Forest resource conflict

Conflicts are common in forest management. They exist in practically all countries. However,
forest related conflicts can be observed at different levels and with varying dimensions and
intensities.

The reasons behind forest conflicts is inherent in forest management being multi-objective and
therefore with many stakeholders (local forest users, different government agencies in-and
outside the forest administration, civil society, and the private sector) often having competing
interests.  

In addition, forest management is usually fragmented and often subject to unclear, overlapping,
competing or contradictory legal frameworks. Economic liberalization, decentralization and
privatization affects forest users in diverse and unexpected ways. Whereas they offer new
possibilities for benefit sharing, not all people necessarily gain from them, hence, these
conditions sometimes generate new tensions, or serve to revive long-standing or latent conflicts.

Conflicts of lower intensity do not lead directly to violent death, but may play a role in fuelling
structural violence such as impeded development, disease, famine, forced migration etc. The
detrimental impact of such 'low intensity' conflicts that involve only minimal or sporadic
violence should therefore, not be underestimated. Forest resources are so close to livelihoods,
identities and security in many parts of the world, that conflicts over their control, management
and use, merit our support. Rising tensions and disputes can undermine institutions- and rules
that govern resource use. Escalated conflicts increase the vulnerability of poor forest users and
often result in human suffering, economic decline and environmental degradation.

Glasl conflict escalation model

Glasl divides the nine stages of conflict escalation into three levels. On the first three levels it is
still possible for both parties to drop out without damage or even with profit (win-win). On the
second level one of the two must be the loser (win-lose) and on the third level there are only
losses on both sides until mutual annihilation (lose-lose).

The deeper you go towards the last level, the more primitive and inhuman the methods become
by which the opponents try to win. Therefore, Glasl does not present his model as an ascent to
the higher levels of escalation, but as a descending staircase that literally leads further and further
into the depths of human morality.

Level 1: Win-Win
Stage 1: Tension
First tensions are noticeable and become conscious, different opinions collide, the fronts can
harden and cramp. The situation is still harmless, differences of opinion are commonplace and
can be resolved through discussion. No camp or party formation yet.

9 Levels of Conflict Escalation according to Friedrich Glasl, Author: Swinnall, original from
Sampi (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Stage 2: Debate

The disagreement becomes more fundamental, the opponents try to convince the other through
rational arguments and put under pressure. Everybody insists on his point of view,
uncompromising black-and-white thinking and verbal violence.

Stage 3: Actions instead of words!

The pressure on the conflict partner is increased, talking no longer helps, actions are necessary!
The verbal communication steps into the background, possible conversations are frustrated and
broken off without result. The opponent is confronted with accomplished facts. The empathy for
each other gives way to distrust and negative expectations, which intensifies the conflict even
more.

Level 2: Lose-Win

Stage 4: Coalitions

The first stage, where there can only be one winner left. The opponents search for supporters and
allies, parties are formed and maneuvered against each other. Image campaigns are released and
bad rumours about the other party are spread. It is no longer about the original thing, but about
winning the conflict.

Stage 5: Loss of face

The mutual attacks will begin directly and personally, immoral “blows below the belt”.
Wherever you can, you want to expose your opponent. The loss of morality and mutual trust
goes hand in hand with the loss of face. The sight of the opponent alone creates negative
feelings, even disgust.

Stage 6: Threat Strategies

Through threats and counter threats, the conflict parties try to win the upper water. A demand is
intensified with a punishment and supported with the proof of the punishment possibility
(Example: A kidnapper demands money and threatens with the murder of the daughter, as proof
he sends a video message that he actually has her in his power). The more credible the possibility
of punishment, the more effective the threat and the sooner the demand will be met. This is about
who has more power and can enforce the worst punishments. The disgusting threats on both
sides gape like scissors, the conflict continues to get worse and worse.

Level 3: Lose-lose

Stage 7: Limited destruction

The first stage, where one’s own damage is accepted if only the other’s damage is greater.
Humanity is over now, all tricks are used to harm the opponent. The opponent is no longer
perceived as a human being, but as a thing without feelings. Values and virtues take a back seat.

Stage 8: Total annhiliation

The ultimate goal is the collapse of the enemy system. The front fighters are cut off from their
allies and supplies, vital functions are attacked to the point of physical-material, mental-social or
spiritual destruction.

Stage 9: Together into the abyss

There is no going back, there is a total confrontation between the two parties. If you can drag
your opponent into the abyss with you, then you jump. Self-destruction is accepted. Damage to
the environment or to descendants no longer prevents the opponents from destroying each other.

PA rule 2017 with particular reference to CMO and their

jurisdiction & responsibility
In the early 1950s, a cluster of islands emerged in the shallow Bay of Bengal. In 1979, the main
island was named “Nijhum Dwip” (Silent Island) for its natural beauty and isolation. A dense
mangrove forest developed over time, and the mudflats and shallow waters are a spawning
ground for hilsha, the national fish, and internationally important for water birds such as the
threatened Indian Skimmer.

Nijhum Dwip National Park was established in 2001 by the Bangladeshi government, including
16,345 hectares of coastal habitat. However, nothing has been done to maintain or manage this
unique and endangered environment for more than a decade. The island today has a population
of around 30,000 people. Pressure on mangroves and fisheries rose as the population grew. There
are no other options available.

In 2014, the USAID-supported Climate Resilient Ecosystems and Livelihoods (CREL) project
introduced co-management to Nijhum Dwip. This enables collaboration between local
communities and government agencies to protect the park and 26 other ecologically important
sites across Bangladesh. Effective co-management requires building relationships. CREL
organized a series of community meetings on the co-management approach and the importance
of conserving natural

CREL enhanced the knowledge, capacity and practice of the CMOs, based on annual reviews of
performance in areas as diverse as inclusive governance, adaptive management and resource
mobilization. Training modules include landscape-level resource management, participatory
vulnerability assessment, climate change adaptation, organizational management, gender
equality and leadership, fund raising/resource mobilization, conflict mediation, disaster risk
reduction, ecological monitoring, ecotourism and joint patrolling. CREL assessed the strengths
of the CMOs annually, and customized training and mentoring accordingly.

The greatest challenge facing CMOs is their financial sustainability. CREL organized a national
dialogue on Sustainable Financing of Co-Management and helped CMOs develop business
plans. These plans identify potential streams of finance and in-kind support from government
agencies, development partners, foundations, private sector and CMO enterprises. The program
also helped pass the Ecological Critical Area Management Rules (2016) and the Protected Area
Management Rules (2017), which enable CMOs to receive a share of financial incentives from
the Government of Bangladesh if the ecosystems are conserved and utilized properly.