INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS OVER FOREST RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN INDIA AND CANADA: DEBATING THE ROLE OF DECENTRALIZATION
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
India and Canada have a common colonial past which deeply disturbed the close ecological relationship between Indigenous peoples and forests, with the colonial authorities restricting Indigenous peoples’ legitimate use of forest resources. Even during the post-colonial period, the forest policies in both these countries continued centralized conservation mechanisms that excluded Indigenous peoples. However, the past few decades have witnessed a shift towards decentralized governance in both jurisdictions. This recent trend manifests an attempt to devolve powers and authority to Indigenous institutions. In India, the constitutional recognition of decentralized governance and the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 emphasized the significance of traditional tribal institutions in resource governance. By contrast, in Canada, although the development of co-management regimes is sometimes highlighted as showing the changing face of forest resource governance, the devolution of power to traditional Aboriginal institutions in decision-making over resources remains unsettled. The first chapter sets a background for the thesis by giving an introduction to the history of alienation faced by the indigenous peoples in India and Canada during colonial times. It further expands on the rationale for choosing both the jurisdiction as two comparable units. The second chapter provides a theoretical framework to the thesis by discussing various theories on decentralization. This part highlights the role of indigenous peoples and their institutions in forest resource governance. The third chapter examines the efforts towards decentralization in India through the Constitutional recognition and enactment of the FRA. Here it is argued that a radical shift in the tribal self-governance in India has achieved decentralization of forest resource governance. This argument is developed through an analysis of the implementation of the FRA at Mendha Lekha in Maharashtra. Some of the important judicial decisions that legitimized the decision-making powers of the tribal institutions in the forest resource governance are also discussed at this juncture. The fourth chapter analyzes decentralized forest governance in Canada through the evolution of co-management. Through an illustration of Clayoquot Sound in British Columbia, it is argued that there is an ongoing absence of strong decentralized institutional arrangements for decision-making on forest resource governance in Canada. Some of the important judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada on duty to consult and accommodation are also discussed here to argue that an absence of a Constitutional recognition of these rights as compared to India has limited the scope of judicial interventions that legitimizes Aboriginal consent in the resource governance. The fifth chapter offers concluding remarks by comparing both the jurisdictions. Through a comparative analysis, this part argues that the FRA provides a stronger platform for the decentralization of forest governance in India than the co-management efforts in Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,034 | 0,022 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».