|
|
|
PDF
|
|
Type:
|
Conference Paper |
|
Author:
|
Thompson, Paul; Sultana, Parvin; Paudel, Naya Sharma; Ojha, Hemant |
|
Conference:
|
Commoners and the Changing Commons: Livelihoods, Environmental Security, and Shared Knowledge, the Fourteenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons |
|
Location:
|
Mt. Fuji, Japan |
|
Conf. Date:
|
June 3-7 |
|
Date:
|
2013 |
|
URI:
|
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/8973
|
|
Sector:
|
Social Organization |
|
Region:
|
Middle East & South Asia |
|
Subject(s):
|
forests
poverty
community development
flood management
environmental services
IASC
|
|
Abstract:
|
"In Bangladesh and Nepal there have been considerable efforts to establish community institutions to manage commons, notably wetlands and floodplains in Bangladesh and forests in Nepal. Traditional common property regimes and/or new institutional arrangements based on local collective action have been increasingly recognised as providing more effective management than state control top-down approaches. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how community rights and institutions affect poverty reduction and sustainability of ecosystem services. Both countries have vibrant networks of community organisations. In Nepal a federation of 18,000 forest user groups arose from the desire of grassroots institutions to articulate their common interests in influencing national policies. In Bangladesh a network of 270 floodplain community organisations arose from an interest to learn from each others experience, address complex links between agriculture, water and fisheries, and gain mutual support from peers. These networks emphasise the importance of commons and collective action for the livelihoods of poor people and the ecosystems they depend on. Evidence is taken from a total of 32 detailed case studies, representing the diversity of environments, tenural arrangements over commons, and levels of involvement in networking. The paper focuses on some key questions. What kinds of networks have emerged around forests and floodplains? How do these networks address the governance challenges of these nested commons? How have the federations supported multi-level governance and minimised conflicts around the management of the commons? How has the distribution of benefits and ecosystem services generated from different types of commons changed with community based management and networking? Comparative analysis shows that networking has increased shared learning and political mobilization, enhanced ecosystem conditions and associated livelihoods, and has strengthened bargaining power with outside forces such as state and market. It is concluded that networking adds value in effective management of complex commons."
|