75
enable the powerful group to capture resources with impunity (Adhikari and Goldey
2010). The process prioritises the rule of individuals over the rule of law which
ultimately results in institutional fragility, enlarging rent dissipation, rent seeking
and seize of property rights.
Market centric analysis does not recognise that if particular species of ecosystem
of a special kind are being traded for monetary gain, they might not be replaced. It,
however, fails to offer a sustainable solution regarding the distinct characteristics of
interdependent relationship among humans, biodiversity resources and ecosystems
services. Exchange based on economic valuation is found to be faulty (Kosoy and
Corbera 2010; Gomez-Baggetthun and Ruiz-Perez 2011; Muradian et al. 2013;
Turnhout et al. 2013; Neuteleers and Engelen 2015). It reduces biodiversity into a
number of quantifiable parts, subjecting to the utilitarian usage and reducing social–
natural relations to market transactions (Turnhout et al. 2013). Such measures provide a narrow conception of ecosystem services and are potentially detrimental to
the conservation of resources. Alongside, the political ecology does not provide any
measures but a broad understanding of the contributing elements of the degradation
of natural resources.
Human beings are part of the ecology not merely the exclusive agents who
extract resources. The long-standing embeddedness of the human beings into the
ecology and the roles they play into the system remains unexplored and sometimes
has been identified as external to the system. Being a part of this system, human
beings have been maintaining an interwoven, intimate and reciprocal nexus with the
nature. This nexus can be explored from ‘human sociality’ perspective. Human
sociality refers to the human beings, as a collective organisation, and is part of the
larger ecosystem, which possess distinct knowledge and practices that systematically and sustainably contributes to the conservation and regeneration of the
resources along with maintaining provision of ecosystem services. It stresses upon
that societies in harmony with nature contribute to the biodiversity conservation
through revitalisation and supporting SEPLS where informal institution plays a crucial role. Informal institutions which include norms, values and traditional knowledge not only contribute to the SEPLS but also conserve and regenerate the resources
for making a more resilient ecological system and society.
A sustainability conservation framework constructed in this chapter exhibits that
inter-institutional pitfall stemming from exclusion of informal institutions and community ownership causes degradation of the natural resources, contrary to the
market- centric perspectives. It argues that the earlier practices of fencing off pieces
of nature as a means to ‘mitigate’ anthropogenic intervention have been proved
costly, unsustainable, and dubious in terms of socioeconomic and conservation processes (Liu et al. 2012). This alternative framework has taken the political economy
premise to identify the causes of degradation with emphasising on the complementary relations between human beings and nature in ensuring the sustainable utilisation and distribution of the resources. It claims that conservation requires
acknowledging a diversity of values, knowledge and framings of SEPLS which
build the cooperation and incentivise conservation for long-term sustainable use of
those resources (Fig. 5.5).
5 Traditional Knowledge, Institutions and Human Sociality in Sustainable Use…
enable the powerful group to capture resources with impunity (Adhikari and Goldey
2010). The process prioritises the rule of individuals over the rule of law which
ultimately results in institutional fragility, enlarging rent dissipation, rent seeking
and seize of property rights.
Market centric analysis does not recognise that if particular species of ecosystem
of a special kind are being traded for monetary gain, they might not be replaced. It,
however, fails to offer a sustainable solution regarding the distinct characteristics of
interdependent relationship among humans, biodiversity resources and ecosystems
services. Exchange based on economic valuation is found to be faulty (Kosoy and
Corbera 2010; Gomez-Baggetthun and Ruiz-Perez 2011; Muradian et al. 2013;
Turnhout et al. 2013; Neuteleers and Engelen 2015). It reduces biodiversity into a
number of quantifiable parts, subjecting to the utilitarian usage and reducing social–
natural relations to market transactions (Turnhout et al. 2013). Such measures provide a narrow conception of ecosystem services and are potentially detrimental to
the conservation of resources. Alongside, the political ecology does not provide any
measures but a broad understanding of the contributing elements of the degradation
of natural resources.
Human beings are part of the ecology not merely the exclusive agents who
extract resources. The long-standing embeddedness of the human beings into the
ecology and the roles they play into the system remains unexplored and sometimes
has been identified as external to the system. Being a part of this system, human
beings have been maintaining an interwoven, intimate and reciprocal nexus with the
nature. This nexus can be explored from ‘human sociality’ perspective. Human
sociality refers to the human beings, as a collective organisation, and is part of the
larger ecosystem, which possess distinct knowledge and practices that systematically and sustainably contributes to the conservation and regeneration of the
resources along with maintaining provision of ecosystem services. It stresses upon
that societies in harmony with nature contribute to the biodiversity conservation
through revitalisation and supporting SEPLS where informal institution plays a crucial role. Informal institutions which include norms, values and traditional knowledge not only contribute to the SEPLS but also conserve and regenerate the resources
for making a more resilient ecological system and society.
A sustainability conservation framework constructed in this chapter exhibits that
inter-institutional pitfall stemming from exclusion of informal institutions and community ownership causes degradation of the natural resources, contrary to the
market- centric perspectives. It argues that the earlier practices of fencing off pieces
of nature as a means to ‘mitigate’ anthropogenic intervention have been proved
costly, unsustainable, and dubious in terms of socioeconomic and conservation processes (Liu et al. 2012). This alternative framework has taken the political economy
premise to identify the causes of degradation with emphasising on the complementary relations between human beings and nature in ensuring the sustainable utilisation and distribution of the resources. It claims that conservation requires
acknowledging a diversity of values, knowledge and framings of SEPLS which
build the cooperation and incentivise conservation for long-term sustainable use of
those resources (Fig. 5.5).
5 Traditional Knowledge, Institutions and Human Sociality in Sustainable Use…