加拿大和解时代的国家公园共同管理协议类型。

IF 2.7 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Kai Bruce, Monica E. Mulrennan
{"title":"加拿大和解时代的国家公园共同管理协议类型。","authors":"Kai Bruce,&nbsp;Monica E. Mulrennan","doi":"10.1007/s00267-024-01997-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":543,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Management","volume":"74 3","pages":"564 - 589"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11306650/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Typology of National Park Co-management Agreements in the Era of Reconciliation in Canada\",\"authors\":\"Kai Bruce,&nbsp;Monica E. Mulrennan\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00267-024-01997-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Management\",\"volume\":\"74 3\",\"pages\":\"564 - 589\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11306650/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-024-01997-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-024-01997-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加拿大公园管理局(Parks Canada)为履行和解承诺,表示愿意重新评估土著人民参与国家公园、国家公园保护区和国家海洋保护区(NMCAs)共同管理的情况。然而,共同管理作为国家与土著群体之间这些及其他长期合作关系的既定框架,其有效性一直备受争议,因为在满足土著社区的需求、利益和愿望方面的记录参差不齐。本文通过对各种类型的共同管理协议进行分类,探讨了共同管理在促进国家公园、保护区和国家湿地保护区内部和解方面的潜力。针对共同管理治理方面的一个重要知识空白,我们全面回顾了国家和土著团体在国家公园背景下协商达成的 23 项共同管理协议。由此产生的类型学根据背景因素和治理安排对这些协议进行了分类,为加拿大公园管理局共同治理方法的可行性提供了见解。此外,它还指出了共同管理协议在履行和解承诺方面的优缺点。我们的研究结果表明,尽管加拿大公园管理局已经实施了共同管理的创新方法,并表现出支持土著主导的保护工作的意愿,但按照国际标准的定义,与土著团体真正的共同治理受到了限制,因为加拿大政府显然不愿意修改基础立法,以有效分享国家公园的权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Typology of National Park Co-management Agreements in the Era of Reconciliation in Canada

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Management
Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
2.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Management offers research and opinions on use and conservation of natural resources, protection of habitats and control of hazards, spanning the field of environmental management without regard to traditional disciplinary boundaries. The journal aims to improve communication, making ideas and results from any field available to practitioners from other backgrounds. Contributions are drawn from biology, botany, chemistry, climatology, ecology, ecological economics, environmental engineering, fisheries, environmental law, forest sciences, geosciences, information science, public affairs, public health, toxicology, zoology and more. As the principal user of nature, humanity is responsible for ensuring that its environmental impacts are benign rather than catastrophic. Environmental Management presents the work of academic researchers and professionals outside universities, including those in business, government, research establishments, and public interest groups, presenting a wide spectrum of viewpoints and approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信