IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v33y2013icp63-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict camouflaging in public administration — A case study in nature conservation policy in Lower Saxony

Author

Listed:
  • Hubo, Christiane
  • Krott, Max

Abstract

A balanced management of forest conflicts that considers both nature conservation and economic concerns requires the recognition and communication of these concerns within the decision-making procedures of public administration. Thus, the visibility of conflicts is an important condition for balanced conflict resolutions. The analysis of public administration forms shows, theoretically and empirically, that different patterns support the visibility of conflicts in specific ways, mainly by offering the potential for the development of independent expertise and its integration into consideration procedures. Combining different organisation forms increases the potential for balanced conflict resolutions. The effect of this potential depends on its utilization by administrative resources. In the case of administrative reform in the German federal state of Lower Saxony, the utilization of this potential was neglected, reducing the visibility of nature conservation concerns. This had far-reaching consequences for the resolution of forest conflicts. Economically-biased resolutions become camouflaged by keeping conservation issues invisible, neglecting them within administrative procedures and within the operations of forest owners whilst making legal and political claims to their consideration, so as to be able to pretend that conflict resolutions are balanced in their approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Hubo, Christiane & Krott, Max, 2013. "Conflict camouflaging in public administration — A case study in nature conservation policy in Lower Saxony," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-70.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:33:y:2013:i:c:p:63-70
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411200247X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sotirov, Metodi & Memmler, Michael, 2012. "The Advocacy Coalition Framework in natural resource policy studies — Recent experiences and further prospects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 51-64.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susanti, Ari & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2016. "Development narratives, notions of forest crisis, and boom of oil palm plantations in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 130-139.
    2. Giessen, Lukas & Krott, Max & Möllmann, Torsten, 2014. "Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest–environmental policy negotiations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 97-104.
    3. Lukas Giessen & Pradip Kumar Sarker & Md Saifur Rahman, 2016. "International and Domestic Sustainable Forest Management Policies: Distributive Effects on Power among State Agencies in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-28, April.
    4. Tabah Arif Rahmani & Dodik Ridho Nurrochmat & Mi Sun Park & Rizaldi Boer & Meti Ekayani & Arif Satria, 2022. "Reconciling Conflict of Interest in the Management of Forest Restoration Ecosystem: A Strategy to Incorporate Different Interests of Stakeholders in the Utilization of the Harapan Rainforest, Jambi, I," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Göhrs, Max & Hubo, Christiane & Krott, Max, 2021. "Partisan theory in forest nature conservation policy: Empirical evidence based on four German conflict issues," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    6. Maier, Carolin & Wirth, Kristina, 2018. "The world(s) we live in – Inter-agency collaboration in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 102-111.
    7. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Giessen, Lukas & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Local to global escalation of land use conflicts: Long-term dynamics on social movements protests against pulp mills and plantation forests in Argentina and Uruguay," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    8. Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho & Nugroho, Ignatius Adi & Hardjanto, & Purwadianto, Agus & Maryudi, Ahmad & Erbaugh, James Thomas, 2017. "Shifting contestation into cooperation: Strategy to incorporate different interest of actors in medicinal plants in Meru Betiri National Park, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 162-168.
    9. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Policy changes resulting in power changes? Quantitative evidence from 25 years of forest policy development in Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 419-431.
    10. Brodrechtova, Yvonne, 2024. "Assessing actor power in the trade-offs between ecosystem services affecting forest management – A case study from Central Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    11. Maryudi, Ahmad, 2016. "Choosing timber legality verification as a policy instrument to combat illegal logging in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 99-104.
    12. Krul, Kees & Ho, Peter & Yang, Xiuyun, 2021. "Land titling as a conflict remedy or driver? Analyzing institutional outcomes through latent and manifest conflicts in China’s forest sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    13. Göhrs, Max & Krott, Max & Hubo, Christiane, 2022. "Political parties as allies for the forestry sector: A case study from Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    14. Fienitz, Meike & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2023. "Latent, collaborative, or escalated conflict? Determining causal pathways for land use conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    15. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    16. Kröger, Markus, 2013. "Grievances, agency and the absence of conflict: The new Suzano pulp investment in the Eastern Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 28-35.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fabra-Crespo, M. & Rojas-Briales, E., 2015. "Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners' associations in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-30.
    2. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Giessen, Lukas & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Local to global escalation of land use conflicts: Long-term dynamics on social movements protests against pulp mills and plantation forests in Argentina and Uruguay," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    3. Metodi Sotirov & Georg Winkel, 2016. "Toward a cognitive theory of shifting coalitions and policy change: linking the advocacy coalition framework and cultural theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 125-154, June.
    4. Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Krott, Max, 2012. "Identifying policy change — Analytical program analysis: An example of two decades of forest policy in Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 93-99.
    5. Adam Wellstead, 2017. "Plus ça Change, Plus C’est La Même Chose? A review of Paul Sabatier’s “An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein”," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(4), pages 549-561, December.
    6. Harrinkari, Teemu & Katila, Pia & Karppinen, Heimo, 2016. "Stakeholder coalitions in forest politics: revision of Finnish Forest Act," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 30-37.
    7. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    8. Manuschevich, Daniela & Sarricolea, Pablo & Galleguillos, Mauricio, 2019. "Integrating socio-ecological dynamics into land use policy outcomes: A spatial scenario approach for native forest conservation in south-central Chile," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 31-42.
    9. Baulenas, Eulàlia & Sotirov, Metodi, 2020. "Cross-sectoral policy integration at the forest and water nexus: National level instrument choices and integration drivers in the European Union," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    10. Radosavljević, Maja & Rogelja, Todora & Masiero, Mauro & Čomić, Dragan & Glavonjić, Branko & Pettenella, Davide, 2024. "Institutional and actor-oriented factors influencing timber legality in selected Western Balkan countries: Multiple case study of Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia and the Republic of Srpska (Bosn," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    11. Baulenas, Eulàlia, 2021. "She’s a Rainbow: Forest and water policy and management integration in Germany, Spain and Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Sotirov, Metodi & Blum, Mareike & Storch, Sabine & Selter, Andy & Schraml, Ulrich, 2017. "Do forest policy actors learn through forward-thinking? Conflict and cooperation relating to the past, present and futures of sustainable forest management in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 256-268.
    13. Rahman, Md Saifur & Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Sadath, Md. Nazmus & Giessen, Lukas, 2018. "Policy changes resulting in power changes? Quantitative evidence from 25 years of forest policy development in Bangladesh," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 419-431.
    14. Christoph Knill & Kai Schulze & Jale Tosun, 2012. "Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 427-444, December.
    15. Jaana Korhonen & Alexandru Giurca & Maria Brockhaus & Anne Toppinen, 2018. "Actors and Politics in Finland’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Rugema, Didier Milindi & Birhanu, Tadesse Amsalu & Shibeshi, Gebeyehu Belay, 2022. "Analysing land policy processes with stages model: Land policy cases of Ethiopia and Rwanda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    17. Jens Nilsson & Annica Sandström & Daniel Nohrstedt, 2020. "Beliefs, social identity, and the view of opponents in Swedish carnivore management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 453-472, September.
    18. Hossain, Akmal, 2022. "The Advocacy Coalition Framework in fixing prices of oil and gas in the energy sectors of Bangladesh," OSF Preprints fh8pd, Center for Open Science.
    19. Peter John, 2018. "Theories of policy change and variation reconsidered: a prospectus for the political economy of public policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 1-16, March.
    20. Sotirov, Metodi & Sallnäs, Ola & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola, 2019. "Forest owner behavioral models, policy changes, and forest management. An agent-based framework for studying the provision of forest ecosystem goods and services at the landscape level," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 79-89.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:33:y:2013:i:c:p:63-70. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.