Engelskt namn: The politics and practice of natural resources
Denna kursplan gäller: 2009-05-18 till 2010-05-09 (nyare version av kursplanen finns)
Kursplan för kurser med start efter 2011-09-05
Kursplan för kurser med start mellan 2010-05-17 och 2011-09-04
Kursplan för kurser med start mellan 2010-05-10 och 2010-05-16
Kursplan för kurser med start innan 2010-05-09
Kurskod: 2SV056
Högskolepoäng: 7,5
Utbildningsnivå: Grundnivå
Huvudområden och successiv fördjupning:
Statsvetenskap: Grundnivå, har endast gymnasiala förkunskapskrav
Betygsskala: Väl godkänd, godkänd, underkänd
Ansvarig institution: Statsvetenskapliga institutionen
Beslutad av: Prefekt, 2009-05-19
The use of our natural resources is a constant matter of conflict, not only at the local and national levels but also globally. There is a seemingly growing, international agreement on the importance of cross-scale and multi-level governance approaches, but this has not decreased the complexity surrounding the management of natural resources. On the contrary, as the number of actors and political levels involved in natural resource management increase, so tend levels of complexity. A key question is therefore how we can design and implement solutions that bridge internationally agreed upon environmental obligations with national needs, local rights and stakeholder participation. This course introduces and problematises relevant concepts and theories within natural resource management and environmental governance. Perspectives on sustainable development and conflict dimensions regarding natural resources at different levels and on different arenas are examples of themes that are examined. Furthermore, the possibilities for, but also potential consequences of, involving local actors and users in management and governance processes are discussed. The course is separated into three modules. The first module centres around the question What is a natural resource and who has the right to use it?. The module departs from basic ecological and political science perspectives, focussing particularly on conflict dimensions. The second module focuses on management and governance theories and is based on the increasing tendency, in Sweden as well as globally, towards participatory oriented solutions. The concept co-management is critically reviewed based on a selection of case studies. The third and last module has a more marked problem-based learning approach and students are here expected to conduct diagnostic analyses of different types of natural resource problems. Emphasis is placed on possible tools for solving resource conflicts, scale problems, and enabling increased levels of participation in management processes.
Students who successfully complete this course are expected to be able to: Compare and explain problems and possibilities associated with natural resource management in general Discuss and analyse central course concepts, such as sustainable development, natural resources, management and governance models, and participatory processes Interpret and apply relevant theories within research and management of natural resources, for instance common pool resource theory, governance and resilience theory Interpret and summarise conflict dimensions likely to arise in different natural resource management situations, as well as argue for different standpoints Independently perform diagnostic analyses of specific resource situations
The course is fully internet based, running at 50% study rate. The basis of the course is literature studies, supported by lectures (i.e. power point presentations and audio recordings/ podcasts) which successively will be made available through the course web portal (see below). Additional resources, such as video casts and case studies, will also be available via the course web portal. The number of lectures will vary between the different thematic modules. Continuous internet access is required as not all resources will be downloadable. At the end of each module students are required to complete a smaller examination assignment, which can vary between short quizzes, hand-in assignments and/or active participation in web seminars or discussions. The course is completed by an independent written assignment where a natural resource use situation is analysed from a diagnostic perspective. The course requires basic computer skills (the ability to navigate basic functions), access to internet connection and equipment for playing video and audio files. Students at the course will be given access to the course web portal (Cambro) when the course starts. In order to gain access to the portal so called CAS-log in details are required. These are sent out automatically when students are accepted at the course or can be obtained from the Umdac unit at Umeå University.
Students at the course will be examined through different types of smaller examination assignments and the final written assignment. All assignments must be given a pass in order to pass the entire course. More information about the different assignments and examinations will be given when the course starts and the preliminary schedule is provided. The smaller examination assignments will be graded either Fail (U) or Pass (G). The final written assignment can be awarded three grades: Fail (U), Pass (G) or Pass with distinction (VG). To pass at least 50% is required, to get a pass with distinction 75% is required. Students who fail an examination may take a retest, and students have the possibility to retest a minimum of 5 times. A student has the right to request a new examiner if he/she fails two sub-course examinations (i.e. an examination and a retest). In such cases students should contact the Director of Undergraduate Studies (Studierektor). A student has the right to an examination based on the course and literature described in this document for a period of two years after he/she first registered for the course. Academic credit transfer The Director of Undergraduate Studies (Studierektor) makes decisions about transfer credits for a module or course. Students who want to transfer credits should submit a written request to the Director of Undergraduate Studies. The request should specify which module or course the request applies to. An official transcript should also be submitted. The transcript must include the following information: where and when the course was given, the discipline and level of the course, total course credits and grade received. A syllabus describing the course and listing required reading should be submitted with the request. Where applicable, written research papers should also be submitted.
Course evaluations are administered at the end of each sub-course.
Adams, W. M., Brockington, D., Dyson, J., & Vira, B. (2003). Managing Tragedies: Understanding Conflict over Common Pool Resources. Science, 302(5652), 1915-1916. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907-1912. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. Holling, C., & Meffe, G. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation biology, 328-337. Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 26(1), 17-33. Kennedy, D. (2003). Sustainability and the Commons. Science, 302(5652), 1861-. MA. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. A framework for assessment: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report. Island Press. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278-282. Pretty, J. (2003). Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912-1914. Sidaway, R. (2005). Resolving environmental disputes: from conflict to consensus. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Chapter 3 (pp.36-59), available as e-book at http://www.ub.umu.se Other literature may be added.
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629-649. Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., et al. (2009). Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2), 95-102. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1692-1702. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441-473. Leach, M., Mearns, R., & Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management. World Development, 27(2), 225-247. Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181-15187. Ribot, J. (2002). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing Popular Participation. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Sandström, C., & Widmark, C. (2007). Stakeholders' perceptions of consultations as tools for co-management -- A case study of the forestry and reindeer herding sectors in northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(1-2), 25-35. Sidaway, R. (2005). Resolving environmental disputes : from conflict to consensus. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Chapter 4, 7, available as e-book at http://www.ub.umu.se Zachrisson, A. (2004). Co-management of Natural Resources; Paradigm Shifts, Key Concepts and Cases. FjällMistrarapport no 1. Other literature may be added.
(Please note that this is a basis for selction depending on the case chosen, only a few of these articles will be core readings) Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2007). State involvement and forest co-governance: Evidence from the Indian Himalayas. Studies in Comparative International Development, 42(1-2), 67-86. Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15188-15193. Buck, S. J. (1999). Multiple-Use commons, collective action, and platforms for resource use negotiation. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 237-239. Espach, R. (2006). When is Sustainable Forestry Sustainable? The Forest Stewardship Council in Argentina and Brazil. Global environmental politics, 6(2), 55-84. Focht, W., & Trachtenberg, Z. (2005). A Trust-Based Guide to Stakeholder Participation. In P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz & M. Matlock (Eds.), Swimming upstream : collaborative approaches to watershed management (pp. 85-101). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Innes, J., & Booher, D. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423. Liu, J., Li, S., Ouyang, Z., Tam, C., & Chen, X. (2008). Ecological and socioeconomic effects of Chinas policies for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9477-9482. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9489-9494. Peterson, G., Cumming, G., & Carpenter, S. (2003). Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World. Conservation biology, 17(2), 358. Rist, S., Chiddambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). It was Hard to Come to Mutual Understanding The Multidimensionality of Social Learning Processes Concerned with Sustainable Natural Resource Use in India, Africa and Latin America. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(3), 219-237. Schusler, T., Decker, D., & Pfeffer, M. (2003). Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society & natural resources, 16(4), 309-326. Sidaway, R. (2005). Resolving environmental disputes : from conflict to consensus. London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Chapter 5 Steins, N. A., & Edwards, V. M. (1999a). Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 241-255. Steins, N. A., & Edwards, V. M. (1999b). Synthesis: Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 309-315. More articles will be added.