Learning from Tribal Leadership and the Anchor Forest Concept for Implementing Cross-Boundary Forest Management

In response to the increasing scale of wildfire and forest health challenges in the West, the Intertribal Timber Council, a nonprofit consortium of American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native corporations, proposed creating “Anchor Forests,” where a Tribe would convene neighboring landowners to collectively manage the landscape across property boundaries. This concept has sparked conversation but has not been fully implemented. Amid shifts toward both collaborative decision making and Tribal partnerships on federal forestlands, we asked, “why did the Anchor Forest concept emerge, and what can the field of forest governance learn from its development?” Through qualitative analysis of documents and interviews, we show how Anchor Forests could expand spatial-temporal scales of forest management. We highlight how Tribal leadership could overcome past governance barriers through their sovereign authority and long-term forestry expertise and knowledge. We describe how this concept could function as a tool to enact change within rigid forest-management institutions. Study Implications Scholars and practitioners can learn from Anchor Forests as an example of a cross-boundary forest-governance framework that emphasizes long-term investment and relationships to land as exemplified by Tribal forest management. The Anchor Forest concept also provides a structure in which Tribes are leaders and conveners rather than stakeholders or participants. To achieve broad goals of landscape resilience and forest health, governance structures must be deliberately designed to mobilize Tribal knowledge and stewardship practices through uplifting, rather than undermining, Tribal sovereignty. The Anchor Forest concept offers key considerations to serve as a starting place for partnerships to emerge in their own contexts.

Tribes

A tribe is a regional security organization. It ties together a number of local primary face-to-face groups. It is charged with control of territory, defense against outside intruders, and protection of humans, livestock, and productive resources, such as wells and cultivation. Whatever productive activity tribesmen are primarily engaged in, such as pastoralism or cultivation, each male, with the exception of holy men, serves also as a warrior. Tribes are usually defined by a symbolic idiom that asserts a primordial connection among tribesmen. Descent from a common ancestor is an idiom used to define many tribes. Tribal names are often those of the ancestor that all members share. Internal divisions may also be defined by ancestry; a descent idiom allows group divisions at every level of the genealogy. Tribal subgroups are also charged with security and are defined as having “collective responsibility”; that is, the moral norm is that each member is responsible for what other members do and, as a consequence, all members are seen by outsiders as equivalent. There is also a moral norm to aid fellow tribesmen, the obligation stronger for close kin, weaker for more distant kin. Internal tribal relations among subgroups are based on what anthropologists call “balanced opposition” or “complementary opposition.” Each tribal subgroup is “balanced” against other subgroups of the same genealogical order, which in principle, and often in practice, serves as a deterrent against hostile acts. Tribal leadership can take the form of primus inter pares. However, in tribes in contact with states, more formal leadership roles, with at least the trappings of authority and power, can develop. Whatever the role of the tribal leader, he depends upon consent of the tribesmen. In tribal subgroups, political process tends to be highly democratic, and leaders are those who can elicit agreement among the members and then carry out the will of the community. Tribes are social organizations that are not static and do not always maintain form. They respond to environmental opportunities and constraints. If a state nearby is in trouble, with failing leadership and an unruly population, a tribe may mount a campaign to invade and conquer the state, setting itself up as a ruling dynasty. In these cases, tribes lose their tribal characteristics and become a ruling elite. However, if a nearby state gains strength and expands its territorial control, it may overrun and defeat the tribe, encapsulating it, incorporating it, and even assimilating it.

Kashars Against Mashars

This chapter discusses the change in the sociology and patterns of leadership in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) since the arrival of al-Qaeda in the area after 9/11. It focuses on South Waziristan which has become the hub of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Uzbeks, among other foreign jihadis. The chapter argues that the Talibanization of Waziristan might be analyzed as the outcome of a social movement among the Wazir tribesmen which started in the 1970s and was accelerated in the post-9/11 context. It analyzes the emergence of “tribal entrepreneurs” who took advantage of the change in political opportunities and their access to resources in order to challenge the traditional tribal leadership. It also describes the movement of the kashars against the mashars and the Political Agent.

The Azd and the Early Islamic State

This chapter argues that the degree of centralization within the Islamic conquests differed between east and west, with the western conquests being more of an independent tribal movement which the early caliphs gradually came to co-opt. Similarly, early Islamic Basra was most likely an existing Arab settlement before it became a garrison town (misr). The chapter then discusses the al-Azd in Rashidun and Umayyad Syria, Basra, and Kufa, as well as garrison towns’ (amsar) division into tribal administrative units. The role of al-Azd in key events such as the Battle of the Camel and Second Fitna is discussed, as is the role of tribal leadership in Basra and Kufa. This chapter also contains a significant discussion of the events surrounding the death of Masud b. Amr in Basra.

Conclusion

Based on the different case studies gathered in this volume, the conclusion argues that the weakening or collapse of state power, deep socio-economic transformations and civil warfare, as well as the subsequent crisis of tribal leadership and community cohesion have constituted a fertile ground for the development and rooting of jihadist groups in various tribal areas of the Middle East and Africa. The sense of threat that members of local tribes experienced in a changing environment has led to forms of cooperation when tribesmen and jihadists had a common interest in building bridges between the local and the global, beyond and sometimes against the state. Direct threat has also been key to the expansion of global jihadist forces in tribal areas.

The Age of Autonomy

This chapter follows the rise to power of the Shamsins, the Bayt al-Shillif, and associated ʻAlawi families as Ottoman tax concessionaries. It shows that their position of local autonomy, rather than having evolved out of some domestic or “tribal” leadership structure, resulted from a paradigm shift in Ottoman provincial administration as well as from a very favorable economic context, in particular the development of commercial tobacco farming in the northern highlands around Latakia. If the eighteenth century witnessed the emergence of a veritable Ottoman–ʻAlawi landed gentry, it also saw increasing social disparities lead to large-scale emigration away from the highlands toward the coastal and inland plains as well as toward the Hatay district of what is today southern Turkey.