Presented at the CAPRi International Workshop on Collective Action, Property Rights, and Conflict in Natural Resources Management. June 28th to July 1st, 2010, Siem Reap, Cambodia. http://www.capri.cgiar.org/wks_0610.asp

1. Resource Conflict, Collective Action, and Resilience: An Analytical Framework Blake Ratner Ruth Meinzen-Dick Candace May Eric Haglund CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights www.capri.cgiar.org

3. Violent conflict undermines development progress

5. Distinguishing features Multi-scale application Interplay of context (structure) and group agency Emphasis on stakeholder values Contingent outcomes

7. Influence on institutional and governance incentives for social-ecological resilience.

8. Future conflict risk.Framework in overview

10. Shocks & trends

11. Assets: natural, physical, human, financial, social

12. Social capital: bonding, bridging, linking

13. Vulnerabilities

14. Representation

15. Distribution of power

18. External

22. Influence on institutional and governance incentives for social-ecological resilience.

24. Influence on institutional and governance incentives for social-ecological resilience.

25. Future conflict risk.Framework in overview

26. Propositions For comparative research: the “fork in the road” Capacity for collective action beyond the local scale improves likelihood that resource conflicts will be managed cooperatively. When shared interests in resource management build bonds across divisions of ethnicity, religion, gender or economic status, the risk of broader social conflict is reduced. Clarity, equity, and adaptability in property rights improve the likelihood of resource competition being resolved peacefully rather than violently.

27. Propositions For direct stakeholder interventions: Rebuilding the legitimacy of resource management institutions after violence is interdependent with efforts at reconciliation across other social divides. Redundancy in conflict management mechanisms is beneficial when the representatives of diverse mechanisms see others as legitimate and reinforce their authority. Positive experiences of collective action that improve livelihood security strengthen the institutional foundations to address future conflicts equitably.

28. Propositions For policy & governance interventions: When human rights safeguards and multiple mechanisms of social accountability are in place, the space for positive collective action is increased and incentives for violence reduced. Institutions seen as legitimate in multiple domains are key to moderating conflict risk during rapid transitions. Mechanisms for participation and deliberation over resource management decisions help build trust and common understanding about alternative courses of action and reduce the likelihood of destructive conflict.