Linking conflict and global biodiversity conservation policies

Policies come about as a result of a series of decisions based on a dynamic and complex process involving a continuous interplay of discussions, political interests and different people that define the goals and actions of organisations (Keeley and Scoones, 2003). This process of policy development and subsequent implementation can lead to conflict (Pierson, 2005; Saito-Jensen and Jensen, 2010). In some cases, conflict itself can lead to policy change (Castro and Nielsen, 2001; Haro et al ., 2005). Although policy processes are complex, and conflict between groups may only be one factor within the policy process (Anderies and Janssen, 2013), a broad perspective on the link between policy and conflict (as illustrated in Chapter 15) is needed for understanding and managing conservation conflicts. In this chapter we examine conservation conflicts as a potential component of the global biodiversity policy process. We outline the potential links to conflict as biodiversity policies move from a focus on protected areas to diversified approaches that acknowledge wider socio-economic objectives. We also highlight the different layers, such as the ecosystem services framework or the green economy, which have been progressively added to these policies to help practitioners reframe recognised conflicts. We then illustrate some of these issues with the example of the Joint Forest Management (JFM) policy in India before concluding with the need to be more explicit about conflicts in policy development. An overview of global biodiversity conservation policies There have been a number of conservation policies adopted at the global level since the 1970s. These policies can be approached using two main integrative dimensions (see Hirsch and Brosius, 2013). The ‘horizontal’ dimension represents the interplay between conservation objectives and wider socio-economic– political goals, while the ‘vertical’ dimension represents the hierarchical structure of multiple stakeholders and institutions involved in managing natural resources (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, 2012). Both these dimensions link closely to conservation conflicts.