Contemporary researchers of environmental management argue for community-based approaches in which local circumstances, skills, and concerns are respected. However, relying on local capacity opens up the possibility of establishing highly uneven management practices. The purpose of this paper is to explore the roots and effects of uneven environmental management. I develop a conceptual framework that identifies key elements of regional environmental-management regimes and then use it to compare experiences in two areas designated as Canadian biosphere reserves in 2000: Clayoquot Sound, BC, and Redberry Lake, SK. Analysis reveals that differences in property instruments and civic sectors affect the institutional capacity of each locality, opening the door for private forms of environmental governance in Redberry Lake. To explain how property instruments and civic actors operate, I illustrate how processes associated with property exchange, reterritorialization, valuation, and planning work together to produce a relatively robust and public regime at Clayoquot Sound and a more private form of stewardship at Redberry Lake. In consequence, uneven environmental-management practices may take root and reinforce social inequalities across the two regions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anonymous, 2002, “15 years: 15 years towards sustainable development at the Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserve, 1998–2002”, copy available from the Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserve, PO Box 221, Hafford, SK S0J 1A0
BerkesFColdingJFolkeC, 2003Navigating Social—Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
5.
BraunB, 2002The Intemperate Rainforest: Nature, Culture and Power on Canada's West Coast (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
6.
BridgeGJonasA E G, 2002, “Governing nature: the reregulation of resource access, production, and consumption”Environment and Planning A34759–766
7.
BrogdenM JGreenbergJ B, 2003, “The fight for the west: a political ecology of land use conflicts in Arizona”Human Organization62289–298
8.
ClappA R, 1998, “The resource cycle in forestry and fishing”The Canadian Geographer42129–144
9.
ClappA R, 2004, “Wilderness ethics and political ecology: remapping the Great Bear Rainforest”Political Geography23839–862
10.
Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve, 1999, “Part 1: summary, nomination papers submitted to the UNESCO-MAB”, Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve Nomination, http://www.clayoquotbiosphere.org/frames/RSHnav.htm
11.
Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices, 1994, “Report 1: report of the scientific panel for sustainable forest practices in Clayoquot Sound”, report to the Government of British Columbia (Queen's Printer, Victoria, BC)
12.
Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices, 1995, “Report 3: First Nations perspectives relating to forest practices standards in Clayoquot Sound”, report to the Government of British Columbia (Queen's Printer, Victoria, BC)
13.
CortnerH JMooteM A, 1999The Politics of Ecosystem Management (Island Press, Washington, DC)
14.
CresswellJ, 1998Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
15.
DeardenPDempseyJ, 2004, “Protected areas in Canada: a decade of change”The Canadian Geographer48225–239
FeldmanT DJonasA E G, 2000, “Sage scrub revolution? Property rights, political fragmentation, and conservation planning in southern California under the Federal Endangered Species Act”Annals of the Association of American Geographers90256–292
19.
GibbsDJonasA, 2000, “Governance and regulation in local environmental policy: the utility of a regime approach”Geoforum31299–313
20.
HalvorsenK E, 2001, “Relationships between national forest system employee diversity and beliefs regarding external interest groups”Forest Science47258–269
21.
HayterR, 2003, “‘The war in the woods’: post-Fordist restructuring, globalization, and the contested remapping of British Columbia's forest economy”Annals of the Association of American Geographers93706–729
22.
HeynenNRobbinsP, 2005, “The neoliberalization of nature: governance, privitization, enclosure and valuation”Capitalism Nature Socialism165–8
23.
HurleyP TWalkerP A, 2004, “Whose vision? Conspiracy theory and land-use planning in Nevada County, California”Environment and Planning A361529–1547
24.
Indigenous Governance Program, 2003, “Protocols and principles for conducting research in an indigenous context”, Indigenous Governance Program, Faculty of Human and Social Development, University of Victoria, Victoria, http://web.uvic.ca/igov/research/index.html
25.
LaneM, 2003, “Decentralization or privatization of environmental governance? Forest conflict and bioregional assessment in Australia”Journal of Rural Studies19283–294
26.
LarkinP A, 1992, “Analysis of possible causes of the shortfall in Sockeye Spawners in the Fraser River”, Technical Appendix to Managing Salmon on the Fraser by Peter H Pearse, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Communications Branch, Suite 200, 401 Burnard Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 3S4
27.
McCarthyJ, 2002, “First World political ecology: lessons from the Wise Use movement”Environment and Planning A341281–1302
28.
McCarthyJPrudhamS, 2004, “Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism”Geoforum35275–283
29.
McIlveenK, 2004, “British Columbia's community forest pilot project: can a localized trend survive in an increasingly globalized forest sector?”, unpublished master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
30.
MagnussonWShawK (Eds), 2003A Political Space: Reading the Global Through Clayoquot Sound (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
NCC, Nature Conservancy of Canada, 2003, “Prairie conservation planning update: highlighting ecoregional and site conservation planning across the prairies by the Nature Conservancy of Canada and its partners” no date, “A conservation toolchest for landowners: investing in the land you love”, http://www.natureconservancy.ca/pdf/tool%20chest%20revised.pdf
37.
NightengaleA, 2003, “Nature—society and development: social, cultural and ecological change in Nepal”Geoforum34525–540
38.
PaulsonSGezonLWattsM, 2003, “Locating the political in political ecology: an introduction”Human Organization62205–217
39.
PearseP, 1976Timber Rights and Forest Policy in British Columbia: Report of the Royal Commission on Forest Resources (Queen's Printer, Victoria)
40.
ProctorJ, 1995, “Whose nature? The contested moral terrain of ancient forests”, in Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature Ed. CrononW (W W Norton, London) pp 269–297
41.
Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserve, 1998, “Part II: description, nomination papers submitted to the UNESCO-MAB”, copy available from the Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserve, PO Box 221, Hafford, SK S0J 1A0
42.
ReedM G, 2003Taking Stands: Gender and the Sustainability of Rural Communities (UBC Press, Vancouver)
43.
ReedM GGillA, 1997, “Tourism, recreational, and amenity values in land allocation: an analysis of institutional arrangements in the postproductivist era”Environment and Planning A292019–2040
44.
RobbinsP, 2002, “Letter to the editor: obstacles to a First World political ecology? Looking near without looking up”Environment and Planning A341509–1513
45.
RobbinsPLuginbuhlA, 2005, “The last enclosure: resisting privatization of wildlife in the western United States”Capitalism Nature Socialism1645–61
46.
RobertsonM, 2004, “The neoliberalization of ecosystems services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance”Geoforum35361–373
47.
SchmutzJ, 1999, “Community conservation plan for the Redberry Lake Important Bird Area”, unpublished paper, Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
48.
SheppardS R JHarshawH W, 2001Forests and Landscapes: Linking Ecology, Sustainability, and Aesthetics (CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon)
49.
ShindlerB ABeckleyT MFinleyM C, 2003Two Paths Toward Sustainable Forests: Public Values in Canada and the United States (Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR)
50.
SianS, 2001, “Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserve: a community's plan for sustainability”, copy available from the Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserve, PO Box 221, Hafford, SK S0J 1A0
51.
SneddonC S, 2000, “‘Sustainability’ in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: a review”Progress in Human Geography24521–549
52.
UNESCO, 2000, “Solving the puzzle: the ecosystem approach and biosphere reserves”, UNESCO, Paris)
WalkerLCocklinCLe HeronR, 2000, “Regulating for environmental improvement in the New Zealand forest sector”Geoforum31281–197
55.
WalkerP, 2003, “Reconsidering ‘regional’ political ecologies: toward a political ecology of the rural American West”Progress in Human Geography277–24
56.
WhiteR, 1995, “‘Are you an environmentalist or do you work for a living?’: work and nature”, in Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature Ed. CrononW (W W Norton, London) pp 171–185
57.
YoungI M, 1990Justice and Politics of Difference (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
