Your search found 8 records
1 Torell, M.; Salamanca, A. M.; Ratner, B. D.. (Eds.) 2003. Wetlands management in Vietnam: Issues and perspectives. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish Center. xiii, 89p. (WorldFish Center technical report 61)
Wetlands ; Water resource management ; Environmental effects ; Legal aspects ; Ecosystems ; Biodiversity ; Policy ; Forest management ; Rehabilitation ; Common property / Vietnam / Mekong Delta
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 333.91 G784 TOR Record No: H033994)
2 Ratner, B. D.; Ha, D. T.; Kosal, M.; Nissapa, A.; Chanphengxay, S. 2004. Undervalued and overlooked: Sustaining rural livelihoods through better governance of wetlands. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish Center. 23p. (WorldFish Center studies and reviews no.28)
Wetlands ; Ecosystems ; Governance ; Rural development / South East Asia / Vietnam / Thailand / Cambodia / Laos / Mekong Delta
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: 333.91 G800 RAT Record No: H037622)
3 Tomich, T. P.; Chomitz, K.; Francisco, H.; Izac, A. M. N.; Murdiyarso, D.; Ratner, B. D.; Thomas, D. E.; van Noordwijk, M. 2004. Policy analysis and environmental problems at different scales: Asking the right questions Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 104(1):5-18.
(Location: IWMI-HQ Call no: PER Record No: H037579)
4 Ratner, B. D.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Hellin, J.; Mapedza, Everisto; Unruh, J.; Veening, W.; Haglund, E.; May, C.; Bruch, C. 2013. Addressing conflict through collective action in natural resource management: a synthesis of experience. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 41p. (CAPRi Working Paper 112) [doi: https://doi.org/10.2499/CAPRiWP112]
Natural resources management ; Collective action ; Conflict ; Risks ; Institutions ; Frameworks ; Cooperation ; Sociology ; Ecology ; Governance ; Food production ; Rural areas ; Living standards / Africa / Asia / Latin America
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H046235)
(0.52 MB) (528.95 KB)
The food security crisis, international “land grabs,” and new markets for environmental services have drawn renewed attention to the role of natural resource competition in the livelihoods of the rural poor. While significant empirical research has focused on diagnosing the links between natural resource competition and (violent) conflict, much less has focused on the dynamics of whether and how resource competition can be transformed to strengthen social-ecological resilience and mitigate conflict. Focusing on this latter theme, this review synthesizes evidence from a wide range of cases in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Building on an analytical framework designed to enable such comparative analysis; we present several propositions about the dynamics of conflict and collective action in natural resource management, and a series of recommendations for action. These propositions are: that collective action in natural resources management is influenced by the social-ecological and governance context, that natural resource management institutions affect the incentives for conflict or cooperation, and that the outcomes of these interactions influence future conflict risk, livelihoods, and resource sustainability. Action recommendations concern policies addressing resource tenure, conflict resolution mechanisms, and social inequalities, as well as strategies to strengthen collective action institutions in the natural resource sectors and to enable more equitable engagement by marginalized groups in dialogue and negotiation over resource access and use.
5 Apgar, J. M.; Cohen, P. J.; Ratner, B. D.; de Silva, Sanjiv; Buisson, Marie-Charlotte; Longley, C.; Bastakoti, Ram C.; Mapedza, Everisto. 2017. Identifying opportunities to improve governance of aquatic agricultural systems through participatory action research. Ecology and Society, 22(1):1-13. [doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08929-220109]
Aquatic environment ; Agricultural systems ; Equity ; Participatory approaches ; Collective action ; Research ; Governance ; Authorities ; Resource management ; Floodplains ; Living standards ; Ownership ; Stakeholders ; Accountability ; Ecological factors / Zambia / Solomon Islands / Bangladesh / Cambodia
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H047980)
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss1/art9/ES-2016-8929.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H047980.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H047980.pdf
(156 KB)
Challenges of governance often constitute critical obstacles to efforts to equitably improve livelihoods in social-ecological systems. Yet, just as often, these challenges go unspoken, or are viewed as fixed parts of the context, beyond the scope of influence of agricultural, development, or natural resource management initiatives. What does it take to get governance obstacles and opportunities out in the open, creating the space for constructive dialogue and collective action that can help to address them? We respond to this question by comparing experiences of participatory action research (PAR) in coastal and floodplain systems in four countries (Zambia, Solomon Islands, Bangladesh, and Cambodia) with a focus on understanding how to build more equitable governance arrangements. We found that governance improvement was often an implicit or secondary objective of initiatives that initially sought to address more technical natural resource or livelihood-related development challenges. We argue that using PAR principles of ownership, equity, shared analysis, and feedback built trust and helped to identify and act upon opportunities to address more difficult-to-shift dimensions of governance particularly in terms of stakeholder representation, distribution of authority, and accountability. Our findings suggest that the engaged and embedded approach of researcher-facilitators can help move from identifying opportunities for governance change to supporting stakeholders as they build more equitable governance arrangements.
6 de Silva, Sanjiv; Miratori, K.; Bastakoti, Ram C.; Ratner, B. D.. 2017. Collective action and governance challenges in the Tonle Sap Great Lake, Cambodia. In Suhardiman, Diana; Nicol, Alan; Mapedza, Everisto (Eds.). Water governance and collective action: multi-scale challenges. Oxon, UK: Routledge - Earthscan. pp.108-119. (Earthscan Water Text)
Collective action ; Governance ; Lakes ; Democracy ; Natural resources management ; Fisheries ; Community management ; Local organizations / Cambodia / Tonle Sap Lake
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: IWMI Record No: H048352)
(124 KB)
7 Ratner, B. D.; Larson, A. M.; Barletti, J. P. S.; ElDidi, H.; Catacutan, D.; Flintan, F.; Suhardiman, Diana; Falk, T.; Meinzen-Dick, R. 2022. Multistakeholder platforms for natural resource governance: lessons from eight landscape-level cases. Ecology and Society, 27(2):2. [doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13168-270202]
Natural resources management ; Multi-stakeholder processes ; Collaboration ; Inclusion ; Landscape approaches ; Resilience ; Conflicts / Peru / Brazil / India / United Republic of Tanzania / Ethiopia / Kenya / Somalia
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H051241)
https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss2/art2/ES-2021-13168.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051241.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051241.pdf
(0.37 MB) (379 KB)
Multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) are the subject of increasing attention and investment in the domain of collaborative natural resource governance, yet evidence-based guidance is slim on policy and investment priorities to leverage the MSP approach. We provide a comparative analysis of eight landscape-level MSPs spanning seven countries (Peru, Brazil, India, Tanzania, Ethiopia, and a cross-border case from Kenya and Somalia), representing a diversity of resource systems covering forests, rangelands, and multiuse agricultural landscapes. Applying an adapted social-ecological systems framework, our synthesis identifies the influence of these MSPs on patterns of stakeholder interaction and draws implications for the design and organization of MSPs that are both appropriate and effective. From the cases, we distill lessons addressing: (1) how to design an MSP in relation to the governance context, including the fit between institutional and ecological dimensions of the system and with attention to cross-scale linkages; (2) how to implement inclusive processes that address power inequities, including through capacity building and procedural rules; and (3) how to support adaptive learning to expand the MSP’s influence over time, including monitoring outcomes, adapting the scope of stakeholder engagement, and investing in MSP durability.
8 Ratner, B. D.; Dubois, Mark J.; Morrison, T. H.; Tezzo, X.; Song, A. M.; Mbaru, E.; Chimatiro, S. K.; Cohen, P. J. 2022. A framework to guide research engagement in the policy process, with application to small-scale fisheries. Ecology and Society, 27(4):45. [doi: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13604-270445]
Small-scale fisheries ; Research ; Policies ; Governance ; Partnerships ; Frameworks ; Decision making ; Stakeholders ; Social aspects ; Ecological factors ; Political aspects ; Fish trade / Pacific Islands / Africa South of Sahara / Myanmar
(Location: IWMI HQ Call no: e-copy only Record No: H051642)
https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss4/art45/ES-2022-13604.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051642.pdf
https://vlibrary.iwmi.org/pdf/H051642.pdf
(0.30 MB) (305 KB)
Research-engaged decision making and policy reform processes are critical to advancing resilience, adaptation, and transformation in social-ecological systems under stress. Here we propose a new conceptual framework to assess opportunities for research engagement in the policy process, building upon existing understandings of power dynamics and the political economy of policy reform. We retrospectively examine three cases of research engagement in small-scale fisheries policy and decision making, at national level (Myanmar) and at regional level (Pacific Islands region and sub-Saharan Africa), to illustrate application of the framework and highlight different modes of research engagement. We conclude with four principles for designing research to constructively and iteratively engage in policy and institutional reform: (a) nurture multi-stakeholder coalitions for change at different points in the policy cycle, (b) engage a range of forms and spaces of power, (c) embed research communications to support and respond to dialogue, and (d) employ evaluation in a cycle of action, learning, and adaptation. The framework and principles can be used to identify entry points for research engagement and to reflect critically upon the choices that researchers make as actors within complex processes of change.
Powered by DB/Text WebPublisher, from
