Re-Imagining Desakota through a “Toad’s Eye Science” Appr oach Dipak Gyawali STEPS Center  Pathways to Sustainability  Con...
Desakota: the co-penetration  of rural and urban systems
 
<ul><li>Picture of truck/diesel pump </li></ul>
Desakota Criteria  <ul><li>Greater connectivity – physical, electronic, cultural .  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This connectivit...
Knowledge Systems <ul><li>Disjuncture between ‘high’ science used by global decision-makers and ‘low’ science coming from ...
Ecosystems and Desakota: Institutions <ul><li>Institutional challenge: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rapid, informal development <...
 
Adapted from: Thompson 2008. Organizing and Disorganizing, Triarchy Press UK. Cultural Theory of Change: Ecology, Economic...
Desakota, Poverty and ES <ul><li>Understanding poverty </li></ul><ul><li>Changing concepts of who is considered “poor” </l...
Desakota, ES and Poverty
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dipak Gyawali - Re-imagining Desakota through a "toad’s eye science" approach

1,052 views

Published on

Presentation at the STEPS Conference 2010 - Pathways to Sustainability: Agendas for a new politics of environment, development and social justice

http://www.steps-centre.org/events/stepsconference2010.html

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,052
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 1) Background to project (cover pic of women on strawberry cart) a. Relationship between ecosystems and livelihoods changing in 2 fundamental ways: i. Technological and economic globalization ii. Environmental change Reshaping livelihoods, pressures on ecosystems, nature and effectiveness of institutions for their management b. Limitations of current approaches to “rural” and “urban” development, neglect complexities, more fuzzy area in between, neglect increasingly global (or regional) interlinkages
  • Desakota presents an institutional challenge due to its rapid, informal development. Highly mobile populations, changing liveilhoods leading to less dependency on forests, water, ecosystems for provisioning services Existing rural and urban institutions have less reach, are less applicable in ‘fuzzy’ desakota environments -- institutional ‘clumsiness” High growht of informal economy not captured by existing institutions, policies .
  • Changing perceptions of who is poor ; importance of understanding how people perceive poverty (e.g. differences in Nepal, where someone is poor if they do not have a family member migrating, or have good transport mechanisms, or may have agricultural land, but it is lying fallow as they do not have labour - or cannot afford labour -- to manage land). Ag land, conventionally considered an asset are of less importance in context of labour shortage limiting productiveity and therefore economic value, while capital or servies that facilitate access to cash income (migration for labour, transport) may be key elements to successful livelihood strategy. Although organizations use a more borad definition of poverty as deprivation of well-being due to lack of material assets or income, low levels of health provision, poor or no education, food insecurity -- in practice this definition is reduced to simple economic measure of $1/day per threshold. -- minimum levels of food energy, shelter for survivial While useful for quantifying one aspect of poverty, do not ungrasp these wider social, human, environmental issues contributing to poverty. Why important to consider these changing notions - is that this helps reorient perceptions to understand what choices people make as efforts to move out of poverty, or also conditions that may cause them to fall into poverty.
  • Sum up: existing research not yet adequately tackled these challenges In part focus on “rural” or “urban”, and lack of recognition for more mixed economy, desakota areas Absence of tools to evaluate development problems in such areas Challenge of investigating complex interactions across scales Rapidly intensifying interactions within interlinked local to glboal systems need for interdisciplinary approaches that cross research issues to address these challenges of ecosystem services and poverty
  • Dipak Gyawali - Re-imagining Desakota through a "toad’s eye science" approach

    1. 1. Re-Imagining Desakota through a “Toad’s Eye Science” Appr oach Dipak Gyawali STEPS Center Pathways to Sustainability Conference Contesting Sustainabilities in the Peri-Urban Interface
    2. 2. Desakota: the co-penetration of rural and urban systems
    3. 4. <ul><li>Picture of truck/diesel pump </li></ul>
    4. 5. Desakota Criteria <ul><li>Greater connectivity – physical, electronic, cultural . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This connectivity contributes to time-space collapse. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Greater penetration of cash economy with remnants of reciprocity mechanisms on the decline. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing market linkages are facilitating the predominance of a cash economy over reciprocity mechanisms, with much of it in the informal sector rather than the formal. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mixed livelihoods drawing upon local and non-local service and manufacturing opportunities. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Household income baskets contain a mix of rural and urban characteristics. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Greater diffusion of modern production and resource extractive technologies. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Modern technologies are gaining predominance over conventional and traditional means of resource harvesting or harnessing, with implications on demands and pressures on natural resources. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tensions between formal and informal and traditional institutions for resource management. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutionally, desakota regions are often characterized by a poorly linked mix of formal institutions, declining or evolving traditional institutions and emergent informal institutions filling the gaps and often encroaching across enclave boundaries. </li></ul></ul>
    5. 6. Knowledge Systems <ul><li>Disjuncture between ‘high’ science used by global decision-makers and ‘low’ science coming from tradition and everyday experience and interactions </li></ul><ul><li>Need for a communication strategy between global and local decision-making to mutually feed research needs </li></ul><ul><li>Basis for projecting future from historical probabilities are evaporating, requiring new approaches that incorporate higher levels of uncertainty, both physical and social </li></ul><ul><li>Social sciences face the challenge of coping with new categories and concepts beyond past dichotomies such as ‘rural’/’urban’ or ‘formal’/’informal’ divide </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptive learning between locally and globally generated knowledges </li></ul>
    6. 7. Ecosystems and Desakota: Institutions <ul><li>Institutional challenge: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rapid, informal development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Changing livelihoods, less dependency on proximate ecosystem services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of ‘reach’ of existing institutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Growth of informal markets for provisioning services, but not on management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Locational disjuncture between “ecosystem” itself and service it provides </li></ul></ul>Example: Balochistan, Pakistan
    7. 9. Adapted from: Thompson 2008. Organizing and Disorganizing, Triarchy Press UK. Cultural Theory of Change: Ecology, Economics, Habitat and the Dynamics of Plural Rationalities Upward Slums
    8. 10. Desakota, Poverty and ES <ul><li>Understanding poverty </li></ul><ul><li>Changing concepts of who is considered “poor” </li></ul><ul><li>Understanding factors that contribute people to move in and out of poverty </li></ul><ul><li>Limitations of existing poverty measures </li></ul><ul><li>offers opportunities for moving out of poverty, </li></ul><ul><li>Mobility, diversified livelihoods, non-farm employment </li></ul><ul><li>Transport, access to markets </li></ul><ul><li>Communication and knowledge of markets, technologies </li></ul>Remittance income 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1995 1998 2002 2004 Year Rupees (in billion) Worker's remittance FDI
    9. 11. Desakota, ES and Poverty

    ×