取消勾选:克服进行有意义磋商的障碍

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Jeremy Sorgen , Peter Nelson , Van Butsic , Seth LaRosa , Shasta Gaughen , Earl Crosby , Robert Geary , Jennifer Sowerwine
{"title":"取消勾选:克服进行有意义磋商的障碍","authors":"Jeremy Sorgen ,&nbsp;Peter Nelson ,&nbsp;Van Butsic ,&nbsp;Seth LaRosa ,&nbsp;Shasta Gaughen ,&nbsp;Earl Crosby ,&nbsp;Robert Geary ,&nbsp;Jennifer Sowerwine","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Intergovernmental consultation between public agencies and Tribal governments is a critical component of affirming Indigenous land sovereignty and protecting sacred sites and cultural resources in land use and decision making. However, despite the growing prevalence locally and nationally of natural and cultural resource laws that mandate government to government consultation, achieving “meaningful consultation” remains elusive. This article analyzes barriers to meaningful consultation through a case study analysis of intergovernmental consultation around cultural resources and cannabis permitting on Tribal ancestral lands in California. This study argues that cultural resource laws in general suffer from asymmetrical power relations, which are codified into policy through provisions such as “agency discretion” and unfunded mandates. We differentiate between “structural” barriers to consultation as those which embody exclusionary mechanisms of settler colonialism and “soft” barriers such as cultural differences, knowledge gaps, and relationships, all of which undermine the consultation process. Meaningful consultation requires equitable Tribal-agency relations, which depend on policies that affirm Tribal authority in land use decision making, as well as agency and Tribal capacity building, with equitable funding for Tribal staff time, Tribal-agency trust and relationship building, and agency training in Tribal culture, history, and cultural resource policy. Cultural resource laws and consultation policies that affirm Tribal sovereignty demonstrate awareness of and incorporate measures intended to eliminate these barriers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"169 ","pages":"Article 104085"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unchecking the box: Overcoming barriers to meaningful consultation\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Sorgen ,&nbsp;Peter Nelson ,&nbsp;Van Butsic ,&nbsp;Seth LaRosa ,&nbsp;Shasta Gaughen ,&nbsp;Earl Crosby ,&nbsp;Robert Geary ,&nbsp;Jennifer Sowerwine\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Intergovernmental consultation between public agencies and Tribal governments is a critical component of affirming Indigenous land sovereignty and protecting sacred sites and cultural resources in land use and decision making. However, despite the growing prevalence locally and nationally of natural and cultural resource laws that mandate government to government consultation, achieving “meaningful consultation” remains elusive. This article analyzes barriers to meaningful consultation through a case study analysis of intergovernmental consultation around cultural resources and cannabis permitting on Tribal ancestral lands in California. This study argues that cultural resource laws in general suffer from asymmetrical power relations, which are codified into policy through provisions such as “agency discretion” and unfunded mandates. We differentiate between “structural” barriers to consultation as those which embody exclusionary mechanisms of settler colonialism and “soft” barriers such as cultural differences, knowledge gaps, and relationships, all of which undermine the consultation process. Meaningful consultation requires equitable Tribal-agency relations, which depend on policies that affirm Tribal authority in land use decision making, as well as agency and Tribal capacity building, with equitable funding for Tribal staff time, Tribal-agency trust and relationship building, and agency training in Tribal culture, history, and cultural resource policy. Cultural resource laws and consultation policies that affirm Tribal sovereignty demonstrate awareness of and incorporate measures intended to eliminate these barriers.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"169 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104085\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125001017\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125001017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公共机构与部落政府之间的政府间协商是在土地使用和决策中确认土著土地主权和保护圣地和文化资源的关键组成部分。然而,尽管地方和国家的自然和文化资源法越来越普遍,要求政府与政府进行协商,但实现“有意义的协商”仍然难以实现。本文通过对加州部落祖传土地文化资源和大麻许可的政府间协商的案例分析,分析了有意义协商的障碍。本研究认为,文化资源法普遍存在不对称的权力关系,这种权力关系通过“机构自由裁量权”和无资金授权等条款被编纂为政策。我们区分了协商的“结构性”障碍,即体现定居者殖民主义排他性机制的障碍,以及文化差异、知识差距和关系等“软”障碍,所有这些障碍都会破坏协商进程。有意义的协商需要公平的部落-机构关系,这取决于确认部落在土地使用决策方面的权威的政策,以及机构和部落能力建设,为部落工作人员的时间提供公平的资金,部落-机构信任和关系的建立,以及部落文化、历史和文化资源政策方面的机构培训。确认部落主权的文化资源法和协商政策表明意识到并纳入了旨在消除这些障碍的措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unchecking the box: Overcoming barriers to meaningful consultation
Intergovernmental consultation between public agencies and Tribal governments is a critical component of affirming Indigenous land sovereignty and protecting sacred sites and cultural resources in land use and decision making. However, despite the growing prevalence locally and nationally of natural and cultural resource laws that mandate government to government consultation, achieving “meaningful consultation” remains elusive. This article analyzes barriers to meaningful consultation through a case study analysis of intergovernmental consultation around cultural resources and cannabis permitting on Tribal ancestral lands in California. This study argues that cultural resource laws in general suffer from asymmetrical power relations, which are codified into policy through provisions such as “agency discretion” and unfunded mandates. We differentiate between “structural” barriers to consultation as those which embody exclusionary mechanisms of settler colonialism and “soft” barriers such as cultural differences, knowledge gaps, and relationships, all of which undermine the consultation process. Meaningful consultation requires equitable Tribal-agency relations, which depend on policies that affirm Tribal authority in land use decision making, as well as agency and Tribal capacity building, with equitable funding for Tribal staff time, Tribal-agency trust and relationship building, and agency training in Tribal culture, history, and cultural resource policy. Cultural resource laws and consultation policies that affirm Tribal sovereignty demonstrate awareness of and incorporate measures intended to eliminate these barriers.
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 Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
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