Author
Listed:
- Espada, Ana Luiza Violato
- Kainer, Karen A.
Abstract
Power asymmetries are a major obstacle to inclusive and robust decision making in collaborative management (or co-management), whereby multiple actors, principally government and local communities, jointly make decisions to achieve natural resource management goals. We compared seven community-based timber projects under different co-management arrangements within three Brazilian Amazonian extractive reserves to illuminate how decision making was organized (structure) and how it actually operated (function) with respect to power dynamics among multiple actors. Over a 15-month field season, we conducted participant observation and 52 semistructured interviews, systematically analyzed over 30 key timber management decision-making meetings, and employed Q-methodology to ascertain diverse actor perspectives of power dynamics. Our overall analysis revealed that decisions across all seven timber projects were gradually made through multiple meetings at community, extractive reserve, and beyond extractive reserve levels – a positive approach that can lead to continuous problem-solving. The 16 Q-sorters perceived decision making in these meetings to be participative, respectful of all actors' rights to speak, and allowed for some knowledge exchange, suggesting that unequal power dynamics (as observed in our study) does not necessarily prevent the opportunity to voice one's opinion. This participation also decentralized decision-making processes, boosting chances that community-level actors used their crucial local knowledge and advocated for their interests. Still, in one reserve, community members were ill prepared to make informed decisions, lacking sufficient technical training and trusted long-term support from non-governmental external actors. Furthermore, some Q-sorters noted insufficient community-level actors in decision-making processes, because deliberative spaces were beyond their physical reach. Yet in two reserves, innovative logistical strategies were developed to compensate and accommodate this challenge. In the third reserve, however, in the absence of intentional and creative solutions to geographical and cultural distances, there were limited interactions among the communities and external actors, giving rise to minimal information flow and weakened representation of community interests in decision making. We also demonstrated that actors in power (government forest administration officers) or those with perceived power (financial or forest technical providers, community leaders), sometimes acted strategically over other actors, particularly those perceived as without power (community residents), to alter their behavior, constrain their choices, and influence their expectations regarding decision outcomes. We conclude that power asymmetries can be overcome in natural resource co-management decision making, using deliberate, thoughtful, and creative participatory approaches.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:159:y:2024:i:c:s1389934123002162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.