No abstract

Community‐based conservation is experiencing a crisis of identity and purpose as a result of a disappointing track record and unresolved deficiencies. The latter include over‐simplified assumptions and misconceptions of “community,” the imposition of externally designed and driven projects at the community level, a focus on conservation outcomes at the expense of community empowerment and social justice, and limited attention to participatory processes. New approaches are urgently needed to address these weaknesses and to counter a rising trend towards environmental protectionism and a preference for conservation approaches at an eco‐regional scale that threaten the interests of local and Indigenous communities. We propose that three core principles of community‐based participatory research (CBPR)—(1) community‐defined research agenda; (2) collaborative research process; and (3) meaningful research outcomes—hold much promise. Drawing on the experience of a research partnership involving the James Bay Cree community of Wemindji, northern Quebec, and academic researchers from four Canadian universities, we document the process of applying these principles to a community‐based conservation project that uses protected areas as a political strategy to redefine relations with governments in terms of a shared responsibility to care for land and sea. We suggest that basic assumptions of CBPR, including collaborative, equitable partnerships in all phases of the research, promotion of co‐learning and capacity building among all partners, emphasis on local relevance, and commitment to long‐term engagement, can provide the basis for a revamped phase of community‐based conservation that supports environmental protection while strengthening local institutions, building capacity, and contributing to cultural survival.

No abstract

Thirty years ago, Peter Usher, in an editorial contribution to this journal, reflected on the role geographers have played in supporting research associated with Indigenous land claims and in environmental and social impact assessment. He noted that disciplinary traditions such as "field research, a synthetic or holistic approach, and a working familiarity with sister disciplines" have served us well in this regard (Usher 1982, 188). He also remarked that much remained to be done and challenged us as geographers to learn from past mistakes, to innovate, and to take the needs and aspirations of Indigenous peoples seriously in our research. More than a decade later, Evelyn Peters and Jackie Wolfe-Keddie (1995), re-Correspondence to/Adresse de correspondance: Heather Cas-

No abstract

Many argue that monitoring conducted exclusively by scientists is insufficient to address ongoing environmental challenges. One solution entails the use of mobile digital devices in participatory monitoring (PM) programs. But how digital data entry affects programs with varying levels of stakeholder participation, from nonscientists collecting field data to nonscientists administering every step of a monitoring program, remains unclear. We reviewed the successes, in terms of management interventions and sustainability, of 107 monitoring programs described in the literature (hereafter programs) and compared these with case studies from our PM experiences in Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greenland, and Vietnam (hereafter cases). Our literature review showed that participatory programs were less likely to use digital devices, and 2 of our 3 more participatory cases were also slow to adopt digital data entry. Programs that were participatory and used digital devices were more likely to report management actions, which was consistent with cases in Ethiopia, Greenland, and Australia. Programs engaging volunteers were more frequently reported as ongoing, but those involving digital data entry were less often sustained when data collectors were volunteers. For the Vietnamese and Canadian cases, sustainability was undermined by a mismatch in stakeholder objectives. In the Ghanaian case, complex field protocols diminished monitoring sustainability. Innovative technologies attract interest, but the foundation of effective participatory adaptive monitoring depends more on collaboratively defined questions, objectives, conceptual models, and monitoring approaches. When this foundation is built through effective partnerships, digital data entry can enable the collection of more data of higher quality. Without this foundation, or when implemented ineffectively or unnecessarily, digital data entry can be an additional expense that distracts from core monitoring objectives and undermines project sustainability. The appropriate role of digital data entry in PM likely depends more on the context in which it is used and less on the technology itself.

This article uses two case studies to illustrate the subjection of indigenous peoples' marine territories to a`double jeopardy' of exclusion Ð jurisdictional and proprietary Ð through the legal and administrative practices of Europeaǹ settler' states in Australia and Canada. While the fiction of terra nullius as a legal rationale for refuting indigenous rights of property and governance has steadily eroded in recent decades, its counterpart mare nullius has proven, so far, more resistant. The authors examine how state conceptions of jurisdiction, property and boundary-making in coastal areas accomplish the distortion and fragmentation of the coastal and marine spaces of Torres Strait Islanders in northern Queensland, Australia, and of the Cree and Inuit peoples of James and Hudson Bays in northern Que bec, Canada. Assumptions of land±sea continuity underlie these peoples' cultural constructions of coastal and marine environments. In examining the progress that each has made in reasserting ownership and control of coast and sea, it seems that recognition and reinforcement of their institutions for managing marine spaces and resources offer the best prospect for reconnecting fractured jurisdictional domains, and for bringing about social equity, environmental protection, and self-determined regional development.The authors gratefully acknowledge the advice and comments of

Policy development related to marine protected areas (MPAs) occurs at three levels: international, national, and local. Recent developments with MPAs highlight their close links to broader national-level park and protected area policies, which in turn take their lead from initiatives and recommendations initiated, and increasingly dictated, by international organizations. Local-level inputs to MPA policies have tended to be limited to the immediate local area context despite the vital importance of community-level support and knowledge in meeting broader regional goals of marine conservation tied to networked MPAs. In this paper, we highlight the mechanisms to facilitate cooperation and communication among international, national, and local levels of policy and practice needed to address this deficit. These include the creation of a social network of institutions that both internationalizes and localizes MPA policy development, facilitating a more meaningful engagement of local people through their legitimate participation in national and international MPA gatherings. In addition, mechanisms to formalize partnerships, feedback information, resolve conflicts, and report accountabilities are needed. The success of the latter will depend on the level of recognition and support given to community-level institutions as opposed to the suite of technical training and short-term project-based interventions that have characterized local support over recent decades.Keywords Marine protected area policy Á Governance Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.