Search

The concept of commoning is continuing to gain scholarly interest, with multiple definitions and interpretations across different research communities. In this article, we define commoning as the actions by groups with shared interests towards creating shared social and relational processes as the basis of governance strategy. Perhaps it can be more simply defined as collective ways of relating and governing. This article addresses two specific gaps in the commoning literature: (1) to bridge disparate strands of literature on commoning by briefly reviewing each and arguing for integration through epistemic pluralism, and (2) to explicitly examine how power is manifest in commoning processes by bringing in a framework on power (i.e., power over, power with, power to, power within) to understand the links between power and commoning governance processes in two case studies. The two cases are tourism governance on Gili Trawangan, Indonesia and aquatic food production systems in Bulacan, Philippines. We preface this analysis with the argument that power is an integral part of the commoning concept, but that it has yet to be analytically integrated to applications of the broader institutional analysis and development framework or within the networks of action situations approach. We argue that by making explicit how an analysis of power can be coupled to a network of action situations analysis in a qualitative way, we are advancing a key feature of the commoning concept, which we introduce as rooted in epistemic and analytical pluralism in the analysis of governance. In the discussion, we expand on how each case study reveals each of the four power dynamics, and how they improve the understanding of commoning as a pluralistic and perhaps bridging analytical concept.

In many parts of the Global South, food systems are confronted with complex sustainability challenges including high levels of poverty, food insecurity, malnutrition, disempowerment, and degraded environments. Transformation is broadly discussed in research, policy, and planning as the systemic change required to address complex sustainability issues. Transformation of food systems has become a global priority for research and action. However, transformation processes are not neutral, but are associated with losses and gains that are unevenly distributed. Institutions play an important role in relation to how transformation of food systems occur and with what outcomes. Empirical understandings of how institutions can influence transformation processes in a way that avoids risks or the so-called dark side of transformation are needed. This article aims to contribute towards understanding the roles that institutions play in transformation processes in the context of Global South food systems through synthesising insights from transdisciplinary case studies. The three case studies include multi-purpose cooperative institutions in farming areas in southwest Ethiopia, fisherfolk organisations in aquatic food-producing areas in northern Philippines, and Gotong Royong for irrigation canal management for pond aquaculture in Indonesia. The article examines whether and how institutions advance inclusion and participation in food systems, and whether institutions enable or constrain food system actors in mitigating or avoiding transformation risks. The paper reflects on the role of community-level institutions and hybrid governance arrangements, and the interplay of structure and agency in transformation processes.

The Covid-19 pandemic is a global shock that is significantly affecting coastal social-ecological systems (SES) in different parts of the world. Its widespread impacts have unravelled vulnerabilities in many aspects of society, including food systems. Our study investigated the impacts of a lockdown associated with the pandemic in the province of Bulacan, in the region of Central Luzon, Philippines, where aquaculture and capture fisheries are important and interconnected sectors. In particular, we focused on impacts related to production and market. We considered people’s coping strategies and the factors that enabled such strategies. Our investigation adopted a case study approach and drew on qualitative data analysed through thematic analysis. The findings revealed differentiated mechanisms through which aquaculture and capture fisheries production were impacted. Both were strongly affected by market disruptions but through slightly different ways. In effect, the lockdown provided the impetus for the uptake and spreading of practices that were previously peripheral, particularly in relation to market exchanges. The study also identified a variety of coping strategies, as well as the importance of social support in the form of food aid, financial assistance, and institutional livelihood assistance. Finally, it discusses the importance of diversity in food sources, the role of local food systems, and governance implications for foregrounding social-ecological resilience in short-term response and long-term recovery.

Despite an increasing understanding of the issue of marine pollution, humanity continues on a largely unsustainable trajectory. This study aimed to identify and classify the range of scientific studies and interventions to address coastal and marine pollution. We reviewed 2417 scientific papers published between 2000 and 2018, 741 of which we analysed in depth. To classify pollution interventions, we applied the systems-oriented concept of leverage points, which focuses on places to intervene in complex systems to bring about systemic change. We found that pollution is largely studied as a technical problem and fewer studies engage with pollution as a systemic social-ecological issue. While recognising the importance of technical solutions, we highlight the need to focus on under-researched areas pertaining to the deeper drivers of pollution (e.g. institutions, values) which are needed to fundamentally alter system trajectories. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Ensuring food security and halting biodiversity decline are two of the most urgent, interconnected challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. Drawing on both the natural and social sciences, we implemented an interdisciplinary research agenda to address these challenges. This book summarises the findings of five years of research in southwestern Ethiopia. It covers diverse topics, from biodiversity conservation to ecosystem services, livelihoods, social equity, population growth and governance. It concludes with an outlook of what the future may hold for southwestern Ethiopia. Each chapter in the book is based on peer-reviewed empirical science, begins with a summary of key messages, and concludes with a series of recommendations for policy and practice. The book seeks to inspire and inform policymakers, scientists and other stakeholders in Ethiopia and elsewhere, aiming to provide scientifically grounded, tangible insights that can help to harmonise biodiversity conservation and food security.

Global discourses on the governance of food security span competing approaches. For example, a neoliberal approach advocates commercialized, industrial agriculture, while food sovereignty and resilience are part of an alternative discourse to food security that prioritizes locally-based agroecological food production. Understanding how global discourses play out locally and how they impact the environment and biodiversity is important to identify appropriate pathways towards sustainability. In addition to their effects on food security, different approaches could reinforce or impede the success of biodiversity conservation because of the strong interdependence of food security and ecosystems. We applied the Q-methodology to examine alternative approaches to food security and biodiversity conservation pursued by 50 stakeholders from local to national levels in southwestern Ethiopia. We identified four distinct approaches, focusing on (1) smallholder commercialization, (2) agroecology and resilience, (3) local economy and equity, and (4) market liberalization. All approaches prioritized smallholders, but perspectives on how to achieve food security varied. Agricultural intensification, commercialization, and profit were widely considered important, while support for agroecology and resilience was largely restricted to non-government organizations. With the exception of supporters of the agroecology and resilience approach, biodiversity conservation was considered as a secondary goal. We conclude it is important to acknowledge plurality of food security approaches because local conditions are characterized by a multiplicity of stakeholder interests, and because food security is a complex problem that requires a multidimensional approach. However, major contradictions among existing approaches need to be reconciled, and the agroecology and resilience approach should be strengthened to ensure the sustainable achievement of food security and biodiversity conservation.

We investigated how smallholder farming households in southwestern Ethiopia coped with challenges related to lack in capital assets and food shortage. We focused on interactions between capital assets using, in particular, capital asset substitution as an analytical lens to classify and unpack the interactions. The most commonly mentioned challenges were related to natural and economic capitals, and these frequently caused seasonal food shortages. Households responded to the lack in capital assets or food through processes that drew on more readily available capital assets. Common ways in which households coped involved drawing on social and human capitals (i.e. increasing labor input) to address lack in other types of capital assets and lack in food. These types of asset substitution tended to facilitate the maintenance of a household’s capital asset base. In contrast, some households liquidated physical and economic capital assets to cope, but these types of substitution tended to erode their capital asset base. In sum, our findings highlight the natural environment as well as social and human capitals as foundational to smallholder livelihoods and food security. In practical terms, the study provides information on coping strategies that should be avoided or modified to prevent capital asset erosion, and highlights those that should be supported and strengthened to enable the maintenance (and eventual growth) of households’ capital assets. Conceptually, the study contributes to livelihoods research by highlighting the usefulness of capital asset substitution for investigating interactions between different capital assets.