Copyright © 2018 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Salman, T., M. de Theije, and I. Vélez-Torres. 2018. Structures, actors, and interactions in the analysis of natural resource conflicts. Ecology and Society 23(3):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10221-230330 Research, part of a Special Feature on Transforming Conflicts over Natural Resources in the South for Social-Ecological Resilience Structures, actors, and interactions in the analysis of natural resource conflicts Ton Salman 1 , Marjo de Theije 1 and Irene Vélez-Torres 2 ABSTRACT. We propose a research approach to natural resource conflicts that includes different tempos of the developments that lead to a conflict becoming manifest. This approach can help to distinguish dimensions of the conflict and to understand the logic behind and reasons for different vocabularies currently in vogue to address these dimensions. It thus clarifies the different assertions and potentials of existing theoretical and conceptual approaches. After presenting our model, we analyze three conflict cases, in Sri Lanka/India, Suriname, and Colombia. The cases show the history and self-identification that explain indignation and distrust, as well as attitudes of taking for granted relations with other actors, namely the state and other contenders for the resources, including large- scale companies, illegal armed groups, and drug traffickers. In our text, we use “tempos” to refer to three processes that bring about three dimensions we believe to constitute conflicts over natural resources. The distinction can help to more accurately unpack the why’s and how’s of conflict development. Key Words: Colombia; conflict analysis; multitemporal model; small-scale fishery; small-scale gold mining; Sri Lanka; Suriname INTRODUCTION Recent literature in the development studies field suggests the need to reconceptualize and rethink conflict over natural resources, in particular to place an emphasis on the nuances of conflict dynamics in specific contexts (Kemp et al. 2011, Temper and Martinez-Alier 2013, Warnaars 2013, Pierk and Tysiachniouk 2016, Litmanen et al. 2016) and the role of collective action (Ratner et al. 2013). Overarching approaches and research strategies cannot do justice to the specifics of the regional and geographic histories and features, to the peculiarities of the extraction operations, or to the ways the different parties are constituted, situated, informed, and capable of promoting their interests. Conflict dynamics around multinational companies entering a rural area with a governmental concession to mine for tin or gold, differ in many respects from such dynamics when small-scale gold miners enter a remote region where indigenous people live. Things are also different when parties like environmentalists, road construction companies, or tourist operators become involved, or when local dwellers have mobilization and framing skills or, to the contrary, lack them, or when conflicts become a public dispute reported on in the national or international press. In all instances, efforts to understand conflicts over natural resources will have to do justice to the particularities and intricacies of their subject area and case. These specifics should address the underlying features of societal makeup, poverty and inequality rates, national and regional polities, the dynamics of the actual confrontations between multiple actors, and the dimension of the actors’ backgrounds, skills, memories, and ambitions. The value of a contextualized approach is that it enables specificity to be understood and the emergence of action that is appropriate to this specificity. The variety of conflict processes needs to resonate in research approaches and suggestions for conflict management or transformation. However, the very strength of this focus on contextualized understanding can also be a weakness, in the sense of generating knowledge and action that remains at a case study level, omitting overarching insights. To address this potential limitation, we propose a frame of reference to analyze and synthesize research on natural resource conflicts, in line with the proposal of Fisher, Bavinck, and Amsula (unpublished manuscript) for the development of middle-range theory. This article draws on empirical research produced by three out of the total number of six projects within the CoCooN (Conflict and Cooperation over Natural Resources) research program. [1] Our approach is both inductive and deductive: On the one hand, we followed an inductive approach to analyze cases addressed by the CoCooN program, and we formulated a set of categories to highlight the most important features of the conflicts in these cases. On the other hand, we suggest that this structure, as an analytical device, can be used to understand connections between conflicts over natural resources in a deductive way, revealing the capacity to create articulations and general tendencies in different cases of conflict over natural resources. Rather than suggesting substance in terms of key concepts and investigative approaches, the proposed approach is a format for including the different cadences or tempo of the developments that lead to a conflict becoming manifest. By “tempo” we mean the different speeds or the pace with which changes transpire, for example, in a case in which a shift in government can take place rapidly, a change in the team (a ministry or governmental body) to execute new policies takes longer, and the effects of the new policies becoming visible takes even more time. For each dimension we distinguish several specific theoretical and methodological options, based on applying the logics of the three tempos highlighted in Table 1. In that sense, we might call our proposal a “pro-theory” (Bader 1991:35-38), a format to structure levels of the analysis of conflict, rather than an elaborate, full- fledged theory. The aim is to reduce confusion about the lexicons and assertions of different theoretical and conceptual approaches, and about the interspersing of problem phrasing. It is a frame of reference (see Table 1) that has the capacity to facilitate comparison and connectivity between conflicts that occur in different time periods and geographies. 1 Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2 School of Environmental Engineering (EIDENAR), Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia