Ad gov lecture m sc program SRC (Beatrice Crona's conflicted copy 2010 11-23)

Focusing on the interplay between social networks and institutions as a means to

understand adaptive governance challenges

Beatrice Crona PhD, Research Fellow (Assistant Prof), SRC

?

PART IQuick recap of the role of knowledge and communication networks in adaptive governance

PART IIHow can social relations create and interact with informal institutions?

How does this mediate fishers behaviour and affect possibilities for adaptive governance?

PART IIIInterplay between trust – leadership and governance

PART IVArrangements which facilitate adaptive governance

Lecture Outline

… all social networks are not created equal!!!

Structural pattern of relations (i.e. the topology) of a social network can have significant impact on how actors actually behave

VIDEO CLIP

PART I: The role of knowledge and communication networks in adaptive governance

Failure of top-down control regulation of CPR

Led Ostrom and others to propose polycentric governance structures

(Ostrom 1990, 2005, Anderies et al. 2004)

Motivated by for e.g. local knowledge, held by communities actually using resource, is often conducive to an insight into natural fluctuations of the resource

Photos: J. Cinner

ESA Conference, Aug 6-11 2006 Dept of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University

Results

Higher level of knowledge

Lower level of knowledge

rela

tive

diffe

renc

e (∆

) in

det

ail o

f kno

wle

dge

MANGROVE REEFSEAGRASS

Seine net

Middlemen

Deep sea

Gill net

Shrimpers

Speargun

Handline

Farmers

Businessmen

Relative difference in LEK among occupational categories

Crona 2006, Ecol & Soc

Crona & Bodin 2006, Ecol & Soc

Knowledge and network are inextricably linked

Common understanding + trust/reciprocity

Uneven knowledge distribution may not be conducive to consensus-building within the community

Effect on info type included in co-management initiatives => important to involve all groups

So why is this interesting?

PART II:How do social relations create and interact with informal institutions?


ECOLOGICAL SOCIAL

Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK)

Fishers behavior in response to ecosystem change

(Dampening) feedback

(Reinforcing) feedback

Basin of attraction X Basin of attraction Y

(Dampening) feedback

Regime X Regime Y

How do social networks create and interact with informal institutions?


Fishermen have poor knowledge of market conditions

Products are perishable

• fishermen often not in good position to sell themselves

• less storage possibilities

Conditions which make reciprocal agreements in small-scale fisheries particularly important:

Risk• Unpredictable Nature• Price fluctuations• Loss of assets (and life)

(e.g. Platteau & Nugent 1992, Platteau & Abraham 1987)

Middlemen channel preferences and direct which species targeted

Can affect fishers’ behavior in other ways?

Provision of credit to fishers in return for prioritized access to products once harvested => ensuring a steady supply of goods

(Platteau & Nugent 1992, Platteau & Abraham 1987)

What are the effects of these arrangements?E

colo

gic

alS

oci

al

In East Africa, resource dynamics are centred around two monsoon seasons

Links between market demands and ecosystem dynamics

Calm waters during the South East monsoon (SEM)High catches

Low catches

Rough weather during the North East monsoon (NEM)

Hotel and tourism industry = main driver governing the type and amount of fish purchased by middlemen


=> High demand for large fish of high quality and commercial value

Piscivorous Effects on lower trophic levels

Lutjanidae

Red snapper

ScombridaeKingfishCarangidae

Jacks

Fish purchased for the local market = all high-value fish not marketable for the tourism/restaurants (undersized)

+

all other low and medium value fish of all sizes (sub-adults and juveniles)


Lethrinidae Emperor

Siganidae - Rabbitfish

Scaridae Parrotfish

Benthivores Herbivores

Local market

Hotel/tourism+

piscivores

benthivores herbivores

ecosystem dynamics

high pressure

How do middlemen affect fisheries and coastal SESs in East Africa?

Direct link to external markets + Provision of credit

Prioritization of certain species

Which stocks targeted > diversity of fish functional groups > ecosystem dynamics

Provision of credit to fishermen

Buffers income variations due to seasonal fluctuations in fish catches > affects incentives for livelihood diversification

> disconnects fishing pressure from seasonal dynamics

> promotes constant exploitation

How does the role of affect resilience of coastal SESs in East Africa?

Direct link to external markets + Provision of credit

Prioritization of certain species

Which stocks targeted > diversity of fish functional groups > ecosystem dynamics

Provision of credit to fishermen

Buffers income variations due to seasonal fluctuations in fish catches > affects incentives for livelihood diversification

> disconnects fishing pressure from seasonal dynamics > promotes constant exploitation

Social-ecological traps

• feedback between social and ecological processes lead toward undesirable states that are difficult or impossible to reverse.

Figure: Steneck 2009 Current Biology, Photos: T. Hughes

(Dampening/stabilizing) feedback

(Reinforcing) feedback

Healthy reef fishery Degraded reefs and overexploited fishery

(Dampening/stabilizing) feedback

Middlemen

Key agents (informal institutions) that mediate fishers behavior

Not included in management or governance

Important to recognize in order to steer away from social-ecological traps

Why interesting for adaptive governance in small-scale fisheries in East Africa?

Social Capital Agency

SOCIAL CAPITAL AGENCY - LEADERSHIP

Collective action

Krishna 2002 – Active Social CapitalBurt 1999 – The social capital of opinion leaders

Coleman 1990 – Foundations of social theoryBorgatti 1998 – Network measures of social capitalFukuyama 1995 – Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity

Theoretical framework

Community Social CapitalProcedures to solve conflictsand enforce rules?

Central positions inimportant networks

• Who are they?•Provide linking social capital?• Understanding of problems facing NRM?• Their relations?

Collective action

Social Capital

Agency

Social n etwork characteristics

Density Fragmentation Bonding/Bridging

Influential actors

Socio-demographics Linkages to external

resources Relations among

themselves Etc.

Network positions

Conflict resolution & monitoring

Trusted parties & common procedures

Perceptions, knowledge and

capabilities

Collective action

Social Capital

Agency

Social n etwork characteristics


Influential actors



themselves Etc.

Network positions




capabilities

SOCIAL CAPITAL AGENCY - LEADERSHIP

Theoretical framework

Density of social support network = 1.3 relations / ind

low but in range with other cases such as US GSS

One main network component – i.e. one coherent network

conducive for SC development (Putnam/Coleman) – argue that low levels of fragmentation enhance SC by knitting together community & generating trust

Ratio of bonding (ties within groups) and bridging (ties between

groups) ranged 50% - 75%

OK but relative measure

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social network characteristics

59% state no specific person to whom they would report NRM violations

43% villagers would not report any rule-breaking unless very serious crimes committed

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Person Number of times cited by villagers

Citations for conflict resolutionChairman 143

Sub-chief 85

Deep Sea Fisherman A 17

Former Sub-chief 5

Member of elders’ council 5

Citations for report of rule-breakingChairman 40

Sub-chief 14

Former Beach Chairman 8

Fisheries officer 6

Deep Sea Fisherman B 4

Conflict resolution

10 + 2 Key Individuals identified

Clearly stand out in terms of centrality ranking

E.g. KI have direct social ties to 49% of the other villagers…

…AND …

… if reported contacts’ ties are also included, KI are no more than two relational steps from reaching 82% of entire village.

AGENCY - LEADERSHIP

Identification of Key Individuals (KI)

Influential actors(Key Individuals)

AGENCY - LEADERSHIP

Characteristics of Key Individuals (KI)

Rank order

Leader attributes External Contacts

Occupation Age Tribe Governmental agencies NGOs Finance Market/Suppliersa

FSb FOc AGd

1 Businessman 48 Bajuni X

2 Middleman 37 Bajuni X X

3 Retired fisherman 76 Bajuni X X X X

4 Deep sea fisherman and captain

32 Pemba X X

5 Chairman 59 Digo X X X X


36 Bondoi X X X X

7 Deep sea fisherman and middleman

51 Bajuni X X X X


39 Pemba X X X

9 Deep sea fisherman 40 Pemba

10 Deep sea fisherman 38 Bajuni X

>10 Beach chairman and Kigumi fisherman

37 Digo X X X X

>10 Subchief 41 Rabai X X X X

Sum of contacts: 9 (75%) 6 (50%) 7 (58%) 4 (33%) 1 (8%) 6 (50%)

DemographicsLinks to resourcesRelations amongst KI

ESA Conference, Aug 6-11 2006 Dept of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University

Results

Higher level of knowledge

Lower level of knowledge

rela

tive

diffe

renc

e (∆

) in

det

ail o

f kno

wle

dge

MANGROVE REEFSEAGRASS

Seine net

Middlemen

Deep sea

Gill net

Shrimpers

Speargun

Handline

Farmers

Businessmen

Relative difference in LEK among occupational categories

Crona 2006, Ecol & Soc

?

Collective action

Social Capital

Agency

Social network characteristics


Influential actors



themselves Etc.

Network positions




capabilities

The community is seemingly highly dependent on the chairman for initiating collective action of any kind.

Vulnerability, or reduction of resilience, lies in this dependency and the impact personal that characteristics and interests of a single person can have on prioritization and decision-making.

This is perhaps an inevitable side-effect associated with boundary-spanning leadership - an issue that should be accounted for when arguing for the benefits of such kind of leadership.

Good or Bad?

Implications for governance

Social Capital alone is not enough to instigate collective action

Problem awareness among influential individuals is crucial

Homogeneity among influential individuals determines whether perceptions of status of the resource are used to effect change

Leadership is more than the sum of influential individuals...

... related to structural relations among them and the resulting dynamic.

Local is not always simple

Bridging organizations as a way to achieve the linking of actors - horizontally and across scales(e.g. Olsson et al 2004, Berkes et al 2005, Ayles et al 2007, Eamemr 2006)

PART IV: Arrangements to facilitate adaptive governance?

BRIDGING ORGANIZATIONS

organizations that span social gaps among actors and can facilitate (mobilize) cooperation among diverse stakeholders who cannot solve a certain problem by themselves

(Brown 1991, Bridging organizations and sustainable development)

Concept coined in attempt to better understand how interactions across science-policy boundary could improve policy making

(Guston 1999, 2001)

Developed to include a broader array of stakeholder and to also deal with divergent interests and knowledge co-production

(Miller 2001, O’Mahony 2008, Klerkx&Leeuwis 2008)

BOUNDARY ORGANIZATIONS

Boundary orgs have at least three features:

i) they involve specialized roles within the organization for managing the boundary;

(ii) they have clear lines of responsibility and accountability to distinct social arenas on opposite sides of the boundary; and

(iii) they provide a forum in which information can be co-produced by actors from different sides of the boundary through the use of "boundary objects"

(Guston 1999)

Mechanisms for facilitating knowledge co-production and collaboration in BORGS

Depoliticized space

Creation and use of boundary objects

Chamions to guide the process

1) Depoliticized (neutral) space for groups to provide incentives to one another

helps lower cultural barriers => important for effective communication and knowledge transfer (Landry et al 2003)

fosters growth of social networks (Cash and Moser 2000, Cash et al 2003)

2) Creation and use of boundary objects • explicit strategy to engage participants and promote

and build shared understanding (Star and Griesemer, 1989, Cash et al 2003)

3) Champions to guide the process of collaboration and knowledge co-production (e.g. Quay 2004)

Key players to forge relations and ignite collaborations

To reflect on…

Are there sysems (or situations) where knowledge sharing and consensus buidling are less important for adaptive governance?

How could the establishment of a bridging/boundary organization help address some of the issues highlighted in the Kenyan community exemplified here?

Ad gov lecture m sc program SRC (Beatrice Crona's conflicted copy 2010 11-23)

Documents

external markets

promotes constant

stockholm

mediate fishers

disconnects

fragmentation

destructive

seemingly