Search

Clearly, Nepalis have to adapt to climate change. It is less clear what precisely the challenges are and who is best positioned to lead the response.

This chapter examines how sustainability is scaled. Scale is crucial in sustainability debates because some solutions that are considered sustainable by a group of actors for relatively localized problems, for example, are unable to be satisfactorily scaled out to encompass national issues. Measures are usually justified on the grounds that they guarantee the protection of a public good, including virgin forests for climate change mitigation purposes; wetlands for flood prevention, water purification, or erosion control; coral reefs for the protection of biological diversity; and savannas for game and safari tourism. The chapter looks at the problems of scale and responsibility through three specific strategies of sustainable development: conservation, participation, and public—private partnerships. Conservation has long been linked to both the preservation and protection of ecosystems, and to normative ideas of the nation and morality. The idea that the goal of environmental conservation is primarily to ensure use of those environments by humans over the long term has been challenged.

SUMMARYMembers of the public and resource-dependent communities are increasingly participating alongside professional scientists to monitor the natural world. This study applies the contention from development studies that participatory approaches may be tyrannical to participatory monitoring of Nepal's community forests. There is a tyranny of the group because elites within the community stand to benefit at the cost of those already marginalized. In theory, tyranny is produced through the methods employed in the projects, as they promote scientific systems of monitoring at the expense of local understandings of environmental change; in practice, however, the latter aspects override official monitoring to enable effective learning from the projects. In some instances, tyranny is produced through decision-making and control, whilst, in other cases, the reverse is true and communities are empowered through their participatory monitoring efforts. Policy makers and those involved in participatory monitoring should endeavour to transform tyranny created at local and wider scales. Participatory monitoring holds huge potential in the assessment of biodiversity, natural resources and ecosystem services, but programmes and projects need to effectively deliver associated benefits of conservation and community empowerment.

This paper analyses contrasting discourses of ‘climate-smart agriculture’ (CSA) for their implications on control over and access to changing resources in agriculture. One of the principal areas of contestation around CSA relates to equity, including who wins and who loses, who is able to participate, and whose knowledge and perspectives count in the process. Yet to date, the equity implications of CSA remain an under-researched area. We apply an equity framework centred on procedure, distribution and recognition, to four different discourses. Depending on which discourses are mobilised, the analysis helps to illuminate: (1) how CSA may transfer the burden of responsibility for climate change mitigation to marginalised producers and resource managers (distributive equity); (2) how CSA discourses generally fail to confront entrenched power relations that may constrain or block the emergence of more ‘pro-poor’ forms of agricultural development, adaptation to climate change, or carbon sequestration and storage (procedural equity); (3) how CSA discourses can have tangible implications for the bargaining power of the poorest and most vulnerable groups (recognition). The paper contributes to work showing the need for deeper acknowledgement of the political nature of the transformations necessary to address the challenges caused by a changing climate for the agricultural sector.

Participatory ecological monitoring brings together conservationists and members of the public to collect data about changes in nature. This article scrutinizes the “social nature” of such monitoring, considering not only its impacts for nature, but also society, and importantly the ways in which these interact. Drawing on the field of nature–society studies we present a framework with which to explore case studies from the community forests of Nepal. We document the importance of multiple knowledges of nature, including what is referred to as “local monitoring” and its relation to the scientific procedures promoted in participatory monitoring; the consequences of participatory monitoring as a situated and embodied practice, such that it may (re)produce social inequalities; and the place of monitoring within the wider socioecological regime, with regard to possible unintended consequences for both nature and society. This article thus expands our understanding of the complexities of this increasingly popu...

As developing countries around the world formulate policies to address climate change, concerns remain as to whether the voices of those most exposed to climate risk are represented in those policies. Developing countries face significant challenges for contextualizing global-scale scientific research into national political dynamics and downscaling global frameworks to sub-national levels, where the most affected are presumed to live. This article critiques the ways in which the politics of representation and climate science are framed and pursued in the process of climate policy development, and contributes to an understanding of the relative effectiveness of globally framed, generic policy mechanisms in vulnerable and politically volatile contexts. Based on this analysis, it also outlines opportunities for the possibility of improving climate policy processes to contest technocratic framing and generic international adaptation solutions.Policy relevanceNepal's position as one of the countries most at risk from climate change in the Himalayas has spurred significant international support to craft climate policy responses over the past few years. Focusing on the National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) and the Climate Change Policy, this article examines the extent to which internationally and scientifically framed climate policy in Nepal recognizes the unfolding political mobilizations around the demand for a representative state and equitable adaptation to climate risks. This is particularly important in Nepal, where political unrest in the post-conflict transition after the end of the civil war in 2006 has focused around struggles over representation for those historically on the political margins. Arguing that vulnerability to climate risk is produced in conjunction with social and political conditions, and that not everyone in the same locality is equally vulnerable, we demonstrate the multi-faceted nature of the politics of representation for climate policy making in Nepal. However, so far, this policy making has primarily been shaped through a technocratic framing that avoids political contestations and downplays the demand for inclusive and deliberative processes. Based on this analysis, we identify the need for a flexible, contextually grounded, and multi-scalar approach to political representation while also emphasizing the need for downscaling climate science that can inform policy development and implementation to achieve fair and effective adaptation to climate change.

Environmentalist concerns over the state of Nepal’s ‘fragile forests’ resulted in the establishment of Community Forestry projects. These community-based projects are partnerships between the state and community user-groups that invest user-groups with a great deal of control over their forests. Project implementation, however begins with the assumption that users have little prior knowledge of forest management and need to be taught modern silviculture. This paper examines the extent to which different community members embrace notions of professional forestry materially and symbolically. The development of written management plans, the need for careful accounting records and the promotion of silviculturally based management strategies by District Forest Officers serve to (re)inscribe differences between users based on education and literacy. Which users embrace these discourses and practices and for what purposes lends insight into the workings of neo-liberalism and how it is implicated in the reconfiguring of social and power relations within localities and in this case, the consequences of this for ecological change. It is argued that the promotion of expert knowledge and professional practices in Community Forestry is often used as a somewhat contradictory vehicle for educated elites to retain control over forest management thus undermining some of the key objectives of the program.

Based on empirical research in case study areas in six European countries, this paper examines the roles of social capital and identity in contemporary rural development. We argue that a focus on networks of social relationships can help us understand the dynamics of and relationships between social capital and identity. Comparing the case study areas, we draw attention to the position of identity in rural development and focus in particular on area-branding initiatives. Other non-agricultural networks are then presented, prefaced by a brief discussion of the role of governance. We argue that development emerges from a dialectic of existing networking practices and networks that are instigated for the purposes of development. Our research underlines the importance of social process in rural development, particularly in regard to the relationship between continuity and change.

A research agenda is currently developing around the linkages between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation. It is therefore timely to consider which conceptual frameworks can best support research at this nexus. Our review of frameworks synthesises existing research on poverty/environment linkages that should not be overlooked with the adoption of the topical language of ecosystem services. A total of nine conceptual frameworks were selected on the basis of relevance. These were reviewed and compared to assess their ability to illuminate the provision of ecosystem services, the condition, determinants and dynamics of poverty, and political economy factors that mediate the relationship between poverty and ecosystem services. The paper synthesises the key contributions of each of these frameworks, and the gaps they expose in one another, drawing out lessons that can inform emerging research. Research on poverty alleviation must recognize social differentiation, and be able to distinguish between constraints of access and constraints of aggregate availability of ecosystem services. Different frameworks also highlight important differences between categories of services, their pathways of production, and their contribution to poverty alleviation. Furthermore, we highlight that it is important to acknowledge the limits of ecosystem services for poverty alleviation, given evidence that ecosystem services tend to be more associated with poverty prevention than reduction. We conclude by reflecting on the relative merits of dynamic Social–Ecological Systems frameworks versus more static checklists, and suggest that research on ecosystem services and poverty alleviation would be well served by a new framework distilling insights from the frameworks we review.