86
assessment of the resilience capacity has been followed. The findings of the assessment have, then, been summarised in Table 5.6 through triangulation of conceptual
framework (developed through critical analysis of available secondary literature on
natural resource management), primary data collected from the IPLCs through
numerous consultations and authors’ own interpretations on the former. In this
regard, a significant amount of primary data has been collected through participatory
approaches (Focus Group Discussions—FGD, unstructured interview, Participatory
Rural Appraisal—PRA tools like social mapping, impact assessment by the respondents, etc.) particularly drawing on from knowledge, views and understandings of
IPLCs who are the members of the three cooperatives that the Unnayan Onneshan
had helped set up—Harinagar Bonojibi Bohumukhi Unnayan Samity, Koyra
Bonojibi Bohumukhi Unnayan Samity and Munda Adivasi Bonojibi Bohumukhi
Unnayan Samity in the adjacent regions of the Sundarbans (Fig. 5.12).
Secondly, the section also illustrates how the alternative measures as suggested
by this study for ensuring sustainability of biodiversity of the Sundarbans can help
achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
6
envisioned by CBD.
A comparative analysis shows that human sociality-based alternative framework
contributes significantly to the conservation of the Sundarbans biodiversity by making more resilient ecological system and society. This conservation practice directly
impacts on 12 resilient indicators indicating a positive relationship (Table 5.6). It
signifies that this framework is more ecologically responsive regarding the context
of a SEPLS. For instance, under the current management approach, the ecosystem
is hardly protected, and the regeneration capacity is hampered because of failure of
checking anthropogenic pressures. On the contrary, the alternative framework tries
to ensure the protection of the ecosystem at a higher level and revitalise the regeneration capacity at the fullest (indicator 1, 2, 3). This is possible as the alternative
one puts high emphasis on the importance of the traditional knowledge system,
whereas the current regime does not fully recognise the traditional knowledge (indicator 5, 6). In terms of the governance and equity indicators, the community-based
governance is only envisioned in the policy paper, but in practice such governance
system is undermined by agencies of the government. The alternative suggestions,
on the other hand—the participation of the community in resource management—
build a social capital that contributes to the cooperation, social equity and efficient
governance (indicator 7, 8, 9, 10). Both the management frameworks (current and
alternative) recognise that the livelihoods of the local people are based on biodiversity resources of the Sundarbans (indicator 12). The alternative framework, however, emphasises that this biodiversity-based livelihood pattern should be maintained
in a sustainable way that conserves the biodiversity resources (indicator 4) as well
as provides alternative livelihoods under the changed circumstances by diversifying
their income sources (indicator 11).
6 A set of 20 global targets under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (CBD 2013; CBD
Secretariat 2014).
R. A. M. Titumir et al.
assessment of the resilience capacity has been followed. The findings of the assessment have, then, been summarised in Table 5.6 through triangulation of conceptual
framework (developed through critical analysis of available secondary literature on
natural resource management), primary data collected from the IPLCs through
numerous consultations and authors’ own interpretations on the former. In this
regard, a significant amount of primary data has been collected through participatory
approaches (Focus Group Discussions—FGD, unstructured interview, Participatory
Rural Appraisal—PRA tools like social mapping, impact assessment by the respondents, etc.) particularly drawing on from knowledge, views and understandings of
IPLCs who are the members of the three cooperatives that the Unnayan Onneshan
had helped set up—Harinagar Bonojibi Bohumukhi Unnayan Samity, Koyra
Bonojibi Bohumukhi Unnayan Samity and Munda Adivasi Bonojibi Bohumukhi
Unnayan Samity in the adjacent regions of the Sundarbans (Fig. 5.12).
Secondly, the section also illustrates how the alternative measures as suggested
by this study for ensuring sustainability of biodiversity of the Sundarbans can help
achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
6
envisioned by CBD.
A comparative analysis shows that human sociality-based alternative framework
contributes significantly to the conservation of the Sundarbans biodiversity by making more resilient ecological system and society. This conservation practice directly
impacts on 12 resilient indicators indicating a positive relationship (Table 5.6). It
signifies that this framework is more ecologically responsive regarding the context
of a SEPLS. For instance, under the current management approach, the ecosystem
is hardly protected, and the regeneration capacity is hampered because of failure of
checking anthropogenic pressures. On the contrary, the alternative framework tries
to ensure the protection of the ecosystem at a higher level and revitalise the regeneration capacity at the fullest (indicator 1, 2, 3). This is possible as the alternative
one puts high emphasis on the importance of the traditional knowledge system,
whereas the current regime does not fully recognise the traditional knowledge (indicator 5, 6). In terms of the governance and equity indicators, the community-based
governance is only envisioned in the policy paper, but in practice such governance
system is undermined by agencies of the government. The alternative suggestions,
on the other hand—the participation of the community in resource management—
build a social capital that contributes to the cooperation, social equity and efficient
governance (indicator 7, 8, 9, 10). Both the management frameworks (current and
alternative) recognise that the livelihoods of the local people are based on biodiversity resources of the Sundarbans (indicator 12). The alternative framework, however, emphasises that this biodiversity-based livelihood pattern should be maintained
in a sustainable way that conserves the biodiversity resources (indicator 4) as well
as provides alternative livelihoods under the changed circumstances by diversifying
their income sources (indicator 11).
6 A set of 20 global targets under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (CBD 2013; CBD
Secretariat 2014).
R. A. M. Titumir et al.