Figure 1 - available from: Human Ecology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Map of Karuk Aboriginal Territory (California and Oregon, U.S.) with overlapping National Forest areas. The Ti Bar Demonstration Project site is located approximately halfway between the towns of Orleans and Happy Camp. Map by Jill Beckmann, Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources
Source publication
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 portray...
Similar publications
Forest communities play a vital role in the conservation of forest resources. Understanding communities' use, attitudes and perceptions of forests and management measures is significant in attaining conservation goals and reducing forest resource use conflicts. This study sought to assess local community' forest resources use and their perception t...
Citations
... All rights, when not explicitly extinguished by a treaty or termination statute, are considered to be 'reserved' to the Tribe, even when a Tribe has been officially terminated or when treaties were never ratified (United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381, 1905). Tribal rights to maintain land stewardship are reflected in numerous places across US federal land management policy including the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004, Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act of 1975, and the Pacific Southwest Region Traditional Gathering Policy (Diver, 2016;Norgaard, 2014;Yazzie, 2007). These rights are also mirrored in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) that outlines the rights of Indigenous peoples internationally. ...
... Since time immemorial, cultural and ceremonial fires have been set on Ikxariy atuuyship ('Spirit Mountain') also called Offield Mountain, near the confluence of the Klamath and Salmon rivers in present-day northern California, every August as a part of the Karuk World Renewal Ceremony (Karuk Tribe, 2019). In 1905 the US federal government asserted ownership over this land through the establishment of the Klamath National Forest and the next century was defined by fire exclusion, cultural genocide, and removal of Karuk people from their land (Bower, 1978;Diver, 2016). According to Mamie Offield (Karuk woman) as recorded in Schenck and Gifford (1952), 'before the forest service came in, there was no dense underbrush and therefore, when a forest fire occurred, it burned only the annuals, grasses, and so forth, and did not harm the forest trees. ...
... Karuk people have continued to exercise their rights and inherent responsibility to place since time immemorial, despite the challenges and barriers to doing so. They are continuing to revitalize Indigenous fire stewardship to this culturally significant place and assert their rights to steward and manage their aboriginal landscape (Diver, 2016;Harling & Tripp, 2014;Lake, 2021). The Western Klamath Restoration Partnership (WKRP) is a collaborative landscape restoration partnership between the Karuk Tribe, the Six Rivers National Forest, Klamath National Forest, and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) including the Mid Klamath Watershed Council and the Salmon River Restoration Council. ...
Indigenous Knowledge, Practice, and Belief Systems (IKPBS) are an ecological and cultural framework with which Indigenous communities have (and continue to) adaptively manage their land since time immemorial. In the current context of climate change and colonial forest and fire management in the western US, Indigenously‐led ecological research and cultural revitalization offers a path forward where tribal sovereignty of land stewardship is maintained and the resiliency of natural systems are reestablished. We describe our process of developing an Indigenous‐Directed Research (IDR) partnership to study xánthiip (Karuk for black oak, Quercus kelloggii ), a Karuk cultural focal species, in the context of Karuk‐led forest restoration. We first outline our process of IDR by describing how this partnership was established, research questions and methodologies were co‐developed, IKPBS were centered, and utility to tribal forest restoration processes were prioritized. The primary product of this partnership was a culturally responsive black oak monitoring protocol to assess black oak tree quality over time. We describe how this protocol was developed including conducting semi‐structured qualitative interviews with Karuk cultural practitioners, translating qualitative interviews to field protocol metrics, consulting with research partners, testing for field feasibility, and sharing back to the local community through field training and youth curriculum development. Second, we analyzed plot data collected from the implementation of the black oak protocol using a two‐eyed seeing approach that ensured our ecological findings had cultural relevance for future Karuk‐led forest stewardship. Through this analysis we described the dominant black oak tree typologies based on their traits of importance as identified by Karuk cultural practitioners and research collaborators. All natural resources research takes place on Indigenous land. By outlining the steps of this transdisciplinary IDR partnership, we provide a framework for centering IKPBS, respecting Indigenous land sovereignty, and centering Indigenous leadership in ecological research and knowledge co‐development.
... Located in the mid-Klamath, downriver from dam removal areas, 98% of Karuk aboriginal territory overlaps with areas that are designated as National Forest and are administered by the US Forest Service. These conditions have contributed to intensive natural resource extraction that has negatively impacted Karuk people and traditional foodways in the mid-Klamath, including impacts from industrial-scale mining, clear-cut forestry, and dam construction for hydroelectric power [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Environmental exploitation and racialized violence are deeply connected to the removal of Karuk people from their aboriginal territory. ...
... A reciprocal relations framework emphasizes community agency such that communities themselves are fulfilling responsibilities for caretaking their lands [40,46,52,53]. This approach envisions Indigenous leadership in land stewardship with Indigenous community members engaging in on-the-ground caretaking activities, such as coppicing, gathering, and cultural burning [19,43]. Scholarship further documents the importance of rebalancing resources and power relations in land management to enable greater Indigenous leadership in restoration [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. ...
... The Main Salmon River Watershed Analysis was one of the first occasions when the US Forest Service invited the Karuk Tribe to participate in agency planning processes [26]. Importantly, the 1995 Karuk Tribal Module critiqued previous US Forest Service planning for overlooking Karuk knowledge and governance authority [19,78]. The Karuk Tribal Module flatly rejected water management approaches that failed to include Indigenous value systems and cosmologies. ...
Moving from an era of dam building to dam removal brings additional perspectives to indigenous water governance and hydrosocial relations in the Klamath River Basin (US). This collaborative research initiative with the Karuk Tribe builds greater understanding of the sociocultural impacts of Klamath dam removal and river restoration through Karuk knowledge. Addressing a knowledge gap around the social dimensions of dam removal, we held focus groups and interviews with Karuk cultural practitioners, tribal leaders, and tribal youth in the six-month period leading up to demolition. Extending beyond a focus on infrastructure removal or single-species restoration, we consider how Indigenous environmental relations and cosmologies are embedded in dam removal and river restoration. Specifically, Karuk knowledge shifts the significance of dam removal by elucidating deeply interconnected ecological, cultural, and ceremonial relations that are co-constituted with the Klamath watershed, thereby recasting dam removal as a holistic eco-cultural revitalization initiative. This reconfigures dam removal goals to include improving community health and well-being, enhancing spiritual elements of river restoration, responding to colonial legacies, and engaging tribal youth. In the Klamath case, restorative justice becomes possible through Karuk participation in river restoration to facilitate the revitalization of reciprocal relations held between Karuk people and the Klamath River—including Karuk eco-cultural and ceremonial practices for restoring balance in the world.
... Co-management was wielded as an "instrument of public government", often presented by the state as the sole alternative available to Indigenous groups, in often fraught contexts of state-sanctioned resource development (Mulrennan and Scott 2005;Usher 1993, p. 6). As co-management became more ubiquitous, researchers began to observe the strategic uptake of comanagement by Indigenous communities as a mechanism for their engagement with the state (Berkes 2009;Diver 2016;Hill et al. 2012;Lyver et al. 2014;Martin 2016;Mulrennan and Scott 2005;Zurba et al. 2012). Yet, as case studies attest, the state and Indigenous leaders often interpret the purpose of co-management differently, with Indigenous groups aspiring to arrangements closer to cojurisdiction or co-governance while the state focused on consultative arrangements (Martin 2016;Parsons et al. 2021). ...
Parks Canada, in response to commitments undertaken towards reconciliation, has signaled its readiness to reassess the participation of Indigenous peoples in the co-management of national parks, national park reserves, and national marine conservation areas (NMCAs). However, the effectiveness of co-management, as the established framework underpinning these and other longstanding partnerships between the state and Indigenous groups, has been disputed, based on an uneven track record in meeting the needs, interests, and aspirations of Indigenous communities. This paper explores the potential of co-management to facilitate reconciliation within national parks, reserves and NMCAs by developing a typology of various types of co-management agreements. Addressing a critical knowledge gap in co-management governance, we provide a comprehensive review of 23 negotiated co-management agreements involving the state and Indigenous groups in a national park context. The resulting typology categorizes these agreements according to contextual factors and governance arrangements, offering insights into the feasibility of shared governance approaches with Parks Canada. Moreover, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of co-management agreements in fulfilling reconciliation commitments. Our findings indicate that, although Parks Canada has implemented innovative approaches to co-management and shown a willingness to support Indigenous-led conservation efforts, true shared governance with Indigenous groups, as defined by international standards, is limited by the Canadian government's evident reluctance to amend the foundational legislation to effectively share authority in national parks.
... By the 19th century, European colonization had led to the near extinction of Indigenous groups, including the Tainos Indians. Central to European colonization in the Caribbean was the plantation system, which relied on slave labor imposed by force on Africans (Diver 2016) [24]. During this period, Jamaica became the vanguard of agricultural capitalism in the British West Indies (Besson, 2016) [25]. ...
In the quest for effective environmental governance, the integration of legal and cultural pluralism within conservation strategies emerges as a critical factor, especially in regions marked by rich ethnic diversity and complex historical legacies. This paper explores the symbiotic relationship between state conservation efforts and the engagement of local communities, with a particular focus on the Indigenous Maroon communities in the Blue and John Crow Mountains (BJCMs) of Jamaica. It underscores the imperative of aligning conservation objectives with the aspirations and traditional practices of these communities to foster sustainable ecosystems and safeguard Indigenous autonomy. Central to this discourse is the development of collaborative frameworks that respect and incorporate the legal and cultural dimensions of pluralism, thereby facilitating a co-managed approach to environmental stewardship. This study emphasizes the role of collaboration and trust as pivotal elements in cultivating a mutual understanding of the interdependencies between state law and Indigenous law. This research advocates for a reciprocal exchange of knowledge between the state and community members, aiming to empower the latter with the resources necessary for effective environmental protection while respecting their legal autonomy. This approach not only enhances conservation initiatives overall, but also ensures that these efforts are informed by the rich cultural heritage and traditional ecological knowledge of the Maroon communities. By examining the conservation practices and governance challenges faced by the Maroons in the BJCMs, this paper reveals the nuanced dynamics of implementing state-led conservation laws in areas characterized by cultural and legal pluralism. The findings highlight the necessity for state regulatory frameworks to enable collaborative governance models that complement, rather than undermine, the traditional governance structures of the Maroons. This research contributes to the broader discourse on environmental governance by illustrating the potential of culturally informed conservation strategies to address environmental threats while respecting and reinforcing the social fabric of Indigenous communities.
... VIDS (2020) shows that these rulings are only the tip of the iceberg regarding human rights violations of indigenous people in Suriname. Alternatively, Diver (2016) has shown that co-management power-sharing arrangements between indigenous tribes and government agencies can gradually restore and institutionalize ecocultural practices that improve ecosystem management and cultural subsistence while cultivating self-determination. However, there are several issues that can threaten the success of a co-management approach, such as the social marginalization of indigenous representatives (Ballet et al., 2009;Diver, 2016), and the lack of inclusive democratic processes in highly hierarchical communities. ...
... Alternatively, Diver (2016) has shown that co-management power-sharing arrangements between indigenous tribes and government agencies can gradually restore and institutionalize ecocultural practices that improve ecosystem management and cultural subsistence while cultivating self-determination. However, there are several issues that can threaten the success of a co-management approach, such as the social marginalization of indigenous representatives (Ballet et al., 2009;Diver, 2016), and the lack of inclusive democratic processes in highly hierarchical communities. As explained by Ballet et al. (2009), a sound co-management approach combines the management advantages of the central government and local communities in complementary ways. ...
Humans have caused a global biodiversity crisis and a climate emergency. The number of reported climate-, weather- and water-related disasters has increased markedly. In Suriname, we are also increasingly exposed to extreme weather conditions, such as hot days and extreme rainfall. The climate is expected to become drier overall, which will impact dry areas and exacerbate dry periods. Society must adapt and become more resilient. From examples and through careful experimentation, we must learn to use our natural resources more optimally and sustainably. However, reckless local actions are making Suriname clearly more vulnerable to climate impacts. Two examples are the ill-advised parceling of low-lying areas close to the coastline, and the uncontrolled gold industry that threatens public health and the food security of indigenous and tribal peoples. The benefits of preserving ecosystems are disregarded to satisfy incoherent short-term desires which are bolstered by a ruinous economic model and widespread corruption. Profound changes are necessary to halt the shattering of a potentially safe and decent future.
... The western Klamath Mountains in northern California are a diverse and highly fire-prone ecosystem that historically burned frequently with low or moderate severity but have recently experienced many uncharacteristically extensive or severe wildfires (Skinner et al., 2006;Taylor et al., 2021). Indigenous Knowledge holders in this region have a relatively unbroken understanding of cultural burning practices and have worked for decades to revitalize and remove barriers to cultural fire stewardship, evaluate the effects of cultural burning on important cultural species, and conduct interviews with knowledge holders to record Indigenous fire knowledge (Diver, 2016;Karuk Tribe, 2019;Mucioki et al., 2021;Norgaard, 2019;Sowerwine et al., 2019). These studies and interviews detail the specificity of cultural burning practices at fine spatial scales for species including California hazelnut (Hazel; Corylus cornuta), huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax), tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus), and sandbar willow (Salix exigua; Halpern et al., 2022;Hummel & Lake, 2015;Lake, 2007;Marks-Block et al., 2019Rentz, 2003;Rossier, 2019). ...
... Such knowledge systems communicate strong histories of facilitating the resilience and adaptation of coupled human-natural systems critical for contemporary landscapes under intensifying wildfires and climate change (Berkes & Turner, 2006;Fern andez-llamazares et al., 2021;Prichard et al., 2021). In northern California, there is increasing support for adaptive co-management that incorporates Indigenous Knowledge, modern tools, and western science to collectively advance ecocultural revitalization, landscape restoration, and community wildfire risk reduction (Armatas et al., 2016;Diver, 2016;Eisenberg et al., 2019). This work, grounded in Indigenous Knowledge, voices, and practices, provides a spatially explicit baseline estimate of cultural burning to anchor future research and management that explicitly incorporates fire as an ecocultural process (Prichard et al., 2023). ...
The combined effects of Indigenous fire stewardship and lightning ignitions shaped historical fire regimes, landscape patterns, and available resources in many ecosystems globally. The resulting fire regimes created complex fire–vegetation dynamics that were further influenced by biophysical setting, disturbance history, and climate. While there is increasing recognition of Indigenous fire stewardship among western scientists and managers, the extent and purpose of cultural burning is generally absent from the landscape–fire modeling literature and our understanding of ecosystem processes and development. In collaboration with the Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources, we developed a transdisciplinary Monte Carlo simulation model of cultural ignition location, frequency, and timing to simulate spatially explicit cultural ignitions across a 264,399‐ha landscape within Karuk Aboriginal Territory in northern California. Estimates of cultural ignition parameters were developed with Tribal members and knowledge holders using existing interviews, historical maps, ethnographies, recent ecological studies, contemporary maps, and generational knowledge. Spatial and temporal attributes of cultural burning were explicitly tied to the ecology of specific cultural resources, fuel receptivity, seasonal movement patterns, and spiritual practices. Prior to colonization, cultural burning practices were extensive across the study landscape with an estimated 6972 annual ignitions, averaging approximately 6.5 ignitions per Indigenous fire steward per year. The ignition characteristics we document align closely with data on historical fire regimes and vegetation but differ substantially from the location and timing of contemporary ignitions. This work demonstrates the importance of cultural burning for developing and maintaining the ecosystems present at the time of colonization and underscores the need to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities to restore ecocultural processes in these systems.
... The genesis of our methodological framework was inspired by the urgent need to understand and document the Maroons' traditional practices and their interactions with state environmental policies against the backdrop of increasing environmental governance challenges. The examination 8 of the interplay between diverse legal and cultural frameworks and their influence on environmental governance within the Blue and John Crow Mountains (BJCM) necessitated the adoption of a qualitative, interpretive research methodology. This approach entailed the engagement of stakeholders within Maroon territories, through comprehensive semi-structured interviews. ...
Keywords: conservation; cultural pluralism; environmental regulation; community-based natural resource management; Indigenous law
... As motivation for this work, we recall a friend and collaborator Kristina Peterson, an Indigenous advocate at the Lowlander Center in Louisiana, U.S., challenging audience members at an academic conference through her central question, "Why should the struggle for Indigenous peoples to revitalize and reconnect people and the lands they come from be so hard?" (personal communication, August 2014, Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.) Environmental governance researchers have written extensively about power asymmetries in Indigenous resource management (e.g., Notzke 1995, Nadasdy 2003, Diver 2016. Through the lens of collaborative care, we add to this body of research and assert that governance transformation requires moving "from knowing to caring" (e.g., Piatote et al. 2020, Smith et al. 2020a, 2020b. ...
... In the United States, models of Indigenous land stewardship outside of Native Nation lands commonly rely on "comanagement," but these arrangements frequently fail to remove structural barriers to full and inclusive participation by Indigenous communities, reproducing colonial forms of resource control (47). In addition, Native Nations and communities are increasingly using private conservation action to reclaim access to homelands (48). ...
... In the United States, models of Indigenous land stewardship outside of Native Nation lands commonly rely on "comanagement," but these arrangements frequently fail to remove structural barriers to full and inclusive participation by Indigenous communities, reproducing colonial forms of resource control (47). In addition, Native Nations and communities are increasingly using private conservation action to reclaim access to homelands (48). ...
Increased conservation action to protect more habitat and species is fueling a vigorous debate about the relative effectiveness of different sorts of protected areas. Here we review the literature that compares the effectiveness of protected areas managed by states and areas managed by Indigenous peoples and/or local communities. We argue that these can be hard comparisons to make. Robust comparative case studies are rare, and the epistemic communities producing them are fractured by language, discipline, and geography. Furthermore the distinction between these different forms of protection on the ground can be blurred. We also have to be careful about the value of this sort of comparison as the consequences of different forms of conservation for people and nonhuman nature are messy and diverse. Measures of effectiveness, moreover, focus on specific dimensions of conservation performance, which can omit other important dimensions. With these caveats, we report on findings observed by multiple study groups focusing on different regions and issues whose reports have been compiled into this article. There is a tendency in the data for community-based or co-managed governance arrangements to produce beneficial outcomes for people and nature. These arrangements are often accompanied by struggles between rural groups and powerful states. Findings are highly context specific and global generalizations have limited value.
