Co-management as a Catalyst: Pathways to Post-colonial Forestry in the Klamath Basin, California.

Sibyl Diver

doi:10.1007/s10745-016-9851-8

Abstract

Co-management frameworks are intended to facilitate sustainable resource management and more equitable power sharing between state agencies and Indigenous communities. However, there is significant debate about who benefits from co-management in practice. This article addresses two competing perspectives in the literature, which alternately portrays co-management as an instrument for co-optation or for transformation. Through a case study of co-management negotiations involving the Karuk Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service in the Klamath Basin of Northern California, this study examines how Indigenous communities use co-management to build greater equity in environmental decision-making, despite its limitations. The concept of pivot points is developed to describe how Indigenous communities like the Karuk Tribe are simultaneously following existing state policies and subverting them to shift federal forest management. The pivot point analytic demonstrates one mechanism by which communities are addressing Indigenous self-determination goals and colonial legacies through environmental policy and management.

Highlights

Co-management refers to the sharing of management power and responsibility between government agencies and local people, typically through a formal agreement (Berkes et al 1991; Berkes and Turner 2006)
Ti Bar Demo outcomes are positioned in between the extremes of transformation and cooptation often presented in the co-management literature
The Karuk Tribe engaged with existing state policy frameworks along with their limitations—while simultaneously pushing back to change those frameworks and address the Tribe’s self-determination goals

Summary

Introduction

Co-management refers to the sharing of management power and responsibility between government agencies and local people, typically through a formal agreement (Berkes et al 1991; Berkes and Turner 2006). Risks of co-optation are a particular challenge for Indigenous communities working to achieve greater self-determination, a term that signifies the ability of Indigenous communities to participate meaningfully in the creation of the government institutions that they live with (Anaya 1993). This is, in part, because Indigenous relationships with state-based resource management institutions are embedded within colonial systems that have historically excluded Indigenous communities from land management decisions (e.g., Taiepa et al 1997)

Methods

Results

Conclusion