Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Sowmini G Prasad

Effectiveness of Decentralised Governance of Grazing Commons - Bangalore NLSIU, Bangalore 2019 - 97p.

Contents
Abbreviations ix;
Illustrations (Figures, Charts, Maps, Diagrams) x;
Tables xi;
Acknowledgments xii;
1. Introduction 1;
1.1. Introduction 1;
1.2. Review of Literature 2;
1.2.1. Services Provided by Grassland Ecosystem and the Arguments for their Protection 3;
1.2.2. Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional Grassland Management Practices 5;
1.2.3.Current Legal and Policy Landscape Governing Grasslands 8;
1.2.4. Decentralised Governance of Grazing Commons 10;
1.3. Research Problem 11;
1.4. Research Questions 12;
1.5. Research Objectives 12;
2. Research Methodology 13;
2.1. Analytical Framework 13;
2.1.1. Situational Variables 14;
2.1.1.1. Physical and technological characteristics 14;
2.1.1.2. Decision-making arrangements 14;
2.1.1.3. Social characteristics of the community 15;
2.1.2. Relationship between Situational Variables 15;
2.1.2.1. Patterns of interaction. 15;
2.1.2.2. Action-strategies of individuals 15;
2.1.2.3. Context-bound factors 15;
2.1.2.4. Outcomes 15;
2.2. Operationalising the Multiple-Use Analytical Framework 16;
2.2.1. Mapping of Research Questions to Components of the Analytical Framework 16;
2.2.1.1. Research Question 1 16;
2.2.1.2. Analytical Framework Component 16;
2.2.1.3. Research Question 2 16;
2.2.1.4. Analytical Framework Component. 16;
2.2.2. Contextualizing the Components of the Analytical Framework 16;
2.2.2.1. Physical and technological characteristics 16;
2.2.2.2. Decision-making arrangements 17;
2.2.2.3. Social characteristics of the community 17;
2.2.2.4. Context-bound factors 18;
2.2.2.5. Patterns of interaction and action-strategies of individuals. 18;
2.2.2.6.Outcomes 18;
2.3. Research Design 19;
2.3.1. Area of Study 19;
2.3.1.1. Karnataka 20;
2.3.1.2. Kolar and Chikkaballapur districts. 21;
2.3.2. Sampling 22;
2.3.3. Research Tools 24;
2.3.4. Data Collected. 25;
2.3.5. Methods of Data Analysis 28;
2.3.6. Scope and Limitations of the Study 29;
3. Understanding the Institutional Landscape 31;
3.1. Sub-Committee Formation - Bringing Natural Resource Management into Local Governance 31;
3.1.1. Non-Governmental Organisation - Foundation for Ecological Security 33;
3.1.2. Village/ Habitation/ Ward 34;
3.1.3. Gram Panchayat 35;
3.2. Nature and the Scale of NRM Sub-Committees 36;
3.3. Nesting of the NRM Sub-Committees within the Institution of the State. 37;
3.3.1. Gram Panchayat 38;
3.3.2. Habitation/ Ward Level Sub-Committee - Grama Parisara Abhivriddi Samithi 39;
3.3.3. Village/ Habitation/ Ward 40;
3.3.4. Non-Governmental Organisation - Foundation for Ecological Security 41;
3.4. Financing the Sub-Committee 41;
3.4.1. Convergence with Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 41;
3.5. Functioning of the Sub-Committee 42;
3.5.1. Committee Meetings 42;
3.5.2. Participation of Women 43;
3.5.3. General Participatory and Democratic Nature of the Committee. 44;
3.6. Nature of Work and the Extent of Community Participation 46;
3.7. Internal Rules of the Village Institution 49;
3.7.1. Access 49;
3.7.2. Usage 49;
3.7.3. Distribution of Benefits. 50;
3.7.4. Enforcement of Rules 51;
3.8. Security and Clarity of Tenure of Grazing Commons 51;
3.8.1. Forest Department and the Village Community 52;
3.8.2. Revenue Department and the Village Community 53;
3.8.3. Developmental Needs and Ecological Needs 54;
4. Patterns of Interaction 57;
4.1. The Changing Relationship between Communities and Commons 57;
4.1.1. Land Ownership 57;
4.1.2. The Urban-Rural Difference 60;
4.1.2.1. Pokmakalapalli 61;
4.1.2.2. Channigarayapura 63;
4.2. Extent of Development or Penetration of Schemes of the Government 64;
4.3. Presence of Visible Short-term Benefits 65;
4.4. Awareness among Government Officials and the Support they are Willing to Extend 66;
4.5. Local Leadership 68;
5. Benefits Derived by Communities 69;
5.1. Ecological Benefits 69;
5.1.1. Overall Tree/ Green Cover 69;
5.1.2. Increase in Ground Water Levels 72;
5.1.3. Visible Change in Bio-diversity 73;
5.1.4. Reduced Instances of Forest Fire 74;
5.1.5. Increased Awareness 74;
5.2. Economic Benefits 75;
5.2.1. Employment Generation 75;
5.2.2. Alternative Sources of Income 75;
5.2.3. Reversed Migration 76;
5.2.4. Increase in Agricultural Productivity 76;
5.3. Social and Political Benefits 77;
5.3.1. Towards Creating a Sense of Ownership 77;
5.3.2. Equitable Access to Resources 77;
5.3.3. Bringing Governance Closer to Communities 78;
5.3.4. Space for Women and Other Marginalised Communities 78;
5.4. Enabling a Coping Mechanism to Climate Hazards 79;
6. Summary of Findings 80;
6.1. Institutional Landscape 80;
6.2. Patterns of Interaction 82;
6.3. Benefits Derived by the Communities 84;
7. Recommendations 86;
7.1. Strengthening of PRIs and Continued Engagement with Civil Society Organisations 86;
7.2. Security and Clarity of Tenure of Grazing Commons 86;
7.3.Mainstreaming Sustainable Management of Grazing Commons 87;
Appendix;
i. Interview Schedule 89;
References 96.


Subjects--Topical Terms:
Climate hazards
Indigenous Knowledge