135
cohabitate in cultivated ecosystems (Ichikawa 2012; Ohsako 2011). There is also a
relatively higher engagement of national and local research institutes in East Asia
that may support the research needed to develop localized technical solutions.
The higher selection of solutions such as learning processes or training programs
(Figs. 7.1 and 7.2) demonstrates the preference for more knowledge-based
approaches to achieving agroecological farming and forest harvesting in Southeast
Asia, whereas we saw a more technical approach in East Asia to meet the same aim.
Knowledge investments in Southeast Asia include: the practical learning and experimental spaces provided by farmers’ field schools in Vietnam (Dang 2015);
participatory learning through field schools and experimentation (Setiawan and
Khumairoh 2014), and action research, participatory monitoring and learning
groups for agroforestry in Indonesia (Amaruzaman et al. 2018); formation and
strengthening of community management groups and their capacities to advocate
for policy change in tandem with promotion of ecological farming and exchange of
traditional seed varieties in the Philippines (MRDC and Tebtebba Foundation 2012);
and participatory monitoring by community members in Cambodia (Costello and
Vorsak 2011). In Southeast Asia, there are more government sectoral ministries
engaged in knowledge- based solutions for sustainable use and management. This
may help explain why we find a high number of government extension and learning
programs for sustainable resource management at local scales.
The preference for livelihood-based solutions that also address food and nutrition security as the largest proportion of economic and incentive-based solution
types in South Asia (Figs. 7.1 and 7.2) is illustrated by: investments in new cash
crops for income and food sufficiency in Nepal; investments in cooperative farming
of fish and single cell algal protein, and proposals for integration of horticulture
practices with indigenous fruit species in India; and proposals to diversify livelihood options to reduce poverty in Bhutan (Pandit et al. 2016; ICIMOD 2017; Tekale
et al. 2012). The high preference for investments in livelihoods, access to social
services, and organizational strengthening may reflect the more basic development
needs of the region and the higher incidence of poverty. This focus on items such as
access to water and capacity building of local institutions builds the foundation for
the sustainable management of SEPLS. There is also a higher abundance of local
NGOs and CBOs that may support small development activities to invest in livelihoods and social services as well as civil society institutions that may be able to
advocate for citizen needs. Box 7.1 illustrates a profile of multi-stakeholder governance of SEPLS in Nepal, typical of findings in South Asia, and discusses how the
composition of societal-based coalitions and solution types interact at local scales.
7 Place-Based Solutions for Conservation and Restoration of Social-Ecological…
cohabitate in cultivated ecosystems (Ichikawa 2012; Ohsako 2011). There is also a
relatively higher engagement of national and local research institutes in East Asia
that may support the research needed to develop localized technical solutions.
The higher selection of solutions such as learning processes or training programs
(Figs. 7.1 and 7.2) demonstrates the preference for more knowledge-based
approaches to achieving agroecological farming and forest harvesting in Southeast
Asia, whereas we saw a more technical approach in East Asia to meet the same aim.
Knowledge investments in Southeast Asia include: the practical learning and experimental spaces provided by farmers’ field schools in Vietnam (Dang 2015);
participatory learning through field schools and experimentation (Setiawan and
Khumairoh 2014), and action research, participatory monitoring and learning
groups for agroforestry in Indonesia (Amaruzaman et al. 2018); formation and
strengthening of community management groups and their capacities to advocate
for policy change in tandem with promotion of ecological farming and exchange of
traditional seed varieties in the Philippines (MRDC and Tebtebba Foundation 2012);
and participatory monitoring by community members in Cambodia (Costello and
Vorsak 2011). In Southeast Asia, there are more government sectoral ministries
engaged in knowledge- based solutions for sustainable use and management. This
may help explain why we find a high number of government extension and learning
programs for sustainable resource management at local scales.
The preference for livelihood-based solutions that also address food and nutrition security as the largest proportion of economic and incentive-based solution
types in South Asia (Figs. 7.1 and 7.2) is illustrated by: investments in new cash
crops for income and food sufficiency in Nepal; investments in cooperative farming
of fish and single cell algal protein, and proposals for integration of horticulture
practices with indigenous fruit species in India; and proposals to diversify livelihood options to reduce poverty in Bhutan (Pandit et al. 2016; ICIMOD 2017; Tekale
et al. 2012). The high preference for investments in livelihoods, access to social
services, and organizational strengthening may reflect the more basic development
needs of the region and the higher incidence of poverty. This focus on items such as
access to water and capacity building of local institutions builds the foundation for
the sustainable management of SEPLS. There is also a higher abundance of local
NGOs and CBOs that may support small development activities to invest in livelihoods and social services as well as civil society institutions that may be able to
advocate for citizen needs. Box 7.1 illustrates a profile of multi-stakeholder governance of SEPLS in Nepal, typical of findings in South Asia, and discusses how the
composition of societal-based coalitions and solution types interact at local scales.
7 Place-Based Solutions for Conservation and Restoration of Social-Ecological…