Introduction - Conflicts Over Natural Resources in the Global South - page 7

recognises the existence of various cognitive and normative orders in a social field
(Benda-Beckmann 2002; Tamanaha et al. 2012). De Theije et al. (Chapter 8), for
example, discuss the various patterns of law in three Latin American countries, and
their roles in the creation and perpetuation of conflict. Bavinck et al. (Chapter 9) carries
out a similar exercise, comparing the role of law in fishing conflicts in two parts of the
world. The fact that multiple parties refer to different legal systems creates confusion,
but also contributes to strife. As industrial fishers and governments do not recognise
customary law and the rights it promotes, small-scale fishers in Sri Lanka and South
Africa have no alternative than to protest. As De Theije et al. (Chapter 8) point out:
legal pluralism is firmly embedded in power relations. This makes the question of
which order prevails a very political one.
Having reviewed the history of the debate on conflict over natural resources, Frerks
et al. (Chapter 2) plead strongly against mono-causal explanations, noting that, where
tensions about access and use of natural resources exist, these generally prove to have
multiple sources. Their reading of the contemporary literature is that: “At present,
scholarship tends to promote a multi-causal, multi-level and multi-actor perspective in
which the role of environmental factors is mediated through or combined with other
factors, often of a socio-political nature'' (Frerks et al., Chapter 2). The contributors
to this volume would probably all agree with this nuanced and cautious perspective,
which contrasts starkly with the polarising debate that took place on the topic in the
not so distant past.
In this volume, the causes of and mechanisms toward cooperation receive less
explicit attention than those of conflict. However, as the two concepts are to some
extent mirror images of one another, much of what is said about one also applies
to the other. Accordingly, the causes of cooperation can partly be assumed to be the
opposite of the causes of conflict.
Embedded in the different literatures are hints that allude to the mechanisms for
realising cooperation. Governance literature addresses the need to 'steer' society by
means of collaboration between parties belonging to state, market and civil society
(Kooiman 2003). Torfing et al. (2012: 54) point out that “governance arenas are ridden
with political conflicts and power struggles,'' and that cooperation between parties is
not necessarily forthcoming. Whether governance results in an appropriate and fair
use of natural resources is another question altogether - there are enough examples
of 'bad governance' in the world to demonstrate that this is not an obvious outcome.
It is in this context that the concept of 'good enough governance' (Grindle 2004) has
relevance; good enough, perhaps, to sense the possibility of unwanted conflict, and also
to sow the seeds of cooperation. Yet it remains likely that even in this case governance
will need to be based on principles and vision for conflict to be avoided (Kooiman and
Jentoft 2009). Collaborative governance aims to engage people across divides for “a
public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished'' (Emerson et al. 2012: 2).
In her classic work on inter-organisational cooperation, Gray (1989) developed a
process model of cooperation, consisting of three phases: 1) problem setting, including
the identification of key stakeholders; 2) direction setting, including reaching agree-
ment; and 3) implementation. She emphasised, among others, the importance (and
difficulty) of bringing the key stakeholders around the table, of identifying over-
lapping concerns when setting the agenda, of involving constituencies that have to
approve or implement agreements, and of so-called 'reference organisations' that may