22 research outputs found

    Exploring synergies and trade-offs among the sustainable development goals: collective action and adaptive capacity in marginal mountainous areas of India

    Get PDF
    Global environmental change (GEC) threatens to undermine the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Smallholders in marginal mountainous areas (MMA) are particularly vulnerable due to precarious livelihoods in challenging environments. Acting collectively can enable and constrain the ability of smallholders to adapt to GEC. The objectives of this paper are: (i) identify collective actions in four MMA of the central Indian Himalaya Region, each with differing institutional contexts; (ii) assess the adaptive capacity of each village by measuring livelihood capital assets, diversity, and sustainable land management practices. Engaging with adaptive capacity and collective action literatures, we identify three broad approaches to adaptive capacity relating to the SDGs: natural hazard mitigation (SDG 13), social vulnerability (SDG 1, 2 and 5), and social–ecological resilience (SDG 15). We then develop a conceptual framework to understand the institutional context and identify SDG synergies and trade-offs. Adopting a mixed method approach, we analyse the relationships between collective action and the adaptive capacity of each village, the sites where apparent trade-offs and synergies among SDGs occur. Results illustrate each village has unique socio-environmental characteristics, implying distinct development challenges, vulnerabilities and adaptive capacities exist. Subsequently, specific SDG synergies and trade-offs occur even within MMA, and it is therefore crucial that institutions facilitate locally appropriate collective actions in order to achieve the SDGs. We suggest that co-production in the identification, prioritisation and potential solutions to the distinct challenges facing MMA can increase understandings of the specific dynamics and feedbacks necessary to achieve the SDGs in the context of GEC

    Do protected areas and conservation incentives contribute to sustainable livelihoods? A case study of Bardia National Park, Nepal

    No full text
    Effective biodiversity protection and improved human welfare as ‘win–win’ situations have been the foundation for protected areas and conservation incentives. However, conserving land in this way can become a development issue that restricts agricultural expansion and resource exploitation, with potentially substantial costs to people living in conditions of high social impoverishment and high critical natural capital. This paper investigates whether Nepal's Bardia National Park and conservation incentives have contributed to the sustainable livelihoods of households. Data on household livelihoods and conservation benefits were collected through a questionnaire survey of 358 households and community workshops in three villages. Different impacts on household livelihoods were observed between the villages. It was found that these impacts were dependent on household characteristics, access to prior capital, and the social position of the household within society. Households lacking resources, being poor and belonging to lower castes were least included and also benefited less from development projects. As finance in the form of development projects from organisations continues to flow to the communities, it is important that detailed livelihood planning focussing on alternative regenerative livelihoods and micro-enterprises in the informal sector is included to target those households that are highly dependent on park resources. Livelihood planning must also include a clear linkage between livelihood enhancing activities and the conservation programme so that communities are aware that the benefits they receive are due to the protected area. Appreciation of benefits and their positive impact on livelihoods is important for the sustainability of incentive-based programmes

    Effectiveness of means used for crop protection against wildlife: Implications for conservation and biodiversity management at Bardia National Park

    No full text
    Conflicts due to damage caused by wildlife pose serious threats to conservation. In addition, wildlife damage incurs severe economic loss to communities living in the close vicinity of the park, affecting the livelihoods and well-being of locals. While different studies have emphasised identification and quantification of crop damage problems, studies highlighting the means used for crop protection and their effectiveness are limited. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of means used by communities to protect their crops against wildlife. 117 households were visited at two Buffer Zone villages of Bardia National Park, Nepal. Findings suggested that crop depredation by wildlife was a function of several factors, such as the distance of the farmland from the park, the size of the crop raiding animals and the frequency of attacks on the farmland, and the type of crops. Ten different means were identified by communities which were used regularly to prevent crop damage. Households combined both traditional and modern means to guard their crop against the wild animals. Means differed according to the animals as well as crops being protected. Among all these means, Machan (i.e. watch towers) combined with other means such as throwing flaming sticks and group shouting were the most effective and safest modes of crop guarding for all kinds of animals and crops. Trench and Bio-fencing were effective mostly for deer species. However, crop guarding was an intensive process and no means were able to completely prevent crop damage. Problem animals differed according to the villages and crops being damaged, which suggests that employment of single means would be ineffective. Site-specific management strategies and economic as well as technical support from funding organisations would be most useful to minimise crop loss. In addition information exchange and learning between farmers and the park management about different mitigating means could support and prepare farmers for improvement in the means
    corecore