Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Resource Conflict, Collective Action, and Resilience: An Analytical Framework
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Resource Conflict, Collective Action, and Resilience: An Analytical Framework

1,120
views

Published on

Presented at the CAPRi International Workshop on Collective Action, Property Rights, and Conflict in Natural Resources Management. June 28th to July 1st, 2010, Siem Reap, …

Presented at the CAPRi International Workshop on Collective Action, Property Rights, and Conflict in Natural Resources Management. June 28th to July 1st, 2010, Siem Reap, Cambodia.
http://www.capri.cgiar.org/wks_0610.asp


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,120
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Resource Conflict, Collective Action, and Resilience: An Analytical Framework
    Blake Ratner
    Ruth Meinzen-Dick
    Candace May
    Eric Haglund
    CGIAR Systemwide Program on
    Collective Action and Property Rights
    www.capri.cgiar.org
  • 2. Motivating Forces
    conflict
    resource competition
    cooperation
    • Resource competition linked to other social divides, contributing to intrastate conflict
    • 3. Violent conflict undermines development progress
    • 4. Potential for cooperation
  • Framework sources
    Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD)
    Plus…
    Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
    Resilience
    Political Ecology
  • 5. Distinguishing features
    Multi-scale application
    Interplay of context (structure) and group agency
    Emphasis on stakeholder values
    Contingent outcomes
  • 6. Context or external factors
    Action Arena
    Biophysical/
    material conditions
    Actors
    Patternsofinteractions
    Action
    Action resources
    COLLECTIVE ACTION INSTITUTIONS
    Attributes of community & resource users
    Rules
    Outcomes
    Rules: governance arrangements
    Evaluative Criteria of outcomes:
    • Livelihood security, resource status, adaptive capacity.
    • 7. Influence on institutional and governance incentives for social-ecological resilience.
    • 8. Future conflict risk.
    Framework in overview
  • 9. Context
    Context or external factors
    Biophysical/
    material conditions
    Attributes of community & resource users
    Rules: governance arrangements
    • Type of resource, scarcity, observability
    • 10. Shocks & trends
    • 11. Assets: natural, physical, human, financial, social
    • 12. Social capital: bonding, bridging, linking
    • 13. Vulnerabilities
    • 14. Representation
    • 15. Distribution of power
    • 16. Mechanisms of accountability
  • Collective Action Institutions
    Wateruser groups
    Community forestry organizations
    Community fishery organizations
    Civil society advocacy networks
    etc.
  • 17. Action Arena
    Actors
    • Tangible and intangible assets
    • 20. Others: information, social prestige, time.
    Action resources
    Action
    Rules
    • Multiple rules in use (legal pluralism)
    • 21. Responses: increase assets, or change the rules
  • Patterns of Interaction
    conflict
    resource competition
    cooperation
    Patternsofinteractions
    Action
    Outcomes
    Evaluative Criteria
    • Livelihood security, resource status, adaptive capacity.
    • 22. Influence on institutional and governance incentives for social-ecological resilience.
    • 23. Future conflict risk.
  • Context or external factors
    Action Arena
    Biophysical/
    material conditions
    Actors
    Patternsofinteractions
    Action
    Action resources
    COLLECTIVE ACTION INSTITUTIONS
    Attributes of community & resource users
    Rules
    Outcomes
    Rules: governance arrangements
    Evaluative Criteria of outcomes:
    • Livelihood security, resource status, adaptive capacity.
    • 24. Influence on institutional and governance incentives for social-ecological resilience.
    • 25. Future conflict risk.
    Framework in overview
  • 26. Propositions
    For comparative research: the “fork in the road”
    Capacity for collective action beyond the local scale improves likelihood that resource conflicts will be managed cooperatively.
    When shared interests in resource management build bonds across divisions of ethnicity, religion, gender or economic status, the risk of broader social conflict is reduced.
    Clarity, equity, and adaptability in property rights improve the likelihood of resource competition being resolved peacefully rather than violently.
  • 27. Propositions
    For direct stakeholder interventions:
    Rebuilding the legitimacy of resource management institutions after violence is interdependent with efforts at reconciliation across other social divides.
    Redundancy in conflict management mechanisms is beneficial when the representatives of diverse mechanisms see others as legitimate and reinforce their authority.
    Positive experiences of collective action that improve livelihood security strengthen the institutional foundations to address future conflicts equitably.
  • 28. Propositions
    For policy & governance interventions:
    When human rights safeguards and multiple mechanisms of social accountability are in place, the space for positive collective action is increased and incentives for violence reduced.
    Institutions seen as legitimate in multiple domains are key to moderating conflict risk during rapid transitions.
    Mechanisms for participation and deliberation over resource management decisions help build trust and common understanding about alternative courses of action and reduce the likelihood of destructive conflict.

×