dar and the Vision Durban group of Madagascar.
TGER has planned joint initiatives with Asia Indigenous
Peoples Pact Foundation (AIPP),
IWGIA and FPP
and is discussing joint work with Both
Ends, Fundacion
Futuro Latinoamericano and CARE
International.
TGER members
-
TGER members are individuals with concern and expertise
on the practice and theory of governance of natural
resources, equity, and human rights who agree to engage
and collaborate with others towards better understanding
and action on these subjects. The members generally
offer their contributions on a volunteer basis. They
can be compensated for their professional activities
if funds are available through specific projects or
programmes.
-
Membership in the TGER automatically implies membership
in the CEESP Commission.
-
Membership is by invitation, which is issued by one
of the TGER Chairs on behalf of the CEESP Chair, or
on the recommendation of experienced TGER members
if the work of the candidate is not well known by
the Chairs.
-
As of June 2005, all members of CMWG are "reconfirmed"
as TGER members, unless they request otherwise. The
CMWG membership is comprised of about 400 members
from about 50 countries. More than 30% of them are
women and more than 50% are from countries in the
South.
-
Members may be more or less active depending on individual
commitments and opportunities, and can focus their
interest in one or more specific sub-topics.
Top
Specific
areas of work
Within the broad perspective and scope of the Theme,
different members focus on different areas of inquiry
and action. These include (for more information see
the preliminary work plan):
-
co-management of natural resources
-
In close continuity with the work of CMWG and
TILCEPA, field-based initiatives are proceeding
in South-East Asia, West Africa and Madagascar
in collaboration with AIPP,
IWGIA, FPP,
FIBA,
the IUCN
Mauritania office and the group Vision Durban
of Madagascar;;
-
- understanding and improving governance of natural
resources
-
“good governance” (how
can processes of participatory governance evaluation
be best facilitated and supported? Can those be
a path towards effective and long-lasting governance
improvements? Current field-based initiatives
in West Africa and Central America; other regions
under development; a project proposal submitted.
Collaboration with IIED,
Coope Sol
y Dar, UICN
Regional office for West Africa )
-
governance types for protected areas (
recognition , legitimisation and support for a
variety of governance types, with emphasis on
community conserved areas and co- managed protected
areas; current field initiatives in Madagascar,
Italy, India and support to policy development
for the CBD and first World
Congress on Marine Protected Areas. Cooperation
with Kalpavriksh)
-
Strategic approaches
The TGER members pursue their aim by following the strategic
CEESP plan developed in 2003/2004, in continuity with
previous work of CMWG and TILCEPA and in close collaboration
with the other Themes and Working Groups of CEESP (the
petal structure of CEESP). Work strategic directions
include:
-
field-based, participatory action research
: fostering the review and analysis of relevant
knowledge and field experience in various regions
and ecosystems; at different levels (e.g. local,
regional, multi-country); in various societies (e.g.
sedentary, mobile/ nomadic, indigenous); under various
land-tenure conditions (e.g. protected area, public
land, communal, private) and with the full participation
of various actors in society (e.g. governments,
NGOs, local communities, indigenous peoples, gender
and socio-economic groups); this includes developing
documentation and exchanging
knowledge and experience, as relevant,
among the IUCN constituency and partners while fostering
active communication among them; flexible m
ethods and tools will be sought in support
of improved governance of natural resources, equity
and human rights, in particular with a direct link
to specific targets of the CBD and other international
conventions;
-
capacity building : pursuing various avenues
to enhance the capacity of the IUCN constituency
and partners to understand and effectively engage
in support of improved governance of natural resources,
equity and human rights, in particular among development
and conservation practitioners and civil society
at large. Learning by doing will
be the avenue of choice, in relevant field sites
where initiatives that improve the governance of
natural resources at local, national and transboundary
level and promote equity and the respect of human
rights can be variously encouraged and provided
technical support;
-
networking : assisting regional networks
to identify and evaluate crucial opportunities for
change (e.g. in policy) and to develop recommendations
appropriate to the circumstances of each region;
in particular the regional initiatives and discussion
lists will strive to provide a forum
where individual members can exchange
ideas and experience and support
one another technically and politically, as needed,
towards improved governance of natural resources,
equity and human rights.
-
policy advocacy : engaging the IUCN constituency
and partners in constructive debates about governance
of natural resources, equity and human rights and
on the (usually multiple) ways in which positive
change can be sought, in particular concerning the
IUCN and other conservation, development or donor
organizations, as well as international
agreements and conventions.
Structure, roles and responsibilities
The TGER structure is comprised of a Theme Chair (who
serves as a focal point in the CEESP Executive Committee),
three Co-chairs and a collegial governing structure
(Core Group) composed of members who agree to take an
active lead on TGER matters on a regional or thematic
area (a proposed composition of the Core Group, currently
under discussion, is included in Annex 1).
The Chair and Co-chairs promote and represent the interests
and concerns of the TGER in appropriate forums, deal
with membership issues (e.g. new appointments, maintenance
of the database), and facilitate and coordinate the
collaboration among the members of the Theme and between
the members and relevant others. In particular they
foster collaboration and joint initiatives with other
Themes and Working Groups of CEESP with whom they partially
overlap in terms of key concerns and work objectives.
The
members of the Core Group take responsibility for TGER
initiatives on a given topic or region. They take
upon themselves to identify and contact the TGER members
with relevant concerns (and/or to propose new members
with appropriate capacities and concerns) and to collaborate
with members and partners- including other IUCN commissions,
IUCN member organisations and the IUCN secretariat-
to develop specific initiatives. With the
help of the CEESP and TGER Chairs, Co-Chairs and IUCN
secretariat, they also seek and obtain the necessary
human and financial resources to carry to fruition the
said initiatives.
The
Chair, Co-chairs and Core Group- as necessary in consultation
with the membership at large- take decisions regarding
the TGER life and activities and manage the TGER financial
resources.
Top
Communication
system
TGER members can utilize various dedicated platforms
for internal and external communication.
-
Electronic discussion lists : ·
The CMWG discussion list
(CMWG@indaba.iucn.org ) has merged into a TGER
discussion list (
TGER@indaba.iucn.org ), open to TGER members
only and dedicated to matters of relevance to governance
of natural resources, equity and rights. If members
wish to discuss matters related to co-management
they can sent to either
CMWG@indaba.iucn.org or
TGER@indaba.iucn.org and re kindly requested
to place the term CM at the beginning of the subject
line.
-
Newsletter : The CMWG has for
several years produced a newsletter entitled CM
News (issues available upon request in printed format
from nahid@cenesta.org
). The last issues (CM News 6 to 8), were already
produced as joint issues with Policy Matters, the
Journal of CEESP, and are downloadable from the
publications section of the CEESP site. TGEr
will continue to publish special issues of Policy
Matters rather than a separate newsletter.
-
Top
On-going Initiatives in 2008
- A continuation of the CCA initiative financed, by the GEF Small Grants Programme in Iran, has recently started and will cover three more world regions.
- Finalization of the publication Co-management of Natural Resources in Arabic.
- Finalization of the publication Sharing Power in French
- Continued fundraising for a project proposal to support grassroots discussions on the development of the CCA Alliance throughout 2008.
- Analysis of issues of Access and Benefit Sharing to genetic resources (CBD-related) from a
“governance perspective”
- Support to IUCN Nepal in developing and running a workshop on “Building an effective and
equitable system of protected areas in Nepal”
- Finalization of a CEESP Briefing Note entitled “Governance as key for effective and equitable protected area systems”, printing and distribution.
- Participation in the forthcoming meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Rome (February 2008) and organization there of a side event on governance of protected areas.
- Continuation of CCAs regional studies in Melanesia/ Polynesia, South Asia, Central Asia and possibly South America.
- Completion of a project proposal for the EU on Improving Governance of Natural Resources from "co-management experiments" to "mainstreaming equity, accountability and environment-related rights".
Top
2007 Work Report
2006 Work Report
2005 Work Report
Publications
by TGER members
The
publications by TGER members are many and unfortunately
we cannot report about them all as we are not always
kept informed. In recent months we heard about the ones
listed below, which are very relevant for the work of
our group. Many more publications by TGER members are
listed here.
Namara,
A., 2006. 'From Paternalism to Real Partnership
with Local Communities? Experiences from Bwindi Impenetrable
National Park (Uganda)', Africa Development,
Vol. XXXI, No. 2, 2006, pp. 39–68.
Wollenberg,
E., J. Anderson and C. Lopez , Though all things differ:
Pluralism as a basis for cooperation in forests, CIFOR,
Bogor Barat (Indonesia), 2005
TPCG
and Kalpavriksh, Securing India’s Future: Final
Technical ical Report of the National Biodiversity Strategy
and Action Plan, NBSAP Technical and Policy Core Group,
Kalpavriksh, Delhi/ Pune, 2005.
Ter
Heggde, M. (ed.), Lessons Learned by the Congo Basin
Co-Management Network in Cameroon, GEF, UNEP &
IUCN Report, 2005.
Tacconi,
L., and J. Bennett 1995. ‘Biodiversity conservation:
The Process of economic assessment and establishment
of a protected area in Vanuatu’, Development
and Change, 26(1): 89-110
Pomeroy
R.S. and R. Rivera-Guieb, Fisheries Co-management:
A Practical Handbook, CABI Publishing and IDRC,
Wallingford (UK) and Cambridge, MA , 2005.
Pimbert,
M., “Supporting locally determined food systems:
the role of local organizations in farming, environment
and people’s access to food”, Chapter 6 in
Bigg, T. & D. Satterthwaite, How to Make Poverty
History – the central role of local organizations
in meeting the MDGs, IIED, London, 2005.
Pansky,
D. (ed.), Governance Stream of the Vth World Parks
Congress, Parks Canada and IUCN/WCPA, Ottawa, 2005.
Nurse
M. and Y. Malla, Advances in Community Forestry in
Asia, RECOFTC, Bangkok, 2005.
Mahanty,
S., J. Fox, M. Nurse, P. Stephen and L. McLees, Hanging
in the Balance: Equity in Community-based Natural Resource
Management in Asia, RECOFTC and East West Center,
Bangkok 2006.
Igoe,
I., “Global Indigenism and Spaceship Earth: Convergence,
Space, and Re-entry Friction” Globalizations, 2(3):
377–390, 2005.
Gilmour,
D., Y. Malla and M. Nurse, Linkages between Community
Forestry and Poverty, RECOFTC, Bangkok, 2005.
Fonseca
Borras, M., V. Solis Rivera, P. Madrigal Cordero y I.
Ayales Cruz, Gobernabilidad en el Manejo de Areas Silvestres
Protegidas en Costa Rica: La Experiencia de Manejo Conjunto
del Parque Nacional Cahuita, Coope Sol y Dar, San José,
2005
Dowie,
M., Conservation Refugees, Orion, Nov-Dec 2005.
Brown,J.,
N. Mitchell and M. Beresford, The Protected Landscape
Approach, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland) and Cambridge
(UK), 2005.
Borrini-Feyerabend,
G., “Understanding
and optimising governance: a quiet revolution for protected
areas?”, pages12-13 CBD News— Special
Edition Protected Areas: Achieving Biodiversity Targets,
CBD Secretariat, 2005.
Borrini-Feyerabend,
G., “Governance of protected areas”, ID21
Insights, Institute for Development Studies, Brighton,
September 2005.
Borrini-Feyerabend,
G. with C. B. Tarnowski, “Participatory democracy
in managing natural resources: a Columbus’ egg?”
in Brosius, P., A. Lowenhaupt Tsing and C. Zerner (eds.),
Communities and Conservation, Altamira Press,
Walnut Creek (CA), 2005.
Borrini-Feyerabend,
G. M. Moyrand et Y. Vérilhac, “Gouvernance
participative: les parcs peuvent-ils mieux faire?”,
PARCS, 52: 20-13, Juin 2005.
Bairs,
I. G. and B. Shoemaker, Aiding or Abetting? Internal
Resettlement and International Aid Agencies in the Lao
PDR, Probe international, Toronto (Canada), August
2005.
Top
Notes
[1]
Rhodes, R.A.W. « The new governance : governing
without government », Political Studies,
vol. 44, no. 4, p. 652-667.
[2]
Pimbert, M.P., "Natural resources, people and participation"
in Chambers, R., N. Kenton and H. Ashley (eds.), Participatory
Learning and Action: Critical Reflections, Future Directions,
IIED and IDS, IIED London, 2004; Borrini-Feyerabend,
G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T, Kothari, A. and Renard,
Y. Sharing Power ' Learning by doing in co-management
of natural resources throughout the World, IIED
and IUCN/CEESP/CMWG, Ed. Cenesta, Teheran, Iran, 2004b.
[3]
Lefort is quoted in Moreault (2004) as speaking of «
une dissolution des repères de la certitude
». Moreault, F., « Penser la démocratie
dans un contexte mondialisé : la gouvernance
à épreuve du politique », Conférences
de la Chaire MCD,
http://www.chaire-mcd.ca , 2004.
[4]
UNDP, Human Development Report 1999- Globalisation with
a Human Face, United Nations Development Programme,
New York, NY (USA), 1999.UNDP, Human Development Report
2002- Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World, United
Nations Development Programme, New York, NY (USA), 2002.
[5]
See Ghimire, K. B. and M. P. Pimbert (eds.), Social
Change and Conservation— Environmental politics
and impacts of national parks and protected areas,
UNRISD, Geneva ( Switzerland) and Earthscan, London,
1997.
[6]
See http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Publications/sharingpower.htm
[7]
Amin and Houtard, 2002; Le Monde Diplomatique, 2004.
[8]
Cornwall and Gaventa, 2001.
[9]
Woodcock, 1975.
Top |
