Abstract
Present paper aims to discuss innovative features and “systems approach” adopted in implementing technology-driven developmental programme on “People and Protected Areas (PPA): Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods in Partnership with Local Communities” in India. This programme was jointly implemented at pilot scale by Science for Equity, Empowerment & Development (SEED) Division, Department of Science and Technology (DST), GOI and WWF-India during 2009 to 2012–13 in a network mode promoting innovative process mechanisms to enhance local livelihoods for communities living around 13 Protected Areas (PAs) in diverse ecological areas. In such initiatives, on an average 40–45 % reduction in fuel wood consumption was reported at various sites by introduction of renewable energy technologies like bio-globules, and improved cooking devices etc. Such need-based interventions have helped to build confidence among the members of the community as they were able to adopt simple technologies providing livelihood benefits, reduced carbon footprints as well as better quality of life. Findings of field-based action research programme suggests that participatory technological appropriation and transfer (PTAT) involving community is a necessary process for effective adaptation and governance to develop diverse and sustainable livelihood models for replication at the local level. Such process mechanism will have an impact not only on improving quality of life with livelihoods diversification, but also enable adoption of better conservation practices for sustainable use of forest resources in and around PAs. Paper suggests that the “people centred approach” for need-based technological interventions by adopting “system design” starting with the people and with lateral contribution from Science & Technology (S&T) Knowledge Hubs and close interface with field-based voluntary organizations/conservation groups can led to better impact outreach of developmental projects to evolve and deliver innovative models for conservation and sustainable livelihoods gains at local as well as global level. Adoption of such process mechanism of governance at local level not only help to integrate conservation and livelihood around PAs, but also shows that local/tribal communities and PAs can exist in a progressive society, while, ensuring mutual benefits toward ecosystem services and contributing toward mitigating climate change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Core group: Core groups are Science based NGOs/field institutions supported by DST, GOI to promote and nurture them as “S&T Incubators”/“Active Field Laboratories” in rural and other disadvantaged areas of the country to work and provide technological solutions and effective delivery of technologies for livelihood generation and societal benefits (Available at: https://www.dsttara.in).
- 2.
Bio-globules: Bio-globules technology to make briquettes is a eco-friendly and sustainable alternative to firewood to reduce villager’s dependence on the forest. Bio-globules are made with local available biomass, charcoal dust and clay.
References
Agarwal, S. K. (2013). Emerging technological intervention models with scalable solutions for adaptation to climate change and livelihood gains in Indian Himalayan Region: Case studies on action research at the grassroots level. In: S. Nautiyal et al. (Eds.), Knowledge systems of societies for adaptation and mitigation of impacts of climate change (pp. 575–600). Berlin: Springer. Environmental Science and Engineering (doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36143-2_33)
Agarwal, S. K., & Joshi, A. P. (2006). Technology on the move in the Himalayan region: From empowerment to sustainable livelihoods In: A. P. Joshi, S. K. Agarwal & R. Kumar (Eds.), Mountain technology agenda: Status, gaps and possibilities (pp. 140–160). Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehradun.
Asia Pacific Human Development Report. (2012). One planet to share: Sustaining human progress in a changing climate (242 pp). UNDP Publication.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1996). Collaborative management of protected area: Tailoring the approach to the context. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Bruner, A., Gullison, R., & Balmford, A. (2004). Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected area systems in developing countries. Journal of Bioscience, 54, 1119–1126.
Ekpe, E. K. (2012). A review of economic instruments employed for biodiversity conservation. Consilience. The Journal of Sustainable Development, 9, 16–32.
Ekpe, K. E., Hinke, C. R., Quigley, M. F., & Owusu, E. H. (2015). Natural resource and biodiversity conservation in Ghana: The use of livelihoods supports activities to achieve conservation objectives. Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 10(4), 253–261.
Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Journal of Ecological Economics, 64, 47–60.
Feary, S., Kothari, A., Lockwood, M., Pulsford, I., & Worboys, G. L. (2015). Conclusion. In G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary, & I. Pulsford (Eds.), Protected area governance and management (pp. 929–932). Canberra: ANU Press.
Gladwin, C., Peterson, J., & Mwale, A. (2002). The quality of science in participatory research: A case study from Eastern Zambia. Journal of World Development, 30(4), 523–543.
Global Environment Facility (GEF). (2008). Joint evaluation of the GEF small grants programme (p. 89). Washington, DC: GEF Evaluation Office.
Huq, S., Rahman, A., Konate, M., Sokona, Y., & Reid, H. (2003). Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in least developed countries. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development Climate Change Programme.
Hyes, T. M. (2006). Parks, people, and forest protection: An institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. Journal of World Development, 34(12), 2064–2075.
Klein, R. J. T., Eriksen, S. E. H., Naes, L. O., Hammill, A., Tanner, T. M., Robledo, C., & O’Brien, K. L. (2007). Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation to climate change into development assistance. Climate Change, 84, 23–44.
Kochendorfer-Lucius, G., & van de Sand, K. (2000). New ways towards poverty alleviation: Institutional development to supersede conventional project approach. Journal of Development Cooperation, 200, 21–24.
Kothari, A., Cooney, R., Hunter, D., Mackinnon, K., Muller, E., Nelson, F., et al. (2015). Managing resource use and development. In G. L. Worboys, M. Lockwood, A. Kothari, S. Feary, & I. Pulsford (Eds.), Protected area governance and management (pp. 789–822). Canberra: ANU Press.
Larson, P., Freudenberger, M., & Wyckoff-Baird, B. (1998). WWF integrated conservation and development projects: Ten lessons from the field 1985–1996. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.
McNeely, J. A. (1988). Economics and biological diversity: Developing and using economic incentives to conserve biological resources. Gland: IUCN.
McShane, T. O. (2010). Protected areas and poverty—The linkages and how to address them. In: D. Roe & J. Elliott (Eds.), The earthscan reader in poverty and biodiversity conservation (pp. 145–146). Earthscan, London.
Padaki, V., & Vaz, M. (2003). Institutional development in social interventions. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Petursson, J. E., Vedeld, P., & Kaboggoza, J. (2011). Transboundary biodiversity management: Institutions, local stakeholders, and protected areas: A case study from Mt. Elgon, Uganda and Kenya. Journal of Society and Natural Resources, 24, 1304–1321.
Sanjayan, M., Shen, S., & Jansen, M. (1997). Experience with integrated conservation development projects in Asia. World Bank Technical Paper 388. World Bank, Washington, DC.
Treves, L. N., Holland, M. B., & Brabdon, K. (2010). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. In: D. Roe & J. Elliott (Eds.), The earthscan reader in poverty and biodiversity conservation (pp. 157–164). Earthscan, London.
United Nations Environmental Programe. (2004). Economic instruments in biodiversity related multi-lateral environmental agreements. New York: United Nations Publications.
Acknowledgments
Many organizations and individuals have contributed toward the successful implementation of the Network Programme on PPA. The author would like to thanks all of them including DST, GOI, Delhi and WWF-India for valuable support and guidance to make programme more effective at field level. Special thanks are also due to partner project implementing agencies, who generously provided information and shared knowledge and data for the critical analysis of work presented in this discussion paper.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of organization to which he belongs. Present paper is elaborated version of a voluntary paper accepted for XIV World Forestry Congress held at Durban, South Africa during 7–11 September, 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Agarwal, S.K. (2016). Emerging Model of Ecosystem Services and Effective Governance Through Scalable Technological Solutions Around Protected Areas: Sharing Experiences from India. In: Nautiyal, S., Schaldach, R., Raju, K., Kaechele, H., Pritchard, B., Rao, K. (eds) Climate Change Challenge (3C) and Social-Economic-Ecological Interface-Building. Environmental Science and Engineering(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31014-5_35
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31014-5_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31013-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31014-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)