Beyond Territory and Scarcity: Exploring Conflicts Over Natural Resource Management (review)

While we have been busy questioning existing paradigms of African natural resource management, this volume provides the much needed articulation of case studies and experiences that this questioning needs. The central theme is that our past conceptions of scarcity, primarily constrained by incomplete notions of the functioning of "territories" of various kinds, do not consistently align with reality. As a result, there is a good deal to reconsider about the neo-Malthusian approach to natural resource management—and the government and development policies derived from this approach. In examining scarcity, "boundaries" emerge as central to definitions, analyses, and projections, and the historical doomsday scenarios that are thought to follow. The primary argument is that assumptions regarding how boundaries function (the temporal and spatial nature and degree of boundedness regarding a series of biophysical, socioeconomic, and political variables) have a great deal to do with conceptions of scarcity. If it turns out that our notions about boundaries and their role in perceived and predicted scarcity are insufficiently examined, this is indeed an important concern.

A well-organized, clear, and pointed introduction is followed by nine chapters on central and Western Africa that describe in detail the varieties of problems that have resulted from misconceptions about territory and boundary, and the opportunities that are pursued by those whose livelihoods are subject to change. The components of the neo-Malthusian paradigm and attendant assumptions are unpacked with regard to these cases: the environmental standard of "climax vegetation," carrying capacity, degradation, nature's equilibrium, rational choice, and even common property. The most important point (although not made loudly enough in the book) is that Malthusian reductionism and generalities about African resource management have not served us well in advancing our understanding of the complexities of livelihoods and the policies that should have resulted. Boehm's early chapter is valuable in describing that variables and factors that emerge when boundaries of all sorts are aligned with people's actual activities in the pursuit of a living. Mortimore's take on the "failing Africa" paradigm is welcome and well supported, as is Juul's reexamination of the "decline of pastoralism." This is a carefully thought out, valuable volume on issues important to development policy. It is sure to be cited heavily in the future (and would be cited even more if it had an index).

Just a couple of thoughts. While the problematic connection between scarcity and conflict is made effectively, the notion that armed confrontation is always the result of an aggravation of patterns of exploitation already in existence is overly general and simplistic—and suffers from the reductionist tendency of the neo-Malthusian approach generally. Indeed, the volume stresses "the need to understand the complexities of a case before addressing it" (22). Nevertheless, in view of the relevance to international development that the cases and the volume have, it is a bit disappointing not to see any real comprehension of the development world as it actually functions: the triage-like scramble to deal quickly with critical issues of food aid, mass immunization, disease, refugees, funding, fickle politics in home parliaments and congresses, preemption and quelling of intra- and interstate armed confrontation, and the broader geopolitical diplomatic dance that otherwise well-intentioned, well-trained, and experienced development workers have thrust upon them. Given how quickly crises arise, there simply isn't the luxury of time for most development agencies to create precise policies when and where they are needed. The impatience that the development community has with academia's constant demand for more studies is well known, and, depending on the agency, can be robustly resisted. While this is not the book's subject, the development experience of some of its authors could have been brought to the fore a bit more in order to offer more realistic recommendations.

Be that as it may, if one had to offer a verdict on this...