Governing the Coastal Commons: Communities, Resilience and Transformation 1138918431, 9781138918436

Citation preview

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

GOVERNING THE COASTAL COMMONS

Coastal communities depend on the marine environment for their livelihoods, but the common property nature of marine resources poses major challenges for the governance of such resources. Through detailed cases and consideration of broader global trends, this volume examines how coastal communities are adapting to environmental change, and the attributes of governance that foster deliberate transformations and help to build resilience of social and ecological systems. Governance here reflects how communities, societies and organisations (e.g. fisher cooperatives, government agencies) choose to organise themselves to make decisions about important issues, such as the use and protection of coastal commons (e.g. fishery resources). The book shows how a governance approach generates insights into the specific forms and arrangements that enable coastal communities to steer away from unsustainable pathways. It also provides an analytical lens to consider important questions of power, knowledge and legitimacy in linked social-­ecological systems. Chapters highlight examples in which communities are engaging in deliberative transformations to build resilience and enhance their well-­being. These transformations and efforts to build resilience are emerging through multi-­level collaboration, shared learning, innovative policies and institutional arrangements (such as new property rights regimes and co-­management), methodologies that engage with indigenous cultural practices, and entrepreneurial activities, including income and livelihood diversification. Case studies are included from a range of countries including Canada, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Thailand, as well as from the South Pacific and Europe. The authors integrate theory with practical examples to improve coastal marine policy and governance, and draw upon emerging concepts from social-­ecological resilience and transformations, adaptive governance and the scholarship on the commons. Derek Armitage is Professor in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Canada, where he leads the Environmental Change and Governance Group. Anthony Charles is Professor in the School of the Environment and the School of ­Business, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada, and is Director of the Community Conservation Research Network. Fikret Berkes is Distinguished Professor Emeritus and former Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Community-based Research Management at the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

GOVERNING THE COASTAL COMMONS Communities, Resilience and Transformation

Edited by Derek Armitage, Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes

First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Derek Armitage, Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes, selection and editorial matter; individual chapters, the contributors The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial matter, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-91577-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-91843-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-68848-0 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

CONTENTS

List of contributors Preface and acknowledgements   1 Towards transformative change in the coastal commons Derek Armitage, Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes

viii xii 1

PART I

Ingredients

23

  2 Turning the tide: strategies, innovation and transformative learning at the Olifants estuary, South Africa Merle Sowman

25

  3 Emergence of community science as a transformative process in Port Mouton Bay, Canada Laura Loucks, Fikret Berkes, Derek Armitage and Anthony Charles

43

  4 Rights-­based coastal ecosystem use and management: from open access to community-managed access rights A. Minerva Arce-­Ibarra, Juan Carlos Seijo, Maren Headley, Karla Infante-­Ramírez and Raúl Villanueva-­Poot   5 Transformations of the reef, transformations of the mind: marine aquarium trade in Bali, Indonesia James Barclay (Jack) Frey and Fikret Berkes

60

81

vi   Contents

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

  6 The path to sustainable fisheries in Japan and the transformative impact of the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site Eirini Ioanna Vlachopoulou and Mitsutaku Makino

100

  7 Community participation and adaptation to change in biosphere reserves: a review and a Mediterranean European coastal wetland case study (Delta du Rhone Biosphere Reserve, southern France) 120 Meriem Bouamrane, Raphael Mathevet, Harold Levrel, Heather Huntington and Arun Agrawal part II

Opportunities   8 Navigating the transformation to community-­based resource management Jessica Blythe, Philippa Cohen, Kirsten Abernethy and Louisa Evans   9 Navigating from government-­centralised management to adaptive co-­management in a marine protected area, Paraty, Brazil: turbulence, winds of opportunity and progress towards transformation Cristiana Simão Seixas, Ana Carolina Esteves Dias and Rodrigo Rodrigues de Freitas 10 Koh Pitak: a community-­based environment and tourism initiative in Thailand Philip Dearden, Dachanee Emphandhu, Supawinee Songpornwanich and Amnat Ruksapol

139 141

157

181

11 Sasi laut in Maluku: transformation and sustainability of traditional governance in the face of globalisation Ahmad Mony, Arif Satria and Rilus A. Kinseng

198

12 The messy intertidal zone: transformation of governance thinking for coastal Nova Scotia Jennifer Graham and Anthony Charles

211

Contents   vii

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

13 Communities, multi-­level networks and governance transformations in the coastal commons Derek Armitage, Steve Alexander, Mark Andrachuk, Samantha Berdej, Shandel Brown, Prateep Nayak, Jeremy Pittman and Kaitlyn Rathwell

231

14 Synthesis: governing coastal transformations Derek Armitage, Fikret Berkes and Anthony Charles

252

Index

266

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

CONTRIBUTORS

Kirsten Abernethy, Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. Arun Agrawal, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Steve Alexander, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm, Sweden, National Socio-­Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), Annapolis, USA. Mark Andrachuk, Environmental Change and Governance Group (ECGG), Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. A. Minerva Arce-­Ibarra, College of Southern Border (ECOSUR: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur), Chetumal, Mexico. Derek Armitage, Environmental Change and Governance Group (ECGG), School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Samantha Berdej, Environmental Change and Governance Group (ECGG), Department of Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Fikret Berkes, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Jessica Blythe, WorldFish, PO Box 438, Honiara, the Solomon Islands; ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

Contributors   ix

Meriem Bouamrane, Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences, Man and the Biosphere Programme, UNESCO, Paris, France. Shandel Brown, Green Schools Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Canada.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Anthony Charles, School of the Environment, Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada. Philippa Cohen, WorldFish, PO Box 438, Honiara, the Solomon Islands; ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. Philip Dearden, Marine Protected Areas Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada. Ana Carolina Esteves Dias, Commons Conservation and Management Group (CGCommons), Biology Institute (IB), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. Dachanee Emphandhu, Department of Conservation, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. Louisa Evans, Department of Geography, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. Rodrigo Rodrigues de Freitas, Commons Conservation and Management Group (CGCommons), Environmental Studies and Research Centre (NEPAM), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. James Barclay (Jack) Frey, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. Jennifer Graham, Ecology Action Centre, Halifax, Canada. Maren Headley, School of Natural Resources, Marista University of Merida, Merida, Mexico. Heather Huntington, International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI), School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. Karla Infante-­Ramírez, College of Southern Border (ECOSUR: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur), Chetumal, Mexico. Rilus A. Kinseng, Department of Communication and Community Development Science, Faculty of Human Ecology (FEMA), Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Bogor, Indonesia.

x   Contributors

Harold Levrel, International Research Center on Environment and Development (CIRED), AgroParisTech, Paris, France.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Laura Loucks, School of Environment and Sustainability, Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada. Mitsutaku Makino, Fisheries Management Group, National Research Institute of Fisheries Science, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency, Yokohama, Japan. Raphael Mathevet, Center for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology (CEFE: Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive), French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Montpellier, France. Ahmad Mony, Department of Rural Sociology, Faculty of Human Ecology, Bogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia. Prateep Nayak, Environmental Change and Governance Group (ECGG), School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Jeremy Pittman, Environmental Change and Governance Group (ECGG), School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Kaitlyn Rathwell, Environmental Change and Governance Group (ECGG), Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada. Amnat Ruksapol, Faculty of Tourism Development, Maejo University (MJU) at Chumphon, Chumphon, Thailand. Arif Satria, Faculty of Human Ecology (FEMA), Bogor Agricultural University (IPB), Bogor, Indonesia. Juan Carlos Seijo, School of Natural Resources, Marista University of Merida, Merida, Mexico. Cristiana Simão Seixas, Commons Conservation and Management Group (CGCommons), Environmental Studies and Research Centre (NEPAM), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, Brazil. Supawinee Songpornwanich, Department of Conservation, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Contributors   xi

Merle Sowman, Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU), Department of Environment and Geographical Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Raúl Villanueva-­Poot, School of Natural Resources, Marista University of Merida, Merida, Mexico. Eirini Ioanna Vlachopoulou, Department of Sociology, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is an important time for coastal communities around the world. The social and biophysical changes confronting coastal communities – ranging from shifting livelihood opportunities and globalisation impacts to ocean acidification and sea level rise – are in many respects unprecedented. The implications for the well-­being of coastal communities are profound, as are the threats to the commons resources (e.g. fisheries) upon which many coastal communities depend. To address these challenges, transformational action may be required. However, what that means and how we know when a transformation has occurred are difficult to assess. This volume is one of the first to explicitly consider ideas of transformation and governance of coastal commons, drawing in particular on a community perspective. As such, the chapters in this book address an important gap in knowledge and practice. This book is an outcome of two main international collaborative research efforts concerned with communities and their changing coastal commons. The first is a project on marine transformations and adaptive governance led by Derek Armitage and Fikret Berkes, and funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The second initiative, and a source of many of the chapters in this book, is the SSHRC-­funded Community Conservation Research Network (www.communityconservation.net) led by Anthony Charles, and also involving Armitage and Berkes. Supplementary contributions to the volume have also been provided through the Canada Research Chair in Community-­based Resource Management (University of Manitoba), the Environmental Change and Governance Group (University of Waterloo), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Each chapter in this volume has been reviewed by at least two referees and an editor. We are grateful to the following individuals for their contribution to the peer review process: John Abraham, Steve Alexander, Mark Andrachuk, Minerva

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Preface and Acknowledgements   xiii

Arce, Nathan Bennett, Samantha Berdej, Jessica Blythe, Marie Claire Brisbois, Kevern Cochrane, Philippa Cohen, Philip Dearden, Nancy Doubleday, Graham Epstein, Elena Finkbeiner, James Barclay (Jack) Frey, Laura Elena Vidal Hernandez, Leslie King, Mitsutaku Makino, James Patterson, Jeremy Pittman, Robert Pomeroy, Maureen Reed and Cristiana Simão Seixas. We also wish to thank a number of individuals who have contributed to the development of this volume, including the authors and chapter collaborators on this volume. In particular, we want to thank Jacqueline Rittberg at the Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, for her key contributions in organising and editing materials and preparing chapters for publication. Special thanks as well to Cheryl Chan, University of Waterloo, for fantastic support in helping to organise materials and coordinating with chapter authors. Finally, we thank our colleagues at Routledge/Earthscan and the editorial team – Tim Hardwick, Ashley Wright, Ashleigh Phillips and Sarah Davies – for their guidance and patience as we developed this volume.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

1 Towards Transformative Change in the Coastal Commons Derek Armitage, Anthony Charles and Fikret Berkes

Introduction The bad news is that coastal areas of the world are facing major challenges from the effects of climate change (e.g. from sea-­level rise to ocean acidification), urbanisation and industrialisation, aquaculture intensification, and the expansion of capture fisheries. In many cases, these challenges have led to abrupt change, placing domestic economies, food security and the well-­being of millions of coastal people at risk (Kooiman et al., 2005; Ommer et al., 2011; Jentoft and Eide, 2011). The good news, however, is that coastal communities in many parts of the world are strongly responding to the threats to their coastal commons – the jointly shared resources and ecosystems that provide environmental goods and services on which we depend, from fish stocks to sea grass beds (Charles et al., 2010). Indeed, the imperative of sustaining our coastal commons is now recognised as a global priority (Berkes, 2015). This volume focuses on approaches to governing the coastal commons, emphasising a social-­ecological systems perspective, and the role of resilience and transformation. The focus is explicitly on the many small communities that are closely connected – culturally, economically and physically – to coastal systems, and that are often on the front lines of efforts to transform untenable conditions. Of particular interest in this volume are the identification of conditions that threaten coastal commons, the ingredients to foster transformative change, and the manner in which these ingredients have led to ‘better’ or different social-­ecological outcomes. Also of great interest are the underlying issues of power and agency, including issues of who is defining ‘better’ outcomes for transformations. In this introductory chapter, we outline the core themes, or the conceptual framework, that are used to explore these matters in the volume: coastal communities, governance, social-­ecological systems and resilience, and transformation (see Figure 1.1).

2   D. Armitage et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Governance and communities

Transformations

Coastal commons

Social-ecological systems

FIG1.1 

Framework of guiding concepts

We also pose several propositions to be examined in the ‘Synthesis’ chapter of the book, based on the empirical evidence of the case studies presented.

Communities and governance The volume emphasises aspects of governance, a term used to describe the ways in which communities, societies and organisations (e.g. fisher cooperatives, government agencies) choose to organise themselves to make decisions about important issues (such as environmental protection, use of fishery resources). Governance is also concerned with politics and the way power is distributed between different actors in society, and the way it can be used to leverage or constrain action. Many views on governance are available, often reflecting specific disciplinary orientations or experiences (Rhodes, 1997; Stoker, 1998). One of these views is oriented around ‘environmental governance’ – often considered a subset of the broader governance literature, but with a focus primarily on environmental protection and sustainability (Lemos and Agrawal, 2006), in this case the coastal commons. This volume takes that broad perspective, seeking avenues to improve coastal policy and governance by consistently linking integrative theory (commons, resilience, well-­being and environmental governance) with practical examples. In the context of coastal commons, it is instructive to distinguish between the two terms, ‘governance’ and ‘management’. The widely used terminology over the course of the past century is that of ‘environmental management’, ‘coastal management’ and ‘natural resource management’, which have included all aspects of

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   3

decision-­making regarding environments and resources (e.g. Charles, 2001). This ‘management’ perspective has always included consideration of the actual tools used in decision-­making, the assessment of choices among them, and the specific policy measures that influence decision-­making. Over the course of the past several decades, increasing attention has been paid to structures and institutions of decision­making, and who is participating in those decisions, as in ‘co-­management’ (e.g. Pinkerton, 1989). The latter aspects are now viewed as essential features of governance, which also provides deeper insights into the manner in which societies develop a vision and make decisions reflecting values (Armitage et al., 2012). Thus, while ‘management’ is still the predominant term used today in the practice of coastal and resource management, governance is seen as providing a broader analytical lens, and governance analyses have become increasingly common among theoreticians and researchers.

Communities This volume places emphasis clearly on coastal communities, examining how they are adapting to change, and the strategies they are using to transform the conditions in their coastal commons that are ecologically, economically and socially untenable (Walker et al., 2004). We approach the objective of this volume through detailed assessments of coastal community case studies, as well as an accompanying analysis of broader global trends. Throughout the volume, our priority is to examine the dynamic relationship between people and their coastal commons. The chapters in this volume provide an understanding of these relationships by offering examples of how communities and their partners (government, NGOs and others) are helping to characterise, understand and respond to social and ecological dimensions of coastal change and its consequences. The focus here is primarily on smaller coastal communities with strong attachment to place and a direct connection between coastal resources (e.g. fisheries) and their livelihoods. While these communities are generally rural, the themes we cover may also be applicable to local neighbourhoods of coastal cities, and indeed to the entirety of larger urban centres on the coastal zone.

Communities and governance As noted above, the role of local (‘place-­based’) communities in governance is a common theme of this volume. As a contributor to this volume noted, ‘community’ is the abode of governance and is where ‘governance should come to life’ to address the challenges facing the coastal commons. In the context of efforts to sustain coastal commons, facilitate transformative change and foster the well-­being of coastal communities, evidence points to strong local governance as increasing the likelihood that governance will succeed at other levels as well (Dietz et al., 2003; Cundill and Fabricius, 2010). The important role of communities within governance is reflected in the values that frame decisions about desired responses to social and ecological threats to local

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

4   D. Armitage et al.

ecosystems and livelihoods. Communities are thus a locus for thinking about the role of governance in creating conditions of justice and equity (Sowman and Wynberg, 2014), and in reflecting critically on the implications for transformative change. As justification for this view, empirical research on community-­based approaches points to the limits of state-­centred policy (Berkes, 2007), the push for decentralisation (Agrawal and Gupta, 2005), as well as the prominence of indigenous and ethnic claims for stewardship and control over their resources (Capistrano and Charles, 2012; Castro and Nielson, 2005; Chapin et al., 2012; Sowman and Wynberg, 2014). How the ‘ingredients’ of governance can influence communities in their efforts to maintain livelihoods and protect ecosystems is an important theme, as is the capacity of communities to engage in deliberate transformations when conditions are untenable, or even in situations involving efforts to simply improve (as opposed to transform) social-­ecological conditions. This volume seeks to understand and make sense of the efforts of coastal communities to conserve and sustainably use their coastal commons. A governance lens provides insights on the specific institutions (rules, rights, norms) and arrangements (Ostrom, 1990; Dietz et al., 2003) that enable communities to steer away from unsustainable pathways, and to consider important questions of power, knowledge and equity associated with transformative changes. To accomplish this, the volume is guided by a conceptual framework comprising two main components, which will be elaborated in the remainder of this chapter: (1) a linked social-­ecological systems (SES) perspective to consider aspects of change, feedback, scale and resilience in the coastal commons; and (2) a focus on deliberate transformations to protect the coastal commons.

Social-­ecological systems Efforts to sustain the coastal commons are not solely ecological challenges or solely social challenges – they are both. An integrated social-­ecological systems (SES) perspective is needed, based on an explicit linking together of the ‘human system’ (including communities, society, economy which are often captured in the term ‘well-­being’) and the ‘biophysical system’ in a reciprocal (or two-­way) feedback relationship. This humans-­in-nature view deals with the two subsystems as integrated, interdependent and co-­evolved complex systems (Berkes and Folke, 1998; Folke, 2006). The SES perspective is consistent with the widely accepted thinking of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), which was a major effort to look at the current state of ecosystems globally, and how humans affect them. In this regard, the integration of humans in nature is important because there are interactions and feedback between ecological (biophysical) and social (human) subsystems. The links between the two subsystems may consist of knowledge (including local and traditional knowledge), governance arrangements, stewardship values (such as the motivations of individuals and groups to take certain actions), management institutions, and rules and norms that mediate how humans interact with one

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   5

another and the environment (Ostrom, 1990; Berkes et al., 2003). All of these links influence the prospects for the emergence of strategies and processes that communities and governments are using, as further outlined below. How governance is seen relative to the social-­ecological system has important implications. Is governance seen as lying outside the SES, as an external ‘governance system’ exerting its influence over the SES? Is it, on the other hand, seen as a human construct that lies at least partially within the ‘human system’ component of the SES? Alternatively, does governance, as a ‘system’ itself (see Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2015), actually incorporate the human component of the SES? What view of governance is suitable to show how resource users and communities navigate trade-­offs in how people make decisions to conserve or use the ‘resource system’ (Ostrom, 2009)? The distinction among these options is important from a community point of view, since the first perspective has the people (and the local ecosystems) separate from the governing processes, which may be even imposed from outside of the community, while the others highlight governance as being integrated, one way or another, within the human system, rather than existing separately, outside the SES (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2015). Several critical insights for governance can be drawn from the considerable research that has taken place using an SES perspective (Folke et al., 2005; Lebel et al., 2006; Plummer, 2009). First, social-­ecological change and uncertainty, and the implications for governance of coastal commons in a tightly connected world, are not well understood given their inherent complexity. Second, stewardship of the coastal commons requires a multi-­level governance perspective from local to global. There is no one ideal spatial or temporal level with which to address the range of threats and challenges being faced. Third, identification of motivations, meanings and attributes for effective governance of coastal social-­ecological systems is only now emerging, and there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach. To better assess coastal commons and the transformations of coastal communities from a social-­ecological systems perspective, it is helpful to draw on several key concepts fundamental to a systems approach: drivers, complexity, scales and levels, and the major theme of resilience. Each of these is described briefly below.

Drivers The MEA defines a driver as any natural or human-­induced factor that directly or indirectly causes a change in a social-­ecological system. A direct driver (for example, changes in local resource use) is one that can be identified and measured. Indirect drivers (for example, demographic change) operate more diffusely, often by altering one or more direct drivers, and their influence is established by understanding their effects on direct drivers. These forms of drivers are considered in this volume explicitly in relation to the broad range of factors that lead to changes in coastal social-­ ecological systems (Ban et al., 2013). The MEA focused on drivers of change in the context of the relationship between ecological services (the benefits to human society from ecosystems) and human well-­being. In turn, well-­being is often

6   D. Armitage et al.

defined in terms of three clusters of factors: material, relational and subjective (Gough and McGregor, 2007).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Complexity The MEA emphasised that there are almost always multiple factors of change, and their effects combine in non-­linear ways. Further, the MEA (2005) recognised that SESs are ‘complex’ in that they have self-­organising properties through feedbacks, and show uncertainty because these feedbacks occur in ways that are not necessarily predictable. Social-­ecological systems (and other complex systems) show surprises because of self-­reinforcing or self-­moderating processes. A given loop in the system may reflect a positive (reinforcing) feedback, if it sustains the direction of change, or a negative (balancing or stabilising) feedback, if it reverses the direction of change. The complexity arises as well in that integrated studies of coupled human and natural systems reveal new and complex patterns and processes that were simply not evident when studied through the lens of a single discipline, or even by social or natural scientists separately. In a study of six well-­documented cases of social-­ ecological systems around the world, Liu et al. (2007) found many complex patterns and processes, including non-­linear dynamics with surprises, feedback loops and time lags. Many of these patterns and processes became apparent only when the full social-­ecological system was taken as the unit of analysis. The chapters in this volume all describe settings characterised by complex feedback processes between social and ecological systems. To further understand these settings, the SES lens, as applied in the chapters in this volume, highlights three related ideas – multiple scales, multiple levels and resilience.

Multiple scales ‘Scale’ refers most often to time and to space, specifically whether an event (like a fishery opening) occurs over a short or long time (temporal) scale, or whether an activity (like fishing) takes place over a small or a large space (spatial) scale. For example, a herring roe fishery in British Columbia may happen over just a few hours, in a very limited area (thus, a short time scale and a small spatial scale). By contrast, a tuna fishery may involve boats roaming over much of an ocean for a matter of months (thus a longer time scale and a much larger spatial scale). Variations across scales may be important for the analysis. How conservation challenges are perceived and addressed at the local level (e.g. Port Mouton Bay, Nova Scotia) may differ greatly from that of the larger scale (e.g. eastern Canada). Governance is similarly challenged by multiple scales and the need for cross-­scale approaches. Scale is central to how we think about transformations in coastal communities. But scale is not limited to temporal and spatial scales, and may also involve jurisdictional scale and sociopolitical scale (Cash et al., 2006). To fully understand and influence transformations, we must consider (1) the geographical scale related to

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   7

resource use (local/community level, municipal/regional) and the national- and international-­level drivers that influence local settings; (2) a temporal scale regarding the development of new initiatives related to management; and (3) a sociopolitical scale related to these initiatives involving different stakeholders – community-­based organisations; regional forum of traditional people; municipal, state and federal governments; universities, NGOs and the private sector, from community-­based enterprises to national-­level enterprises.

Multiple levels Parallel to the idea of scale is that of level, which is a specific point along a particular scale, or a unit of analysis within a scale (Gibson et al., 2000). For example, a common usage is in referring to multiple levels of decision-­making: local/community, regional, national, international. In this sense, community-­level conservation may involve conservation initiated at the ‘grass-­roots’ level but is not entirely restricted to that level, while ‘higher-­level’ governmental policy is often needed to enable conservation success at the community level (Berkes, 2007). Hence, many cases in the volume involve multi-­level governance. The idea of levels helps differentiate between horizontal relationships and vertical relationships (Young, 2002). Horizontal relationships are those involving institutions at the same level, for example, among government departments managing different sectors such as fisheries, shipping and tourism, and among national governments, interacting within semi-­enclosed seas. Vertical relationships, on the other hand, are those that occur across levels of organisation. Vertical relationships are not only about levels of government; they may involve multiple levels of other institutions, for example, representing communities, tribal governments and non-­governmental organisations. A multi-­level approach is important in examining different levels at which interventions can be made in the context of social-­ecological systems; such an approach also helps us to understand how transformations may occur.

Resilience The ability to maintain the overall function and structure of a system of humans and nature, despite shocks and stresses to that system, is referred to as its resilience. In this volume, we use resilience as a central concept because it is probably the most commonly used theory of social-­ecological change in a variety of contexts from international development to climate change adaptation (Berkes and Ross, 2013; Brown, 2016). The concept of resilience has been evolving and there are many definitions of resilience. Walker et al. (2004) define resilience as the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks. Brown (2016) defines resilience broadly as the ability to successfully deal with change. Conceptualising resilience as an ability is a useful way to deal with change and transformation in the coastal commons. A relatively small perturbation does not

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

8   D. Armitage et al.

cause a transformation in a social-­ecological system. Typically, it triggers the absorptive capacity, short-­term or coping responses of individuals, households and communities for resisting change. However, if the absorptive capacity is exceeded, individuals and communities will then exercise their adaptive capacity. Long considered the core of resilience, adaptive capacity refers to the ability of the SES to learn and to adjust its responses to the impacts of external drivers and internal change. In this situation, the SES undergoes change while still retaining system identity, that is, essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks (Walker et al., 2004). If the changes are so large that they overwhelm the adaptive capacity of the SES, the response is no longer incremental but transformative. The system no longer has the same identity – it has been transformed. These changes in identity may be good or bad, and this is an issue we explore in more depth below (‘Transformations’). However, such changes likely involve shifts in the nature of the system, such as when a household adopts a new way of making a living, or a coastal region moves from a fishing economy to a tourism-­based economy. Transformative changes often question the status quo. They may involve institutional change, technological innovation, behavioural shifts and/or cultural change. They often involve the questioning of values, beliefs and assumptions (O’Brien, 2012; Béné et al., 2014). Transformability is understood as the ability to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, social and economic conditions of the old system are no longer tenable (Walker et al., 2004). Much of the literature often deals with transformations of the regional or global system (Folke et al., 2010). This volume (see ‘Transformations’ below) deals with transformations at the community level and to a lesser extent at regional and higher levels. One might argue that without ‘bottom-­up’ transformations, there can be no transformation at the global level. Chapters in the volume deal with resilience in terms of all three of its dimensions: absorptive capacity, adaptive capacity and transformative capacity. As Béné et al. (2014: 601) put it resilience emerges as the result of not one but all three of these capacities, each of them leading to different outcomes: persistence, incremental adjustment or transformational responses. (Béné et al. 2014) These different responses can be con­ceptually linked to various intensities of shocks and stresses. However, the chapters make no attempt to ‘measure’ the intensity of the shock, or the degree of absorption, adaptation and/or transformation. The lines between coping and adapting, and between adapting and transforming, are often blurred and not easy to distinguish (Huong and Berkes, 2011). Rather, it is important to see resilience as the property of the system as a whole, not just the social or the ecological subsystem. The term ‘social-­ecological resilience’ (Berkes and Folke, 1998) helps direct attention to this. Thus, responses of coping/adapting/transforming, and

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   9

processes of building/losing resilience affect both the human and the biophysical subsystems of a coastal SES. In most change processes that start from the bottom-­up, it is helpful to examine how local environmental stewardship initiatives and livelihood activities interact with higher-­level policy, and how all of these affect social-­ecological resilience. This volume is concerned with loss of resilience that has emerged from changes in coastal contexts, and in turn the transformative changes needed to address them. To this end, it can be important to examine resilience both locally (e.g. how communities perceive resilience and adapt for resilience) and at larger scales (e.g. how global markets or government policy impact local and regional resilience). For example, in many cases related to climate change, government policies may inadvertently result in resilience loss, rather than resilience building (Adger et al., 2011). Our interest in this volume is primarily on the latter, and the strategies communities are using to build resilience and transform conditions that may be untenable.

Transformations In exploring coastal communities in their coastal commons around the world, this volume emphasises the many ways communities deal with rapid change in the natural and human environments. Most assessments of rapid change in coastal and/ or marine settings emphasise vulnerabilities and threats, and portray coastal communities as limited in their capacity to effect positive change. By contrast, this volume highlights examples in which communities are engaging in proactive ways to sustain their coastal commons and create better conditions for themselves and their environments. These communities are accomplishing this by engaging in deliberate transformations (Olsson et al., 2008; Gelcich et al., 2010; Armitage et al., 2011). Transformations are defined generally as relatively rapid and fundamental shifts in the state of the human and/or natural world, whether they involve naturally occurring or human-­induced change. Deliberate transformations are those transformations carried out by people in a purposeful (i.e. deliberate) manner, considered largely intentional as perceived (and driven) by the different actor groups with the agency (and sometimes power) to instigate change (Chapin et al., 2012). Such changes may affect social-­ecological conditions or governance processes and institutions through which societies make decisions to seek alternative pathways of development (O’Brien, 2012). In this volume, which to our knowledge is the first to adopt a transformations focus with regard to coastal commons and communities, the focus is on deliberate transformations. These deliberate transformations can involve processes and/or institutions through which decisions are made and actions taken to fundamentally shift social-­ecological conditions, aiming to improve livelihoods and well-­being of certain actors, as well as ecosystems upon which those livelihoods depend. Governance arrangements in coastal systems are themselves often the focus of transformation efforts (e.g. moving from top-­down to bottom-­up approaches), but may also

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

10   D. Armitage et al.

act as sources of knowledge and capacity that facilitate transformation in a broader social-­ecological context. Deliberate transformations may emerge from many different social and political processes, but in this volume we emphasise three main forms: (1) processes of multi-­level collaboration, participatory engagement (e.g. with local and indigenous cultural practice) and shared learning; (2) governance ingredients, including innovative policies and institutional arrangements (e.g. access and management rights, customary approaches) as well as co-­management; and (3) entrepreneurial activities that augment livelihoods. While there is certainly a wide variety of processes involved, Figure 1.2 provides a stylised view of the shift in trajectories or pathways the cases in this volume seek to reflect. There are many challenging questions and issues when thinking about transformations in social-­ecological systems and the coastal commons. For instance, transformations are not de facto positive. Transformations of what, for whom and how are imbued with value judgements and assumptions. Transformations are largely subjective, and this subjectivity makes ‘measurement’ as much an issue of process and shared understanding as of verifiable indicators. Some key questions need to be addressed: • •

• •

What does it mean to ‘fundamentally shift social-­ecological conditions’? Is it enough to make decisions to seek alternative pathways of development, or must there be demonstrable improvements in livelihoods and well-­being, as well as the ecosystems upon which those livelihoods depend? At what speed should a transformation take place? And ultimately, who makes the judgement about what is or is not transformative change in a coastal setting?

The chapters in this volume all ‘bump up’ against these difficult questions, and there are rarely simple responses to them. However, that in itself is an important

Governance process and ingredients that foster transformative change

Desired trajectory Social-ecological system of interest (current trajectory)

Social-ecological system (SES) outcomes

Worse

Time FIG1.2 

Better

Trajectories of change and transformation

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   11

contribution of this volume. The rich cases from around the world upon which authors draw reflect the social-­ecological complexity of transformations, and the tensions associated with responses to change, and trade-­offs inherent in building resilience and/or transforming. To think through some of these challenges, it is useful to consider a number of related ideas, including the different phases of transformation, the scales of transformation, general approaches to ‘assess’ transformation, and fundamental issues of power and agency.

Phases of transformation Olsson et al. (2004) outlined a general framework or phases with which to understand transformations: (1) preparing for a transformation; (2) navigating the transition; and (3) building the resilience of the new trajectory. However, strategies used in one phase may be just as relevant in another phase of a transformation (i.e. the governance strategies involved in preparing a transformation may be relevant to the building resilience phase as well), the sequential or linear notion of phases may not reflect a reality in which different phases can occur simultaneously, and the power and politics of these phases are not as clearly articulated as they could be (Moore et al., 2014). Nevertheless, the framework offers a helpful starting point to consider what a transformation is and how it may emerge. In considering the dynamics of transformations, it is difficult to measure or assess their durability. However, this volume contains some cases with a historical analysis covering before, during and after a transformation, which can provide indications of durability.

Scales of transformation Transformations can occur at different temporal and spatial scales, and with the participation of different actors at different levels. However, contributions to this volume illustrate – directly and indirectly – how transformations and innovations can be driven by communities. The case studies in this book thus consider the extent (beyond the community) to which transformations have occurred and the dimensions of the social-­ecological system that have been transformed (e.g. livelihoods, institutions, ecological process). Issues of scale and level pose challenges in thinking about transformations. For example, a particular property rights arrangement that performs well in one time and place is not necessarily appropriate for dealing with problems that operate at different spatial or temporal scales, or which involve different types of resources, user groups, drivers of change, or ecosystem behaviour(s) (Young, 2002). As a result, there is a need to consider, in any transformation, not just efforts to build the resilience of a new trajectory of change, but the ‘routinisation’ or institutionalisation of the transformative change when it has occurred (Moore et al., 2014).

12   D. Armitage et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

System identity and transformations Social-­ecological transformations may be seen as fundamental shifts in system characteristics that result in a qualitatively different system ‘identity’ (Cumming et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2014). An example of a change in identity might be from a system characterised by place-­based livelihoods and ecosystem stewardship of local groups, to a system characterised by industrialised resource extraction and seasonal uncertainty of employment. A specific contribution of this volume is to tacitly reflect on the changing ‘identity’ of coastal social-­ecological systems. Cumming et al. (2005) proposed that system identity has four aspects: components (objects, agents and entities that make up the system), relationships (process or interaction variables that link components of an SES), as well as innovation (variables related to novel solutions and responses to change), and continuity (variables that maintain identity through space and time). These categories are perhaps less important than the overall intent of the framework. Specifically, thinking about resilience and transformative change through the lens of system identity helps to highlight some of the specific system components or variables of interest that may change, their connections and feedbacks, and the manner in which they exhibit rapid changes. In other words, the framework provides a potential heuristic to assess or measure transformative change. There is no coherent theory to explain or predict if or when a transformation will occur (Olsson et al., 2014). Strategies to ‘empirically know’ if and how a transformation has emerged are difficult to develop. As noted above, the framework from Cumming et al. (2005) provides a guideline but not a definitive solution. The study of transformations is not an exact science. Indeed, Moore et al. (2014) highlight the challenge of identifying the types of change one might observe if a transformation has occurred, and the key components (social and ecological) and feedbacks among them that would also change in a transformation. Looking on a coastal system from the outside, it may be unclear whether a transformation was or was not deliberate. As well, understanding the catalysts of the transformation, and the potential for reversal of the transformative change (if desired) may be problematic. As most of the chapters in this volume reflect, perhaps the most important test or indicator of a transformation should be rooted in the knowledge and perceptions of the coastal community itself regarding different system identities, as well as their understanding of the roles played by different actors (local, regional, national) in fostering change (Andrachuk and Armitage, 2015). In this regard, related questions concern whether that new identity is positive or negative, and who are the winners and losers in the transformation (Huong and Berkes, 2011).

Agency and power Several contributions in this volume reflect on transformations through the lens of social values and conflict, or focus on the sociological and institutional roots of

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   13

transformational processes. In this regard, it is crucial to recognise the central role of human agency (individual and collective), power, and the politics of transformation, since system identity is ultimately a normative construct (O’Brien, 2012; Olsson et al., 2014). There are many definitions and ways of assessing power, including in the context of coastal change and transformation (Nayak et al., 2015). At times, for example, the chapters in this volume reflect an agent-­centred view of power in which social actors manifest power for or against transformative change via coercion or constraint (Raik et al., 2008). However, a number of chapters also reflect, if tacitly, a structural view of power that considers the broader social and political sources of power that exist outside of certain actors, privileging some and disadvantaging others (Raik et al., 2008). As such, any discussion of transformations is clearly context dependent and normative in view of the social relations of power – structural or agent-­centred – that exist in all coastal commons settings. Even some apparently positive and deliberative transformations highlighted in this volume can result in outcomes for certain actors or groups within a community that may be negative. Binary perspectives on transformative processes (as either positive or negative) are thus unhelpful. Rather, the cases in this volume reflect a need to consider how the benefits of governance initiatives, and of transformations, are differentially perceived and experienced by different groups, with due recognition of the contested interests and competing priorities in any coastal commons context (Andrachuk and Armitage, 2015). Ultimately, the chapters in this volume engage with diverse entry points on transformative change, to critically reflect on the circumstances in which they emerge – whether deliberate or not – and the extent to which they are durable or resilient over time. As noted, there is a degree of subjectivity in how we make judgements regarding transformations, regardless of the approach or entry point we adopt. Yet, the chapters all illustrate the imperative of considering these coastal commons and transformations where concerns about livelihoods and ecosystems intersect.

Book structure and propositions The cases and contexts examined in this book vary in terms of their thematic focus and geographic context. However, the approach to description and analysis in each chapter is guided by a common lens. The primary entry points to examine the links among coastal commons, communities and their transformative efforts are the use of a social-­ecological perspective and a focus on issues of governance. Building on these themes, the authors have sought to address, within each chapter, some common questions that enable cross-­case learning and structured comparison. These questions include: 1

What are the main features and key issues associated with the case and case context?

14   D. Armitage et al.

2 3

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

4

5

What are the key events, experiences and challenges associated with the case? What are the main activities, strategies and innovations that communities have engaged in to build their resilience and transform difficult circumstances (i.e. what ‘transformation’ or potential innovation, and especially governance innovation, may be taking place)? What are the opportunities to scale up these transformative efforts and conversely, the challenges that exert a downward pressure on the efforts of communities? What are the overall lessons learned for how communities can engage in governing their coastal commons in a tightly connected world?

There is great diversity in coastal social-­ecological systems in the world, and governance arrangements vary from place to place. Given this diversity, is it possible to determine common governance ‘ingredients’ or enabling conditions that foster transformative change, and that promote coastal commons stewardship and livelihood futures acceptable to local communities? The range of chapters in this volume provides important empirical knowledge in this regard. In particular we assess, in the ‘Synthesis’ chapter, several propositions about the arrangements or processes that may facilitate transformations: 1

2

3

4

5

Governance arrangements that involve interactive networks and linkages across multiple levels, with vertical and horizontal links among institutions, that are responsive to changes in local social-­ecological systems over time, and sensitive to local context, create new opportunities for decision-­making and collaboration that catalyse transformations; An adaptive and flexible governance system is required in which uncertainty is recognised and addressed by policy, a diverse portfolio of management options and suitable institutional arrangements (e.g. customary arrangements, new property rights regimes, co-­management) is maintained, outcomes and feedback of interventions are monitored, a wide range of actors is collaboratively engaged, and diverse sources and types of knowledge are incorporated (Folke et al., 2005; Charles, 2007); Deliberation and informed participation, that includes the emergence of multi­level collaboration and multi-­party participatory processes, helps to bring together multiple actors and perspectives, and to build social capital needed for lasting partnerships and collaborative relationships (Béné and Neiland, 2006; Reed, 2008); Social learning provides an important foundation for adaptive governance and is recognised as both a social process and an outcome of collaborative processes influenced by social relations of power among different actors (civil society, government, industry) in the coastal commons (see Reed et al., 2010; Armitage et al., 2011); Knowledge pluralism and co-­production is needed in which there is recognition of the value in drawing from multiple sources of knowledge to build a

Transformative change in the coastal commons   15

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

6

holistic, integrated understanding of complex coastal systems, and in emphasising the generation of new knowledge collectively (Pohl et al., 2010; Berkes, 2012), as well as methods to engage with indigenous cultural practices; and Leadership and capacity building is crucial, where the importance of leadership is recognised in regards to mediation, building trust, sense making, managing conflict, and compiling and generating knowledge, as well as fostering entrepreneurial activities (e.g. income and livelihood diversification), and in recognising that leaders come in many forms – facilitators, entrepreneurs, bridging and boundary organisations (Folke et al., 2005; Berdej and Armitage, 2016).

All of the contributions to this volume are integrative and complementary. They each address, although in different ways, the core concepts of the book, key questions posed and the propositions noted above. They emerge from different geographic and sociopolitical settings – from South Africa to Oceania to the Americas, Asia and Europe – and in doing so, bring unique insights and collective perspectives on the challenges and potential for change. To address the core themes of this volume – how coastal communities globally are adapting to change, and how the practices they are employing are transforming the circumstances in which they are embedded – the book is structured into two main parts: ‘Ingredients’ and ‘Opportunities’. The first part of the book emphasises selected ‘Ingredients’ for transformative change in the coastal commons. The chapters in this part draw attention to issues of rights and access, the importance of participation and participatory processes, legal and institutional changes, the role of customary or traditional systems of decision-­making, the role of values and value change, and the importance of learning processes. In Chapter 2, Merle Sowman highlights strategies used by the fishing communities in the Olifants estuary in South Africa to challenge unjust conservation proposals and claim their rights. The analysis highlights the shifts in attitude that took place over a seven-­year process, resulting in a consensus regarding a contested estuary management plan, and also points to several additional ingredients for transformative change, including a robust legal foundation, partnerships, trans-­disciplinary research and a critical role for advocacy. Laura Loucks and colleagues (Chapter 3) examine a case in Nova Scotia, Canada, of a novel community science effort related to lobster and livelihoods. The process of this community science initiative and its outcomes has emerged as a foundation in ongoing efforts to transform current fisheries governance practices in ways that enhance the fit between the social-­ecological system at the local community level and the often disconnected provincial level of decision-­making. Drawing on three case studies in a coastal region in Mexico, Minerva Arce-­ Ibarra and her colleagues (Chapter 4) analyse how rights-­based coastal ecosystem access, use and management have evolved from open access to community-­managed rights regime over the last four decades. They illustrate how community user groups have used this shift to proactively engage in ways that create better conditions for themselves and for their coastal commons.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

16   D. Armitage et al.

In Chapter 5, James Barclay (Jack) Frey and Fikret Berkes examine a case of the ornamental fish trade in Bali, Indonesia. Their analysis provides important insights about how environmental degradation can be reversed and the factors involved in such a transformation. In particular, they highlight how change in relation to reef protection came about through a transformation in the mindset of local fishers, and the subsequent links to other important ingredients, such as leadership, learning, trust building and partnerships. In the final two chapters of this part, attention is turned to the role of participation in shaping resilience and transformation, with both chapters using biosphere reserves as the case study context. Eirini Vlachopoulou and Mitsutaku Makino (Chapter 6) synthesise experiences in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site in Japan. Here, local initiatives have transformed the area into an example of community conservation success. Of particular interest is the crucial role of stakeholder participation in decision-­making processes, and the extensive collaboration among users groups in fostering critical changes. In Chapter 7, Meriem Bouamrane and colleagues combine qualitative and quantitative analysis to explore how participation in management affects social, economic and ecological outcomes, focusing on the Delta du Rhone Biosphere Reserve in southern France. In doing so, their analysis provides important insights on how local participation and resilience are related to biodiversity and socio-­ economic outcomes, and, therefore, the implications for fostering transformative change. The second part of the book – ‘Opportunities’ – builds on many of the same ingredients as chapters in the first part, but showcases various examples and initiatives of transformations in governance of the coastal commons. Some of the chapters in the volume reflect pronounced shifts in governance arrangements (e.g. the emergence of community-­based resource management, or the formation of network forms of governance), but as is common in many situations of change and transformation, several examples reflect more mixed outcomes and the challenges of scaling transformative processes upwards and out from community scales. In Chapter 8, Jessica Blythe and colleagues use the case of community-­based resource management (CBRM) in the Solomon Islands to contribute a critical social science perspective on navigating social transformations towards sustainability. In particular, their analysis considers CBRM as a governance transformation given the widespread establishment of community co-­managed areas and the significant implications for the country’s governance landscape. Cristiana Seixas and colleagues (Chapter 9) examine the ongoing attempts to transform a centralised and ineffective marine protected area management system towards a more collaborative and adaptive system of governance. In doing so, they draw on a five-­year participatory research project in Paraty, Brazil, and offer a number of insights on the opportunities and challenges of transforming governance arrangements in the context of an historically top-­down system. In Chapter 10, Philip Dearden and colleagues synthesise insights from a coastal community in Thailand where declining fisheries led to locally initiated and

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   17

place-­based livelihood solutions. Those solutions have scaled up and out to provide a working model for other coastal communities in Thailand, and have also led to new national governance approaches for coastal fisheries that better reflect the interests of communities and the ecosystems they depend upon. In Chapter 11, Ahmad Mony, Arif Satria and Rilus Kinseng reflect on the transformation of traditional governance practices (sasi laut) in one region of Indonesia as an important opportunity to foster sustainability in the coastal commons. They show in particular how this traditional form of governance has shifted in ways that respond to changing conservation values, social norms and potential scope of its application. Jennifer Graham and Anthony Charles (Chapter 12) describe and analyse a relatively rapid transformation in how coastal conservation organisations in the province of Nova Scotia (Canada) sought to build coastal governance. Their analysis traces the historical development of civil society efforts to overcome perceived inadequacies in coastal governance, and the mechanisms used to influence the development of a provincial coastal strategy. In doing so, they highlight a number of important lessons for transformations in coastal governance. In Chapter 13, Derek Armitage and colleagues draw on seven international cases to examine how coastal communities are successfully leveraging and navigating the multi-­level governance networks in which they are embedded. Their analysis emphasises in particular how individuals and groups within coastal communities are using governance networks to foster transformations, while recognising the ongoing need and challenge of producing, reworking and leveraging networks for transformative change. We end the volume (Chapter 14) by revisiting the propositions outlined above, consider the case-­specific lessons learned, and reflect on the implications for how to transform governance of the coastal commons. In combination, the chapters in this volume provide novel perspectives on the challenges confronting coastal communities globally. Those communities are at the forefront of rapid change – social and ecological – and their efforts to transform untenable conditions in ways that sustain ecosystems and place-­based livelihoods should be of keen interest to communities on the front lines of change, and the decision makers and researchers that can lend their support. As outlined above, the contributions in this volume merge different but complementary concepts and tools to consider the coastal commons. In particular, the cases and examples in this volume draw on social-­ecological systems thinking to help identify and reflect on governance and transformations. We invite readers to explore these cases individually, but also jointly, to view their collective ‘global’ insights. In combination, the contributors to this volume provide a crucial resource for those seeking insights on how communities and their partners are engaging in transformative ways to protect their coastal commons for future generations.

18   D. Armitage et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

References Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Nelson, D.R., Berkes, F., Eakin, H., Folke, C., Galvin, K., Gunderson, L., Goulden, M., O’Brien, K., Ruitenbeek, J. and Tompkins, E.L. (2011). Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2: 757–766. Agrawal, A. and Gupta, K. (2005). Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development, 33(7): 1101–1114. Andrachuk, M. and Armitage, D. (2015). Understanding social-­ecological change and transformation through community perceptions of system identity. Ecology and Society, 20(4): 26. [Online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­07759-200426. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Armitage, D., de Loe, R. and Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5: 245–255. Armitage, D., Marschke, M. and Tuyen, T.V. (2011). Early-­stage transformation of coastal marine governance in Vietnam? Marine Policy, 35(5): 703–711. Ban, N., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., Bottrill, M.C., Levine, J., Pressey, R., Satterfield, T. and Chan, K. (2013). Integrating social considerations into conservation planning through a social-­ecological systems perspective. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11: 194–202. Béné, C. and Neiland, A.E. (2006). From participation to governance: a critical review of the concepts of governance, co-­management and participation, and their implementation in small-­scale inland fisheries in developing countries. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews 29. Penang, Malaysia and Colombo, Sri Lanka: The WorldFish Center, and the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Béné, C., Newsham, A., Davies, M., Ulrichs, M. and Godfrey-­Wood, R. (2014). Review article: resilience, poverty and development. Journal of International Development, 26: 598–623. Berdej, S.M. and Armitage, D. (2016). Bridging organizations drive effective governance outcomes for conservation of Indonesia’s marine systems. PLoS ONE, 11(1): e0147142. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147142. Berkes, F. (2007). Community-­based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 15188–15193. Berkes, F. (2012). Implementing ecosystem-­based management: evolution or revolution? Fish and Fisheries, 13: 465–476. Berkes, F. (2015). Coasts for People: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Coastal and Marine Resource Management. New York and London: Routledge. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (eds). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Berkes, F. and Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Society and Natural Resources, 26: 5–20. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2003). Navigating the Dynamics of Social-­ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. (2016). Resilience, Development and Global Change. Oxon, UK and New York: Routledge. Capistrano, R.C. and Charles, A. (2012). Indigenous rights and coastal fisheries: a framework of livelihoods, rights and equity. Ocean & Coastal Management, 69: 200–209.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   19

Cash, D.W., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-­scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11: 8. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol11/iss2/art8/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Castro, A.P. and Nielson, E. (2005). Indigenous people and co-­management: implications for conflict management. Environmental Science and Policy, 4(4/5): 229–239. Chapin, F.S. III, Mark, A.F., Mitchell, R.A. and Dickinson, K.J.M. (2012). Design principles for social-­ecological transformation toward sustainability: lessons from New Zealand sense of place. Ecosphere, 3(5): article 40. Charles, A. (2001). Sustainable Fishery Systems. Oxford: Wiley-­Blackwell. Charles, A. (2007). Adaptive co-­management for resilient resource systems: some ingredients and the implications of their absence. In: D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday (eds) Adaptive Co-­management. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 83–104. Charles, A., Wiber, M., Bigney, K., Curtis, D., Wilson, L., Angus, R., Kearney, J., Landry, M., Recchia, M., Saulnier, H. and White, C. (2010). Integrated management: a coastal community perspective. Horizons, 10: 26–34. Cumming, G.S., Barnes, G., Perz, A., Schmink, M., Sieving, K.E., Southworth, J., Binford, J.M., Holt, D., Stickler, C. and Van Holt, T. (2005). An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems, 8: 975–987. Cundill, G. and Fabricius, C. (2010). Monitoring the governance dimension of natural resource co-­management. Ecology and Society, 15(1): 15. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art15/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302: 1907–1912. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-­ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16: 253–267. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. and Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4): 20. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-­ ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 441–473. Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernandeza, M., Foale, S., Gunderson, L.H., Rodriguez-­Sickert, C., Scheffer, M., Steneck, R.S. and Castilla, J.C. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(39): 16794–16799. Gibson, C., Ostrom, E. and Ahn, T.-K. (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecological Economics, 32: 217–239. Gough, I. and McGregor, A. (eds). (2007). Wellbeing in Developing Countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Huong, Ta Thi Thanh and Berkes, F. (2011). Diversity of resource use and property rights in Tam Giang Lagoon, Vietnam. International Journal of the Commons, 5(1): 130–149. Jentoft, S. and Chuenpagdee, R. (eds). (2015). Interactive Governance for Small-­scale Fisheries. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Jentoft, S. and Eide, A. (2011). Poverty Mosaics: Realities and Prospects in Small-­scale Fisheries. London and New York: Springer. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S. and Pullin, R. (2005). Fish for Life: Interactive Governance for Fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-­Dodds, S., Hughes, T.P. and  Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

20   D. Armitage et al.

social-­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 19. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Lemos, M.C. and Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31: 297–325. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S.R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., Pell, A.N., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., Lubcheco, J., Ostrom, E., Ouyang, Z., Provencher, W., Redman, C.L., Schneider, S.H. and Taylor, W.W. (2007). Complexity of human and natural systems. Science, 317: 1513–1516. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-­being: Current State and Trends. Washington DC: Island Press. Moore, M.-L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., Knapp, C., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J.A., Norström, A., Olsson, P. and Biggs, D. (2014). Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-­ecological transformations. Ecology and Society, 19(4): 54. [Online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06966-190454. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Nayak, P., Armitage, D. and Andrachuk, M. (2015). Power and politics of social-­ecological regime shifts in the Chilika lagoon, India and Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Regional Environmental Change, 16(2): 325–339. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0775-4. O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5): 667–676. Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Hahn, T. (2004). Social-­ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4): 2. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety. org/vol9/iss4/art2/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Hughes, T. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-­based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. PNAS, 105(28): 9489–9494. Olsson, P., Galaz, V. and Boonstra, W.J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19(4): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06799-190401. Ommer, R.E., Perry, R.I., Cochrane, K. and Cury, P. (eds). (2011). World Fisheries: A Social-­ecological Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-­Blackwell. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-­ecological systems. Science, 325: 419–422. Pinkerton, E.W. (1989). Cooperative Management of Local Fisheries. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Plummer, R. (2009). The adaptive co-­management process: an initial synthesis of representative models and influential variables. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 24. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art24/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G.S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C.I., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G. and Wiesmann, U. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-­production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4): 267–281. Raik, D.B., Wilson, A.L. and Decker, D.J. (2008). Power in natural resources management: an application of theory. Society & Natural Resources, 21: 729–739. Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141: 2417–2431. Reed, M.S., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazet, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C. and Stringer, L.C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4): r1.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative change in the coastal commons   21

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. 1st edn, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Sowman, M. and Wynberg, R. (2014). Governance for Justice and Environmental Sustainability: Lessons across Natural Resource Sectors in Sub-­Saharan Africa. London: Earthscan/ Routledge. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155): 17–28. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 5. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Young, O.R. (2002). The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

part I

Ingredients

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

2 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Turning the Tide Strategies, innovation and transformative learning at the Olifants estuary, South Africa Merle Sowman

Introduction Coastal conservation in South Africa has been characterised by a top-­down, science­based and protectionist approach to planning and management. The transition to democracy in 1994, as well as the significant law reform process that followed, called for redress and a more holistic and people-­centred approach to conservation. However, for many coastal communities this new legal regime has not resulted in governance changes or the improvements and benefits envisaged. There are, however, cases where coastal communities are claiming their rights to resources, challenging conservation measures considered to infringe on human rights and calling for community involvement in governance. Drawing on research and development work in the coastal communities of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp on the west coast of South Africa, this chapter explores the strategies and innovations employed by the fishing communities to challenge unjust conservation proposals and articulate and claim their rights. It further examines the responses of different governance actors as well as the deliberative processes, and shifts in attitude that took place in this seven-­year process that resulted in a consensus regarding a contested estuary management plan. It concludes with a discussion of lessons learned and highlights the importance of a robust legal foundation, the value of partnerships and trans-­ disciplinary research and the critical role of advocacy, awareness raising and capacity development. Providing the space and time for sharing knowledge, values, views and aspirations is crucial for transformative learning. The political history of South Africa has had a profound influence on socio-­ economic justice and conservation, shaping rights and access to natural resources and in many cases altering or eroding local systems of resource governance (Fabricius et al., 2004; Claassens and Cousins, 2008; Hara et al., 2009; Sunde, 2014). Proclamation of terrestrial and coastal protected areas was historically driven by

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

26   M. Sowman

politics and science and there was little regard for the rights and needs of local communities that lived in or adjacent to these areas (Sowman et al., 2011; Kepe, 2014). The history of conservation in South Africa is thus associated with racialised dispossession, forced removals, restricting access of local communities to their lands and resources, and disregard for culture and customary practices (Fabricius and de Wet, 2002; Walker, 2005; Paterson, 2011). The democratic elections of 1994 heralded a new era for South Africa and catalysed a significant law reform process which emphasised redress, protection of human rights, and inclusive and participatory approaches to governance of natural resources. These rights needed to be balanced against promoting conservation and securing ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources (RSA Constitution, 1996). During this time South Africa re-­entered the international arena and committed to hundreds of multi-­lateral agreements including several relevant to environmental conservation, such as the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (1992) and its associated Programme of Work on Protected Areas. The suite of environmental and conservation policies and laws promulgated in the late 1990s and early 2000s was thus shaped by the new Constitution (RSA Constitution, 1996) as well as the discourses taking place in the international conservation arena (Paterson, 2011). The principles underpinning many of these policies included sustainability and conservation of biodiversity but also those of redress, social justice, equitable access to resources, participation, transparent and accountable governance, and benefit sharing. However, despite the new legal framework, translation of these principles and provisions into community-­supported plans and management decisions has been extremely challenging. Decisions regarding access to and use of coastal land and resources have remained largely vested in the state. However, there are some processes underway in South Africa where communities and other governance actors are beginning to work collaboratively to address conflicts and find solutions that take account of both societal and conservation objectives. This chapter reports on a classic conservation conflict in South Africa where local resource-­dependent communities are under threat due to conservation plans to expand a protected area and enhance biodiversity protection. It begins with a description of the social-­ecological and governance systems relevant to the conflict and then discusses the strategies and innovations employed by the local fishing communities of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp, in collaboration with their social partners, to challenge ongoing threats by government to close their gill-­net fishery despite the imminent resolution of a land claim. The paper then documents the deliberative processes and transformative learning that took place to reach a consensus regarding an estuarine management plan that was broadly acceptable to all parties. Information for this chapter has been obtained from the author’s involvement in research, policy debates and capacity development initiatives in this community for over 20 years although the focus here is on events and processes unfolding in the fishery system over the past seven years. All relevant research reports, papers and government policies, as well as consultant reports and minutes of meetings relevant to proposals for the fishery and future management of the estuary, have been

reviewed. Participation in various workshops and meetings with the fishers and other governance actors since 2008 provided information and insights on the responses of different governance actors to the conflict as well as the innovations and strategies employed by the fishers to challenge policies and plans. The various quotes provided in this chapter come from extracts from interviews and meetings held with fishers between 2008 and 2014 and documented in various internal research reports, personal notes and student theses as well as a film made about the fishers of the Olifants River in 2012 and 2013.

The social-­ecological context The Olifants River estuary is located on the west coast of South Africa approximately 350 km north-­west of Cape Town (see Figure 2.1). The people of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp have a long history of fishing in the Olifants River estuary. The archival record suggests that these communities were descendants of indigenous Soaqua hunter-­fisher-gatherers that settled in the Olifants River valley in about the seventeenth century (Parkington, 1977). The later realities of this fishing community were significantly influenced by a land exchange which took place during 1925–1927 when the Colonial government at the Cape forcibly resettled this community onto land near the mouth of the Olifants River to provide agricultural opportunities for ‘poor whites’. Due to the poor soils and lack of water at the resettlement sites, many people became increasingly reliant on fishing as a main source of food and livelihoods.

BOTSWANA

sR

ive

r

WINE FARMING AREA

Olif a nt

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   27

NAMIBIA

LUTZVILLE R362

SOUTH AFRICA ATLANTIC OCEAN

Durban

EBENHAESER OLIFANTSDRIF R362

INDIAN OCEAN

Cape Town

WESTERN CAPE

Port Elizabeth

EBENHAESER AND PAPENDORP

R27

VREDENDAL R362

Estuary

PAPENDORP Salt marshes

DORINGBAAI

FIgure 2.1 

Map of the study area

R363

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

28   M. Sowman

The historical record provides evidence of a marginalised community, dependent on local resources for food and livelihoods with little assistance from government (LRC, 2003). Currently, there are approximately 1200 households in the Ebenhaeser and Papendorp settlements of which approximately 120 are involved in fishing as a source of food or contribution to livelihood (Williams, 2013). This is a poor community with a high level of unemployment and relatively low levels of education. Those people not engaged in fishing are involved in small-­scale agriculture, ad hoc work on adjacent commercial farms, or gain short-­term employment from government public works and poverty alleviation projects. Many residents rely on social grants from the government to provide for their basic requirements (Williams, 2013). For many of the people of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp fishing in the estuary has been a source of food and livelihood for generations. ‘Our parents came from fisher families and their parents were also fishers’ (fishers, personal communication, 2013). Statements from several fishers highlight that the river has and continues to be a critical resource in terms of enabling people to meet basic food needs, derive cash for sending children to school and meet other basic needs. This river has been a major resource in our lives for many generations. It is critical for our livelihoods. Our fathers supported us from fishing in this river. (Various fishers, 2008–2014) For the people of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp, the estuary and fishing represents much more than food and a contribution to livelihood. The estuary and what it represents is integral to their lives, culture and identity, as illustrated in the following quotes from fishers. It is the heart of the fishing people. [Y]ou feel it in your blood … it’s part of who you are. The river runs like blood in our veins. Fishing is my life, I mean I cannot do anything else. [F]or the people of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp, it is the reason for their existence. The Olifants estuary is one of the largest estuaries in the country and comprises a unique and productive ecosystem. It is still relatively undeveloped and provides habitat for a host of fish and bird species and is consequently considered an area of high conservation value (Anchor Environmental, 2008a). The fishers of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp have been fishing in the estuary using row boats and gill nets for generations. The main target species is mullet (Liza richardsonii), commonly known as ‘harders’, although other incidental catch, comprising linefish species of which elf (Pomatomus saltatrix), white steenbras (Lithognathus lithognathus), white stumpnose (Rhabdosargus globiceps) and silver kob (Argyrosomus inodorus) among others, are

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   29

also caught. Gill-­net fishing in the estuary has continued to the present time, although given the changing environmental conditions and the unreliability of fish catches in certain months of the year many fishers engage in other livelihood activities, such as picking vegetables on nearby commercial farms, to supplement their livelihoods (Carvalho et al., 2009; Hushlak, 2012; Williams, 2013; Soutschka, 2014). There are currently 45 permits issued for this gill-­net fishery. Each gill-­net fisher can operate with one crew member or ‘bakkiemaat’, and thus according to current permit conditions, 90 fishers are able to fish on the estuary at any one time. However, in practice there are far fewer fishers on the estuary on a regular basis and the numbers are declining due to unreliable catches and as more fishers get involved in fishing at sea. Over the past nine years, while a new small-­scale fisheries policy has been developed, interim relief (IR) permits have been allocated to small-­scale fishers in coastal fishing villages throughout South Africa on an annual basis to address their immediate socio-­economic needs. Approximately 30 fishers from Ebenhaeser and Papendorp have obtained IR permits to fish at sea. Although there are several problems in terms of exercising these interim rights (e.g. difficulties to find transport to get to the launching site at the fishing village), this fishery is far more lucrative and thus these 30 fishers tend to fish at sea in preference to the estuary. However, when fishing is good in the estuary, marine fishers will also fish in the estuary and this is causing some tensions among river and sea fishers. A number of fisheries and conservation scientists and managers are particularly concerned about the incidental catch or by-­catch of net fisheries, since many by-­ catch species are reported to be under threat nationally and efforts to rebuild these linefish stocks are underway (Hutchings and Lamberth, 2002; Mann, 2013). However, our research suggests that the total amount of incidental catch in the Olifants fishery is insignificant (Carvalho et al., 2009) and that the contribution of other fishery sectors, most notably the inshore trawl, recreational and commercial line fishery sectors, pose a much more serious risk to threatened linefish stocks (Rice, 2015). Furthermore, recent research suggests that the relative contribution of the Olifants gill-­net fishery to landings of selected linefish by-­catch species by comparison to other fishery sectors (trawl, recreational and commercial linefish) is extremely low (Rice, 2015). Fisheries scientists at the national fisheries department (previously the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and now Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF )) have been trying to phase out gill netting in estuaries, including in the Olifants estuary for many years, and their intention was to do so by the end of 2014 (DEAT, 2005). The conservation lobby has also pushed for protection of this estuary, highlighting that it is one of the last remaining undeveloped estuaries in the Western Cape and, due to its high conservation value, should be formally protected (Anchor Environmental, 2008b). However, despite pressures to close the gill-­net fishery and declare the estuary a Marine Protected Area (MPA), fishing continues in the estuary, due to opposition from the fishers with support from their social partners who argue for the recognition of customary and livelihood rights and call for greater community

30   M. Sowman

participation in planning and management of the estuary and fishery (Sowman, 2009; Johnson et al., 2013).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Governance arrangements Oral evidence suggests that historically fishing was regulated by local norms and customary practices in the Olifants River estuary and systems of authority were vested in the community elders and the church leaders (Williams, 2013). During the 1900s, government regulated fishing through various fisheries proclamations and after 1970 the fishery was regulated in terms of the Provincial Conservation Ordinance of 1965 under the control of provincial conservation agencies. However, during the mid-­1990s, an initiative to establish a co-­management arrangement at the Olifants estuary was facilitated by researchers from the Environmental Evaluation Unit (EEU) at the University of Cape Town (UCT) and Cape Peninsula Technikon (Sowman et al., 1997; Sowman, 2003). Although significant progress was made with the provincial conservation department to jointly manage the fishery between 1996 and 1999, this co-­management arrangement collapsed when the Marine Living Resources Act was promulgated in 1998, and management of estuarine fisheries was transferred to the national fisheries department under the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). During the transition period there was some attempt to involve national fisheries and environmental officials in the co-­management arrangement, but it soon became apparent that national government was committed to phasing out gill-­net fishing in estuaries and did not have the capacity to participate in co-­management (Sowman, 2003). The top-­down manner in which the policy to phase out gill netting in the Olifants estuary was developed and published (DEAT, 2005) led to a breakdown in relations between fishers and the national fisheries department. These tensions continued and came to a head when a consultant was appointed in 2007, under the auspices of Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE) Regional Estuarine Management Programme, to develop a conservation and management plan for the estuary. This plan was developed with little consideration of the fishers’ history, as well as their cultural and social-­ecological relationship with the estuary and surrounding environment (letter from LRC to Minister of DEAT, 2008). In September 2008, the consultants published a draft Estuary Management Plan (EMP) recommending the declaration of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) for an area extending 18 km upstream from the Olifants River mouth, of which 14 km would be a no-­take zone (Anchor Environmental, 2008b). This area comprised the main fishing grounds of the local communities. This led to a complete breakdown in trust between the fishers and the responsible fisheries and conservation authorities. However, while the fishers at Ebenhaeser were resisting closure of their local fishery, a national policy process was underway to develop a small-­scale fisheries policy that would address the socio-­economic rights and needs of traditional small­scale fishers. This policy initiative was the result of an Order of the Equality Court

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   31

(Kenneth George, 2007), the outcome of legal action by a group of fishers against the DEAT for failure to recognise and cater for this group of fishers in the post-­ apartheid fisheries dispensation (Sowman et al., 2014). The new Policy for the Small Scale Fisheries Sector in South Africa, which was eventually promulgated in 2012 (DAFF, 2012), requires recognition and protection of small-­scale fishers and calls for new governance approaches that are community-­orientated, developmental and participatory (Sowman et al., 2014). The focus of the policy is on the recognition of small-­scale fishers and ensuring the realisation of their constitutional rights, which requires a fundamental shift in approach to the governance of this sector. The challenge for government was to devise an integrated and equitable rights-­based allocation system that balanced socio-­economic and cultural rights with ecological sustainability imperatives (Sowman et al., 2014). A further major process underway in the Ebenhaeser community during this period was the settlement of a land claim in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994. This claim, launched in 1996, claimed restitution of land lost in 1925 in terms of the Exchange of Land Act No. 14 of 1925 and an ‘investigation into historical claims to rights in land including the fishing rights of the community and access and use of the river and the river mouth’ (extract from letter from LRC to Minister of DEAT, November 2008). This process has been ongoing for over 20 years and clearly has enormous relevance to any planning and management process that affects the Olifants estuary and environs. This settlement agreement was finally signed by the Minister of Rural Development and Land Affairs at the end of 2014 and relevant institutions to implement the plans and develop projects are being established (EcoAfrica, 2013). However, certain aspects of the Settlement Agreement are being challenged in court. Given the far-­reaching implications of the netfishing policy to phase out gill netting in the Olifants estuary (DEAT, 2005) as well as the contents of the draft EMP (2008) for the fishers of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp, they approached their social partners, the EEU research team at UCT as well as an NGO, Masifundise (MDT), and their community-­based network, Coastal Links, who have been supporting fisher communities along the coast for several years, for assistance.

Strategies and innovations The proposals to close the fishery and declare a MPA were strongly rejected by the fishers of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp. While they supported many of the objectives and strategies in the management plan to improve the ecological health of the estuary, manage pollution and improve local livelihoods, they objected to the fact that they had not been integrally involved in the plan formulation process, and that their customary rights to land and resources, as well as their dependence on the estuary for food and livelihoods, were not adequately taken into account. In consultation with their social partners, the fishers agreed that a multi-­pronged strategy was required to deal with the ongoing threats to close the fishery. Figure 2.2 provides a summary of the key events and processes reported on in this study.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

32   M. Sowman

Government-driven

Fisher and social

processes

partner-driven processes

DEAT policy to phase out gill nets

2005

Meetings with fishers and social partners

Appointment of consultants to prepare EMP

2007

Equality court order

Draft EMP published

2008

• Meetings with fishers and social partners • Letter from LRC to Minister

2009

Several fisher and social partner meetings

2010

• Social partners formalise partnership • Request meetings with national government (DEAT)

2011

• Expand social partners • Gather oral histories

Government supports reconsideration of draft EMP

2012

• Document local knowledge • Revitalisation of the community monitoring system • Fisher–scientist knowledge sharing workshop • Promulgation of SSF policy

Ongoing meetings of EMF

2013

Fishers’ proposals and revised EMP accepted by EMF

2014

• Minister requires senior officials to meet fishers and social partners • Meetings between fisher representatives and government

Final EMP published

• Established Estuary Forum (EMF) • Meetings between DEAT, fishers and researchers

FIgure 2.2 

to discuss policy implications

• Fisher workshops to develop fisheries management proposals • Revised EMP Fisher management proposals and revised EMP presented to EMF

Overview of key events and processes referred to in the study

Strengthening partnerships While the fishers had been working collaboratively with the EEU research team since 1994 (Sowman, 2009) and with MDT since the early 2000s, the partners agreed that additional expertise and input were required to respond to the threat to close the fishery. Consequently, the Legal Resources Centre (LRC), a public interest legal NGO that had considerable litigation experience on customary law issues in the land and mining sector (see, for example, Alexkor Ltd, 2004), was approached for assistance. In addition, the LRC was also representing this

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   33

community in their land claim and thus had in-­depth knowledge of the historical context and the communities’ rights in relation to land and resources. Researchers from Historical Studies at UCT and an independent marine scientist were also approached to join the partnership. Meetings of this expanded partnership were held to work out strategies for challenging proposals and to explore creative solutions to the crises. It was agreed that a multi-­pronged approach was required that included a legal response, advocacy, awareness raising and capacity development, revitalisation of the community-­based monitoring programme, further research to better understand the historical and cultural dimensions of the fishery, documentation of local fisher knowledge and development of alternative fisheries management proposals for the estuary. Furthermore, engagement with other estuary stakeholders including local farmers, other relevant government departments and conservation groups was considered necessary to share ideas, knowledge and long­term visions for the estuary. Instituting legal action remained a possibility but was considered a last resort.

Legal mobilisation and high-­level government meetings The initial response to the release of the draft EMP was a letter to the Minister of DEAT prepared by the LRC on behalf of the Olifants River Fishing Committee and the Land Claims Committee, outlining their objections to the management plan – both in terms of the process and content. The letter highlighted the lack of procedural justice in the processes followed to develop the EMP and argued that the proposals to zone the estuary and declare an MPA violated the fishers’ socio-­ economic and customary rights in terms of the Constitution and referred the Minister to the recent Equality Court Order of 2007. LRC requested ‘an alternative process that will recognise the community’s rights and provide for a viable and effective management regime to ensure biodiversity protection and sustainable use of the valuable resources’ (letter from LRC to Minister of DEAT, 14 November 2008). This letter prompted a series of high-­level meetings between senior DEAT officials, the LRC and the social partners, to discuss the fishers’ grievances and explore a way forward. Although the high-­level meetings with DEAT demonstrated a willingness on the part of government to revisit the netfishing policy (DEAT, 2005) and draft EMP, and support a more integrated and participatory planning approach, there was no clear government plan for taking the process forward and no additional budget or capacity for further research and consultations to revise the plan. It needs to be noted that during this time, DEAT was undergoing internal restructuring and officials that had been involved in management of the Olifants fishery and estuary were not always available to attend meetings and some were moved to different sections within DEAT. Thus the process was very protracted.

34   M. Sowman

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Research and monitoring Although a significant amount of research had been undertaken on various aspects of the social-­ecological system over the years, there were still significant gaps in knowledge. In particular, social partners agreed that improved understanding of historical fishing practices and governance systems as well as local fisher knowledge on the estuary system would be useful in terms of building an argument for claiming customary rights to resources and suggesting alternative management arrangements. Consequently, in 2011, funding was obtained from the National Research Foundation (NRF ) Community Engagement Programme to gather oral histories and conduct a participatory mapping exercise and a series of focus group discussions with a group of older fishers, to explore their historical fishing practices, and document their local knowledge about the fishery and estuary (MDT and EEU, 2011; EEU, 2011; Hushlak, 2012; Williams, 2013). Researchers also accompanied fishers on several fishing trips to learn more about their knowledge of the fishery and local environment as well as changes to the fishery that they had observed over time. Furthermore, the revitalisation of the community-­based monitoring system in 2012 that had been operational on and off since 1996 (Sowman, 2003; Fielding et al., 2007; Carvalho et al., 2009; Soutschka, 2014) was considered necessary in order to ensure that the community had a reasonable data set upon which to build their arguments. Furthermore, the fishers were sceptical of data used by government scientists to support their policy for closing the fishery. They argued that the data used were outdated and that the government monitoring system, ‘the blue books’, had not been properly implemented since 2008 and could not be relied on (minutes of various meetings between 2011 and 2013). The community-­based monitoring system on the other hand, despite its shortcomings, provided a reasonable record, albeit incomplete, of catch data which could be used to determine sustainability of harvesting levels (Soutschka, 2014).

Advocacy, awareness raising and capacity development Over this period, MDT was engaged in advocacy work with fishers along the west coast, including the fishers of the Olifants estuary. By this stage several coastal communities were well organised and with support from MDT and Coastal Links, were actively campaigning for their rights. Furthermore, awareness raising and capacity development were taking place at various levels in the community. First, fisher leaders were participating in meetings with MDT and Coastal Links in Cape Town and Ebenhaeser regarding the management of the estuary but also in relation to the development of the new small-­scale fisheries policy for South Africa. Fisher monitors attended a training course at UCT organised by the EEU and were engaging with researchers on a regular basis (Soutschka, 2014). In addition, some of the fishers and MDT community development workers were increasingly becoming involved in international projects and meetings, in Cape Town and abroad (e.g. a meeting of the World Forum of Fisher People in 2013), where the concerns and

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   35

demands of small-­scale fishers across the world were being discussed and debated. The presence of an MDT community development worker in the region and the appointment of the Olifants River Fisher Committee chairperson as the Coastal Links representative for the area in 2008 meant that fishers were more informed about the fisheries policy development process in South Africa, as well as debates and developments in the small-­scale fisheries arena internationally (e.g. processes underway to develop Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-­scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (FAO, 2014)) and how rights allocation and management processes were being negotiated in other fishing communities. The rights-­based language and discourses that dominated the various meetings led to a rise in rights consciousness amongst the fishers. For example, fishers began to view their fishing rights as human rights and harness the language of the Constitution to support their claims. In addition, they were not willing to compromise on provisions in the EMP that impacted their rights and socio-­economic needs. Furthermore, they insisted that forum meetings also be held in the fishing community and that documents be made available in the local language. They also proposed that a fisher leader be co-­chair of the estuary stakeholder forum.

Development of alternative fisheries management proposals and revision of the draft EMP During the period 2009–2010, a series of meetings was held between the relevant conservation and fisheries management authorities, the consultants, fisher representatives, researchers and MDT to discuss the fishers’ concerns. Very little progress was made at these meetings as the focus of government stakeholders and consultants was to try to find agreement on the extent of the ‘no-­take’ fishing zone, whereas fishers were insisting on a more inclusive process and one that recognised the fishers as rights holders and not simply another stakeholder. At the same time, the provincial conservation authority and consultants were pushing for the establishment of an Estuary Management Forum (EMF ) as this was a requirement for completion of the management plan project. However, the fishers refused to support the establishment of the forum until there was a commitment that their concerns would be addressed and an alternative process set in motion. The release of a final EMP in September 2010 without resolution of the key concerns of fishers led to a deadlock in the talks. Eventually after two years of limited progress, it was agreed by all stakeholders that the fishers, with support from their social partners, would embark on a process to identify and document their proposals for managing the fishery and would work through the draft EMP and suggest modifications with a view to producing an integrated EMP (minutes of meetings, 2011). This process would be facilitated by MDT and the EEU, and findings would be fed back to the broader estuary stakeholder group. In addition, it was agreed that there should be a meeting of fishers and scientists to exchange knowledge and through this process begin to move towards a shared understanding of the state of the estuary and resources.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

36   M. Sowman

Consequently, a series of fisher workshops was held during 2012 with the MDT development worker to discuss concerns about the state of the estuary and management of the fishery and offer recommendations for addressing concerns. This document, together with the findings from the research outlined above, provided the basis for four workshops with local fishers over a six-­month period in 2013. The intention was to explore options and propose feasible management proposals that addressed both socio-­economic rights and conservation concerns. These workshops were facilitated by an independent facilitator and supported by MDT and the EEU. The workshops were well attended and generated intense discussion and debate amongst fishers. The outcome of these workshops was a set of innovative proposals including (1) enhancing fishers’ involvement in the governance of the estuary; (2) support for a multi-­species approach in line with the new small-­scale fisheries policy (DAFF, 2012); (3) mechanisms for improving compliance with fisheries regulations on the river; (4) support for the declaration of a protected area at the river mouth and surrounding wetlands; (5) improving community catch monitoring and data collection; (6) experimenting with alternative fishing gear; and (7) exploring supplementary livelihood activities. From the fishers’ perspective, an overriding requirement for the future management of the estuary and fishery was their involvement in all aspects of management and decision-­making (Johnson et al., 2013). During this period the draft EMP was modified by the EEU research team to better reflect the historical and social dimensions of the estuary, and to ensure that the rights of the fishing communities were clearly articulated and that their vision for the estuary and proposals for managing the fishery were incorporated. The revised EMP was informed by the proposals emanating from the various fisher workshops (Johnson et al., 2013) as well as the oral histories and participatory mapping exercises conducted in 2013. The revised EMP as well as the Fishery Management Proposals were then submitted to the Olifants estuary forum as well as relevant government departments in November 2013 for their consideration. In February 2014, these proposals and changes to the EMP were presented to the forum and were supported by all members present including Cape Nature. It was agreed that this revised plan would be used to guide the future management of the estuary and the work of the forum.

Participating in the Olifants Estuary Management Forum (EMF ) The fishers were initially reluctant to participate in the Estuary Management Forum (EMF ) in case this would be viewed as endorsement of the forum and draft EMP. However, after they were given assurances that their input on the terms of reference for the forum would be considered and their concerns regarding the EMP would be respected, they agreed to participate (minutes of meetings, 2011). The fishers saw this as an opportunity to share information about their history, current claims, livelihood practices and local knowledge of the fishery with the broader stakeholder group. They were also supportive of several of the objectives and

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   37

management activities outlined in the draft EMP and thus their support of these components of the plan was important to initiate actions to address pressing environmental problems (e.g. pollution from run-­off from agricultural lands). At the first meeting of the Interim Forum in December 2011, two chairs were nominated including the chairperson of the fishing committee. The members of the forum supported this proposal and the fisher leader accepted the nomination as co-­chair. This appointment was viewed as a positive innovation by members of the forum as well as the fishers and signalled the recognition of this hitherto marginalised stakeholder group as a key player in estuary management. Although the fishing community found participation in the forum challenging due to the technical nature of some of the discussions, the forum provided a platform to share knowledge and views and learn more about the lived realities, world views, values and epistemologies of the other stakeholder groups present at the meetings.

Outcomes and lessons learned Outcomes The innovative processes and strategies adopted by the fishers of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp, with support from their social partners, led to a number of positive outcomes. First, the history and current claims of the fishers, as well as their socio­economic dependence on the estuary, were recognised and acknowledged by the majority of estuary and government stakeholders. Second, the fishers’ increased awareness of their rights and enhanced capacity and confidence to challenge unjust processes, plans and policies ensured that they were seen as a significant estuary stakeholder whose views and inputs had to be taken seriously. From this more empowered position, fishers were able to influence the approach to conservation planning as well as the pace and dynamics of the deliberations. This indicated a clear shift in power dynamics amongst stakeholders involved in the process. In addition, the establishment of the EMF and the regular meetings of all stakeholders provided the space for different stakeholders to come together and share their views and knowledge, discuss differences and work towards a common vision for the estuary. As the process unfolded, and a deeper understanding of the social-­ ecological system was gained, the majority of stakeholders recognised that the fishery was part of a complex system, and that conservation objectives would need to be balanced against the social objectives and thus compromises were inevitable. The fishers also recognised the value of protecting the estuary and were supportive of a community protected area at the mouth of the estuary although the exact legal mechanism for achieving protection is still being debated. A critical outcome was the production of a revised EMP that reflected a more people-­centred perspective and incorporated the views, vision and management proposals of the fishers. A further outcome has been the noticeable shift in attitude amongst key conservation officials and stakeholders during this process, although it needs to be noted that the DAFF scientists appear to still support the closure of the Olifants gill-­net

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

38   M. Sowman

fishery. Whereas at the start of the process many of these stakeholders were determined to see the closure of the gill-­net fishery and declaration of an MPA, and did not consider input from the fishers as crucial, as time progressed these same stakeholders recognised the fishers as an increasingly significant stakeholder, whose lives and livelihoods were inextricably linked to the estuary, land and resources, and whose views and inputs were important to the decision-­making process. They also increasingly saw the importance of community participation in planning, management and decision-­making processes. Once the estuary forum was established members were in agreement that participation of local fishers in the finalisation of the EMP and in ongoing management decisions was important and necessary to obtain their perspectives and also secure their long-­term support. Finally, this seven-­year process has resulted in the development of a strong and trusting relationship between the fishers and their social partners and the realisation of the immense value and benefits of collaboration, adopting an interdisciplinary approach and harnessing different knowledge systems to address conflicts. The partners continue to work together on other environmental and social justice issues facing the community. This protracted process has witnessed a shift in estuary governance in South Africa and a more participatory and deliberative approach to conservation management and decision-­making. Fishers are now considered key actors in estuarine governance, and their presence on the estuary forum is encouraged and valued. However, there remain challenges around their active participation in forum discussions due to barriers associated with language, the technical nature of some discussions and the legacy of state domination which for some fishers is difficult to overcome.

Lessons learned The existence of a progressive and well-­respected Constitution and legal framework provided the legal foundation to argue for recognition and protection of fishers’ customary and socio-­economic rights and their participation in planning, management and decision-­making. This solid legal foundation, and support from experienced human rights lawyers, enabled communities to challenge plans and decisions that disregarded constitutionally enshrined rights and achieve an outcome that was consistent with the spirit and principles of law. The formation of a partnership with fishers, researchers and NGOs that share similar world views and values enabled a more holistic and nuanced understanding of the issues and brought the collective knowledge and insights of the group to address these complex issues (Sunde and Sowman, 2011). The transdisciplinary research approach and co-­production of knowledge provided new ways of thinking about the issues and reinforced the value of integrating local knowledge in problem solving and management decisions. Furthermore, the interactions amongst partners provided an opportunity for creative thinking and enabled robust debates on core principles that should guide actions as well as strategies to challenge government

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   39

plans and decisions. The value of the partnership for the individual partners is immense and is mutually beneficial in terms of enhancing understanding and learning, building social relationships, appreciating different ways of knowing, co-­producing knowledge, and shifting thinking and world views (Sunde and Sowman, 2011). The advocacy work, as well as awareness raising and capacity development activities, empowered fishers to speak out and challenge policies and management proposals that failed to recognise their history, customary practices and rights to land and resources. Furthermore, by framing their grievances and claims in a rights­based discourse, communities were able to ‘add a persuasive value to their political demands, that “rights” clothe political demands with a moral urgency that separate them from ordinary interests’ (Rosenberg, 2009, in Madlingozi, 2014: 92) and were thus able to influence the views of estuary stakeholders and the approach to finalising the EMP. Providing a space where all actors could be heard and deliberate is an important requirement in shifting attitudes and building relationships – in this case breaking down entrenched core beliefs about ‘the other’ and decades of suspicion and mistrust. Thus the establishment of the EMF has been an important innovation in shifting views and values. Ongoing exposure to the others’ context, needs, values and aspirations through dialogue and deliberation provided the opportunity for transformative learning (Mezirow, 2003; Sinclair et al., 2011). The term ‘transformative learning’ is used in preference to social learning since the processes and outcomes suggest there have been significant shifts in world views, values, ways of viewing knowledge as well as ways of relating to others. As stakeholders became more familiar with the issues of concern and lived realities of the other stakeholders, there was a greater respect and understanding of the different viewpoints, more constructive engagement among stakeholders and a greater willingness to compromise on previous sticking points.

Conclusions This review and analysis suggests that the strategies and innovative processes employed by fishers, with support from their social partners, increased the fishers’ capacity and agency to engage with traditionally powerful actors and influence the power dynamics among estuary stakeholders. The partnership between fishers, researchers and NGOs to challenge government decisions, articulate claims, identify knowledge gaps, undertake research and jointly explore possible solutions had several positive outcomes and proved to be a strategic approach. Ongoing reference to the Constitutional principles and rights-­based discourse elevated the fishers’ demands and provided a moral argument that was difficult to counter. Engaging in transdisciplinary research and drawing on different knowledge sources deepened understanding of the issues and provided ideas for possible solutions to the impasse. From this empowered position, fishers were able to insert their voice in the debates and discussions concerning the finalisation of the EMP and the future management of the estuary.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

40   M. Sowman

The ongoing face-­to-face deliberations among estuary stakeholders led to changing attitudes and enabled a shift in the planning and decision-­making processes. Whereas conservation and fisheries management authorities had supported closure of the fishery initially, through enhanced understanding of the fishers’ context, rights and needs, their position on resource access and management approach shifted. Similarly, the fishers’ exposure to the discussions and motivations of the conservation scientists and managers influenced their thinking and informed the final management proposals they produced (Johnson et al., 2013). The research suggests that by adopting a more inclusive, systems-­orientated, transdisciplinary and rights-­based approach to the development of polices and plans, especially in contexts where poor and marginalised communities are affected, conflict and lengthy delays can be avoided, and trust and respect can be fostered across diverse stakeholder groups.

Acknowledgements Various other researchers and students have been involved in working with the fishers of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp over the past 20 years and their efforts and insights are acknowledged. In particular, I wish to acknowledge those involved in the NRF ‘Mapping the contours of fishers’ knowledge’ project including Jackie Sunde, Samantha Williams, Anna Hushlak, Nicole Isaacs, Nadine Soutschka (all students at UCT at the time), Josh Cox and Nico Waldeck from MDT, and Henk Smit from the Legal Resources Centre, as well as the fishers of the Olifants estuary.

References Alexkor Ltd and Another v. The Richtersveld Community and Others. (2004). (5), SA 460 (CC). Anchor Environmental. (2008a). Olifants estuary situation assessment. CAPE. Estuaries Management Programme, Cape Nature. Anchor Environmental. (2008b). Olifants Estuary Draft Management Plan. Anchor Environmental Consulting Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Carvalho, A.R., Williams, S., January, M. and Sowman, M. (2009). Reliability of community-­based data monitoring in the Olifants River estuary (South Africa). Fisheries Research, 96: 119–128. Claassens, A. and Cousins, B. (eds). (2008). Land, Power and Custom: Controversies Generated by South Africa’s Communal Land Rights Act. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). (2012). Policy for the Small-­scale Fisheries Sector in South Africa. Pretoria: Government Gazette, p. 58. DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism). (2005). Policy for the Allocation and Management of Commercial Fishing Rights in the Beach-­Seine (Treknet) and Gillnet (Drift-­ Net, Set-­Net) Commercial Fishery: 2005. Pretoria: Marine and Coastal Management, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, p. 10. EcoAfrica. (2013). Settling the land claim, community development and land acquisition plan for Ebenhaeser and Papendorp. CDLAP. Final report, prepared for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, December 2013.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformative learning at the Olifants estuary   41

EEU (Environmental Evaluation Unit). (2011). Documenting and sharing Fisher’s knowledge of the Olifants River estuary. Internal research report, Environmental Evaluation Unit. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Fabricius, C. and de Wet, C. (2002). The influence of forced removals and land restitution on conservation in South Africa. In: D. Chatty and M. Colchester (eds) Conservation and Mobile Indigenous Peoples: Displacement, Forced Resettlement and Conservation. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 142–157. Fabricius, C., Koch, E., Magome, H. and Turner, S. (eds). (2004). Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-­based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. London: Earthscan. FAO. (2014). Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-­scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Rome: FAO. Fielding, P., January, M., Sowman, M. and Williams, S. (2007). The Olifants River Harder Gillnet Fishery: Analysis of Data Collected between June 2003 and December 2006. EEU Report No. 5/07/278. Environmental Evaluation Unit. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Hara, M., Turner, S., Haller, T. and Matose, F. (2009). Governance of the commons in southern Africa: knowledge, political economy and power. Development Southern Africa, 26(4): 521–537. Hushlak, A. (2012). Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge in South Africa’s Small-­scale Fisheries: The Olifants Estuary Gillnet Fishery. MPhil dissertation, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Hutchings, K. and Lamberth, S. (2002). Catch-­and-effort estimates for the gillnet and beach­seine fisheries in the Western Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science, 24: 205–225. Johnson, S., Sowman, M. and Cox, J. (2013). Fishers’ proposals for fishery management in the Olifants River. Technical report prepared for the Olifants Estuary Management Forum, Environmental Evaluation Unit. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Kenneth George and Others vs The Minister of Environment and Tourism and Others (2007) (EC1/2005). Kepe, T. (2014). Globalization, science, and the making of an environmental discourse on the Wild Coast, South Africa. Environment and Planning, 46: 2143–2159. LRC (Legal Resources Centre). (2003). Ebenhaeser. Chronology of events TOTAL from 1794 to date 2003–09–29. Notes made by the late Kobus Pienaar from archival material to support the Ebenhaeser Land Claim. Cape Town: Legal Resources Centre. Madlingozi, T. (2014). Post-­apartheid social movements and legal mobilisation. In: B. Cousins, J. Dugard, and T. Madlingozi (eds) Socio-­economic Rights in South Africa. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 92–130. Mann, B.Q. (2013). Southern African Marine Linefish Species Profiles. Special Publication No. 9. Durban: Oceanographic Research Institute. MDT (Masifundise Development Trust) and EEU (Environmental Evaluation Unit). (2011). Olifants estuary report, internal research report, Environmental Evaluation Unit. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as a discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1): 58–63. Parkington, J. (1977). Soaqua: hunter-­fisher-gatherers of the Olifants river valley, Western Cape. South Africa Archaeological Bulletin, 32: 150–157. Paterson, A.R. (2011). Bridging the Gap between Conservation and Land Reform: Communally-­ conserved Areas as a Tool for Managing South Africa’s Natural Commons. PhD, Department of Public Law. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

42   M. Sowman

Rice, W. (2015). Contextualising the Bycatch Issue in the Olifants Small-­scale Gillnet Fishery Using an EAF Approach. MPhil, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Sinclair, A., Collins, S. and Spaling, H. (2011). The role of participant learning in community conservation in the Arabuko-­Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Conservation and Society, 9(1): 42–53. Soutschka, N. (2014). Community-­based Resource Monitoring in the Olifants River Estuary. M. Phil, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Sowman, M. (2003). Co-­management of the Olifants river harder fishery. In: M. Hauck and M. Sowman (eds) Waves of Change: Coastal Fisheries Co-­management in South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press, p. 358. Sowman, M. (2009). An evolving partnership: collaboration between ‘experts’ and a net-­ fishery. Gateways: International Journal of Community Research and Engagement, 2: 119–143. Sowman, M., Beaumont, J., Bergh, M., Maharaj, G. and Salo, K. (1997). An Analysis of Emerging Co-­management Arrangements for the Olifants River Harder Fishery, South Africa. Fisheries co-­management in Africa conference proceedings from a regional workshop. Research Report No. 12. Mangochi, Malawi, 18–20 March. Sowman, M., Hauck, M., Van Sittert, L. and Sunde, J. (2011). Marine protected area management in South Africa: new policies – old paradigms. Environmental Management, 47(4): 573–583. Sowman, M., Sunde, J., Raemaekers, R. and Schultz, O. (2014). Fishing for equality: policy for poverty alleviation for South Africa’s small-­scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 46: 31–42. Sunde, J. (2014). Customary Governance and Expressions of Living Customary Law at Dwesa-­ Cwebe: Contributions to Small-­scale Fisheries Governance in South Africa. PhD, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Sunde, J. and Sowman, M. (2011). Power in partnerships and governance in process: reflections on university and community engagement in South Africa. Keynote address. Conference on People in Places: engaging together in integrated resource management. Halifax, Nova Scotia: St Mary’s University, 27–29 June 2011. Walker, C. (2005). Land of dreams: land restitution on the eastern shores of St Lucia. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 59: 1–25. Williams, S. (2013). Beyond Rights: Developing a Conceptual Framework for Understanding Access to Coastal Resources at Ebenhaeser and Covie, Western Cape, South Africa. PhD, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

3 Emergence of Community Science as a Transformative Process in Port Mouton Bay, Canada Laura Loucks, Fikret Berkes, Derek Armitage and Anthony Charles

Introduction In this chapter we focus on the emergence of community science as a key aspect of the necessary shift required to transform our current governance practices to achieve a better fit between a social-­ecological system at the local community level and provincial level of decision-­making. We examine this process in Port Mouton Bay (PMB), a small harbour in Nova Scotia, Canada (Figure 3.1) where the degradation of important lobster habitat motivated the community to create an innovative volunteer ecosystem-­based monitoring program. Since 2006, a community-­based

FIGUR3.1 

Port Mouton Bay location map

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

44   L. Loucks et al.

organisation, the Friends of Port Mouton Bay (FPMB), has developed a unique blend of scientific knowledge and local ecological knowledge in the process of co-­ producing an environmental assessment of the impact of finfish aquaculture in the Bay. Not only has the FPMB developed a new form of hybrid knowledge, they have also demonstrated the importance of engaged social learning as a transformative process that links knowledge together with collective action, across a social network over time. We treat the community and the bay as a social-­ecological system, taking the view that the human components and the biophysical components of the system are linked with feedback relationships and should be analysed together (Berkes and Folke, 1998; Garcia and Charles, 2008). Three concepts frame our analysis of the Port Mouton Bay case and its implications for a broader set of coastal contexts: the problem of governance ‘fit’, social learning as a transformative process, and community science. The argument is that the three concepts are related in that community science can lead to social learning and social-­ecological system transformation, and in turn address the governance gap (Figure 3.2). We expand on each. The problem of governance ‘fit’ is defined as the ‘failure of an institution or a set of institutions to take adequately into account the nature, functionality, and dynamics of the specific ecosystem it influences’ (Ekstrom and Young, 2009). Galaz and colleagues (2008: 168) take the perspective that problems of fit are between biophysical systems (broadly defined) and governance systems of which institutions are a part. Fit is thus best conceived of as a ‘bundle’ of challenges, some of which are relatively well understood, such as the problem of spatial fit typified by

Governance gap Social learning and transformation

Community science

As community science expands, the social learning space expands and closes the governance ‘gap’ over time. FIGUR3.2 

Community science, social learning and the transformation of governance fit

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community science as a transformation   45

transboundary resources. However, some aspects of fit are a more recent concern, including problems of social fit, or the lack of congruence of different actors around a defined problem (Galaz et al., 2008; Moss, 2012). Social Learning is an important ingredient in helping actors at different levels (local, regional) deal with system complexity and problems of fit associated with many social-­ecological systems (Armitage and Plummer, 2010). Social learning is defined here as the iterative action, reflection and deliberation of individuals and groups in ways that create shared experiences and which foster changes in understandings or perspectives aimed at resolving complex challenges (Diduck et al., 2012; Keen et al., 2005; Reed et al., 2010). A key requirement is that the learning extends beyond the individual and becomes embedded in a broader social context through interactions among actors in a social network (Diduck et al., 2012; Reed et al., 2010). Social learning is considered important to bridge the knowledge gap that often exists in managing change processes in multi-­level and multi-­scale governance systems (Cundill and Rodela, 2012; Medema et al., 2014). Transformative learning concerns the process individuals undergo when a shift occurs in their mindsets and perspectives through constructive discourse (Mezirow, 2003). Social learning engages a social network in the expanding transformative process of co-­producing knowledge. An increasingly important catalyst for social learning and the transformative process is the emergence of community science. Community science is a form of place-­based social learning, one that is both a process and product of collective scientific inquiry at the community level. Indeed, its key characteristic is its social nature, based on social learning, collective action and commitment to transforming situations and conditions that are undesirable in some way. Community science is related to citizen science since by definition it is ‘citizens’ who are involved in doing ‘community science’, and both are based on principles of scientific hypothesis testing. However, there are significant differences. First, the term ‘citizen science’ says nothing about the social nature of the endeavour. While it can be a community-­based activity, citizen science typically focuses on the involvement of individual citizens as volunteers in the collection of scientific data (e.g. birdwatchers contributing to monitoring of nesting sites). Second, citizen science is usually driven by professionals and experts. Community science in contrast is led by the community, with input into which experts may be engaged or chosen as partners, whether internal or external. The key to community science lies in its roots in the place-­based relationship between the community’s experiential local ecological knowledge holders and instrumental scientific knowledge holders. In an iterative and cyclical transformation process, participants in community science blend both forms of knowledge in the practice of communication and learning about their local social-­ecological system and the flow of ecosystem services.

46   L. Loucks et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation in Port Mouton Bay: the emergence of community science The emergence of community science in Port Mouton Bay was precipitated by multiple dilemmas arising from a finfish aquaculture lease first issued in 1995. Aqua Gem Farms (later Aqua Fish) anchored three temporary rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) aquaculture cages in the inner harbour of Port Mouton Bay. A year later, lobster fishers observed crabs and lobsters migrating towards the finfish farm site, leading them to believe the lobster were attracted to the aquaculture feed settling on the ocean bottom. However, their beliefs changed in the second year and later when the operation increased in size and switched to Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). After this, fishers noticed lobster migrations were shifting their traditional routes to avoid a wide area of sludge on the ocean bottom below the salmon net-­ cages (Gilbert, 2007). Fishers also observed a growing amount of greenish-­brown algae fouling their lobster traps and thought there might be a connection with the declining numbers of mussels, clams, scallops and periwinkles in Port Mouton Bay (Gilbert, 2007). Fishers’ perceptions of loss of ecosystem services were substantiated by their local community science, which was later corroborated by a retired federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) scientist who reviewed scientific sediment monitoring data at the first aquaculture site. His report discussed the cumulative effects of organic material settling on the ocean bottom underlying the open-­net pen cages, resulting in anoxic and hypoxic conditions and the release of large quantities of dissolved nutrients in the water column which could explain the nuisance algae over a widespread area (Hargrave, 2009). Community science generated data on metal contamination in the sediments and in the sea-­surface microlayer (Loucks et al., 2012). These conditions likely contributed to the loss of mussels, scallops, kelp and eelgrass beds and Irish moss, both adjacent to the fish cages and at distance (Loucks et al., 2014). These findings are comparable to ecosystem losses that lobster fishers sustained after salmon aquaculture cages were introduced in New Brunswick (Marshall, 2001; Wiber et al., 2012); but see Walters (2007) for a dissenting view. The observations of local marine species decline and changing lobster migration patterns signalled a serious change in the flow of ecosystem services (e.g. food production) and socio-­economic benefits for the community of Port Mouton Bay. Some 28 per cent of the local community (pop. ~429) depends on the fisheries resource sector for some part of their livelihood and almost every family has some connection with lobster fishing, either past or present. Historically, people from the local villages fished groundfish such as cod and haddock in the summer and lobster in the autumn, winter and spring. Groundfish populations are only partially recovering from collapse in the early 1990s, while lobster fishing remains an important livelihood for many of Nova Scotia’s coastal communities (Charles, 1997). It is significant that fishers in Port Mouton Bay still fish lobsters in the areas first delineated by their ancestors according to the location of their early village wharves, an

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community science as a transformation   47

affirmation of the important rules-­in-use that have guided local fishers for more than two centuries. In the Port Mouton Bay social-­ecological system, the size and distribution of traditional lobster fishing territories reflect the location of lobster habitat and seasonal lobster migration patterns. Hand-­drawn maps of lobster fishing locations in the 1940s illustrate the approximate location of lobster fishing areas that are still used, and confirm that lobster migration patterns are relatively slow to change (unpublished records in DFO data files cited in FPMB, 2008). However, when these migration routes do change (because of the siting of aquaculture farms, for example), a series of cascading collective action dilemmas are triggered. One local lobster fisher describes this process more generally: Up until about 15 years ago this was one of the best, if not the best, harbours for fishing. In the Spring we pulled in 700 or 800 pounds of lobster a day. Now I fish outside…. Nobody fishes the inside harbour anymore. That’s pushing all the fishers out, so there’s more competition…. More boats in less space. We’re not getting near those numbers anymore. (G.E. Broome cited in Ediger, 2007) The use of lobster fishing territories in Port Mouton Bay can be traced back to the 1700s when fishing families first settled the area. These fishing spaces continue to be handed down within the same families whose ancestors originally settled the local villages. Fishers still refer to an area in Port Mouton Bay as the ‘safe haven’, a sheltered place where lobster traps are set for protection during storms and a type of lobster spawning commons. Much like a marine protected area, the fishers share the practice of conservation by not gill-­net fishing in the location of the most important spawning habitat. However, in 2006, a second finfish aquaculture site was proposed in the same location as the ‘safe haven’. Concerned with the dilemmas arising from the first finfish aquaculture site, the community created the Friends of Port Mouton Bay (FPMB) to monitor their bay and protect the flow of ecosystem services. While no new aquaculture applications have been approved since the first aquaculture site lease was issued in 1995, the Friends of Port Mouton Bay have yet to experience a governance and regulatory process that adequately takes into account the nature, functionality and dynamics of their local social-­ecological system. Decisions on aquaculture made by successive provincial governments have not yet linked the livelihoods and well-­being of the community of Port Mouton to the productivity and health of the bay and its lobster fishery. Rather, support for aquaculture development has exacerbated a growing disconnect among provincial (and in some respects national) policy and the place-­based livelihoods and marine ecology of Port Mouton Bay. This problem of fit has had the unintended consequence of displacing fishers from their traditional fishing territories and eroding an effective informal local governance arrangement (see below) that previously supported the stewardship of local lobster spawning grounds.

48   L. Loucks et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Pushing back with a transformative process in Port Mouton Bay The initial goals of the Friends of Port Mouton Bay (FPMB) community science monitoring programme were to document ecosystem sensitivity to nutrient enrichment in Port Mouton Bay and to prevent the siting of aquaculture leases in locations with low flushing rates. The fishers’ experience with aquaculture waste accumulation, declining lobster catches and the production of nuisance algae are strong indicators that Port Mouton Bay’s ecosystem has low capacity to assimilate the nutrient rich wastes that accumulate from salmon aquaculture net pen cages in shallow basin formations. This initial emphasis on ecosystem conditions in the Bay has since become more comprehensive. Comparable to what Freire (1970) called ‘true dialogue’, and in response to the growing disconnect identified above, the FPMB gathered in community meetings to discuss their situation and reflect on future actions. These group conversations became the foundation for building strong relationships and collective action within a widespread social network that included scientists and civil society. When reflecting back on these ‘early’ days, people explain how these meetings helped create a sense of shared community strength and cohesion (Pottie, personal communication, 7 August 2013). During one pivotal meeting, two oceanographers who were part of the local community asked the local fishers, ‘How does this Bay work?’ The question initiated a conversation between the local scientists and fishers about the Bay ecosystem, revealing the fishers’ knowledge of the biophysical properties influencing water circulation. The fishers knew from experience that the bottom of the Bay was shaped in a series of shallow basin-­sill formations. They described their observations of the water movements as ‘going in circles’ rather than going out to sea. The oceanographers recognised this pattern as a function of the bathymetric influence on the water column and surface water. When shown bathymetry maps for the Bay, the fishers’ local ecological knowledge of the Bay matched perfectly with the bathymetric contours, validating their understanding of the relationship between the shape of the ocean bottom and the movement of the currents. Building on this initial conversation, the fishers and scientists conducted simple oceanographic experiments to determine the water circulation pattern in the location of the proposed fish farm site. They used marked current drogues (an apparatus that has an underwater sail and a marker float) and tracked the position of the drogues by following the current markers in a fishing boat throughout the full tidal cycle of 12.5 hours. The shared experience created a unique opportunity for the fishers and the scientist onboard to observe each other’s data-­gathering methods and ask clarifying questions about their assumptions. Consequently, several new scientific questions emerged from their conversations, which, in turn, informed another series of community science studies. With these initial knowledge exchanges, the fishers and scientists were able to cross-­validate each other’s knowledge with their shared experience and methods of learning. As a result, a high level of mutual trust and respect was established early on in the evolution of the Port

Community science as a transformation   49

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Mouton Bay voluntary marine monitoring programme, resulting in a knowledge co-­creation and continuous social learning. These processes reflected the key components of community science. The fishermen described the depositional basins and slow currents except in times of storms. We suggested a sea-­bed drifter validation experiment to confirm this pattern and supplied the seabed drifters. The fishermen deployed the drifters in advance of the next nor’easter storm (that occurred in late January 2007 that year). The community volunteered to walk the shorelines to find drifters and report the identification number, position, and date located. (This took place from February to April 2007.) (R. Loucks, personal communication, 10 October 2013) The next step in the community science effort, the sea-­bed drifter experiment, was designed to answer the locally important question: Is there a risk that finfish farm waste can pollute adjacent beaches and shoreline habitats? Carters Beach, a habitat for the endangered piping plover shorebird, is located in close proximity to the existing fish farm lease. Its significance was recently recognised by the Nova Scotia Department of Environment as a potential nature reserve for the protection of its unique sand dunes (NSDE, 2012). The monitoring required a dedicated community effort throughout the cold months of winter, yet the community was fully engaged in the process. All through February and March, people walked the shores and inspected for stranded drifters, but none were found. In late March a single drifter was found on a beach. We were quite excited until we inspected it and found it to be a different color than those released. At a public meeting in late March, we commiserated with the searchers about the absence of found drifters, but there hadn’t been any large storms in the search period – until April 8th. On that day a very large nor’easter was experienced and afterwards the searchers found several drifters on shores and beaches. It was concluded that sediments released and deposited in Port Mouton Bay could accumulate during mild weather and later be transported to the shores by storms. (R. Loucks, personal communication, 10 October 2013) Another example of knowledge co-­production by local lobster fishers and local scientists was the lobster study, initiated by the fishers to answer the question: Is the finfish farm having a detectable effect on the traditional lobster migration patterns on which the traditional fishing territories are located? To address this, the fishers collected lobster catch data in five regions that reflected the traditional lobster fishing territorial boundaries. After seven years of data gathering, their findings show that the lobster catches were lowest in the regions adjacent to the fish farm in years the fish feeding was in operation (Loucks et al., 2014). While this finding was

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

50   L. Loucks et al.

not so surprising, the study also confirmed that the lobster catches significantly declined in the far-­field regions, specifically during the fish feeding years. Interestingly, in the three years the fish farm feeding operations ceased between 2009 and 2011, the lobster catch rates began to increase in the far-­field regions, but not in the region where the fish farm was immediately located. However, the catch rates in all regions declined once the fish farm resumed feeding operations in 2012 (Loucks et al., 2014). Looking at the process of engagement over the last nine years, we can see that restoring the governance ‘fit’ is a gradual step-­by-step process of social learning and transformation. Table 3.1 describes the community skills, strategies and emerging opportunities that evolved with the community science transformative process. As evident from Table 3.1, the Friends of Port Mouton Bay have been acting collectively since 2006. This has required an enormous community effort of voluntary time, energy and financial cost to prevent the leasing of a second aquaculture site in the bay, and to seek a reversal of the approval for the first aquaculture site location. The ability of the Nova Scotia Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to make decisions that can potentially perpetuate a series of cascading collective action dilemmas in coastal areas unsuitable for aquaculture is an obvious weakness in the current fisheries and aquaculture regulatory framework and one that goes against the findings of a recent province-­wide independent aquaculture review panel process (Doelle and Lahey, 2014). Indeed, an outcome of this review by the Nova Scotia Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture is the potential transformation of the provincial aquaculture regulatory framework (Doelle and Lahey, 2014). The recommendations of the Doelle and Lahey (2014) final report have the capacity to catalyse significant shifts in the Nova Scotia provincial aquaculture policy. Still, the long-­term impacts of this review are yet to be fully determined. So far, the report has not facilitated a significant shift and, in fact, the licence for one of the aquaculture facilities in Port Mouton Bay was extended. However, it is worth noting the following text in the panel report about the FPMB community science: In our view, the study [i.e. the FPMB community science] … raises questions about the interaction between fin-­fish aquaculture and lobster populations that should not be ignored. They are questions that are particularly important in Nova Scotia, where the lobster fishery is vital to the economy of coastal communities and the province more broadly. The fact that considerable work is left to be done by the scientific community before we will have clear answers to these questions is not a reason for inaction but rather for action that will ensure that this work is undertaken. The Friends of Port Mouton Bay have done tremendous work to try to fill information gaps that are of significant general interest, and it is critical that their work lead to further research in this area. (Doelle and Lahey, 2014: 28)

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community science as a transformation   51

Currently, there is a window of opportunity that the new aquaculture siting criteria and licensing process will integrate the values of economic prosperity, social well-­ being and environmental sustainability in the site assessment process. Acknowledgement in the panel report that aquaculture should have a low level of adverse environmental and social impact that decreases over time is an indication that the experience in Port Mouton Bay is both undesirable and unacceptable for future aquaculture development. We have concluded that a fundamental overhaul of the regulation of aquaculture is called for. We have concluded that this overhaul should be guided by the idea that aquaculture that integrates economic prosperity, social well­being and environmental sustainability is one that is low impact and high value. By this we mean aquaculture that combines two fundamental attributes: it has a low level of adverse environmental and social impact which decreases over time and it produces a positive economic and social value from the use of coastal resources which is high and increases over time. (Doelle and Lahey, 2014: xvii)

Revisiting governance fit, social learning and community science: challenges and lessons There are clearly many accomplishments in the small community of Port Mouton Bay, in drawing on the community’s sense of place and strong social cohesion to develop effective community science, and then in using this to push, sometimes successfully, for policy change. At a local level, the community illustrates the reality that increasing the fit between ecosystems and governance systems is inextricably linked to (1) building an integrative perspective on social-­ecological systems and (2) aligning management, protection, monitoring and knowledge sharing across multiple scales (Galaz et al., 2008). However, the process of social learning and production of community science in Port Mouton Bay is an illuminating example of the enormous effort and time it takes to co-­produce local community scientific knowledge and fit this into existing government regulatory frameworks. The required commitment of time and energy may be a limiting factor in other cases. Furthermore, even when knowledge is scalable, a significant governance gap persists between the practice of environmental assessment (e.g. the community’s monitoring of the bay, in this case) and the protection of ecosystem services (through governmental policy and action). As Wilson (2006) observed, the mismatch of ecological and management policy scales creates a barrier limiting the ability of regulators to respond to fine-­scale ocean ecosystem changes that lead to the erosion of fish habitat and subsequent loss of livelihoods at the local community level. This mismatch has a parallel in terms of the social part of the social-­ecological system; its mismatch with policy scales, often arising from differences in values and motivations, creates large differences between community and government directions (Garcia et al., 2014). This is reflected, for Port Mouton Bay, in the dichotomy

Local music composer and musicians collaborate to produce song on Port Mouton Bay, SES; boundaries articulated and celebrated through music, visioning and values dialogue (2012)

(2007–ongoing) (2)  Visioning and strengthening sense of place

Shifts the dominant perception of the SES boundary to include the marine ecosystem and social system of all adjacent communities and residents; builds community resilience; broadens the sense of place for all who live around Port Mouton Bay, including newcomers

The FPMB dialogue with scientists grows at multiple levels (NS Dept of Environment, NS Dept Fisheries & Aquaculture, ex DFO fisheries scientists, National Parks scientists, NGO scientists, university scientists); journal publications are presented as valid evidence for NS Aquaculture Review Panel (2014)

Evidence of loss of ecosystem services; evidence of copper in the micro-surface layer creates opportunity for more provincial scientific assessment; journal publications increase legitimacy and validity of community science

Publish 29 local scientific reports on FPMB website; invent new monitoring methods; community members conduct interviews with local fishers; local scientists design research programmes with local fishers; research results published on website and in peer-reviewed scientific journals

(2006–ongoing) (1)  Facilitating hybrid knowledge building and social innovations; community science

Provides new opportunity to re-embed values and identity connections affiliated with place; strengthen community norms of marine stewardship and caring for each other within social-ecological system

Outcome

Opportunities

Strategies

Community skills

TABLE 3.1  Community skills, strategies, emergent opportunities and transformative process in Port Mouton Bay, 2006–2015

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

University research partnerships create opportunities for increasing local research and knowledge mobilisation; FPMB featured in Silver Donald Cameron film Salmon Wars; story of FPMB presented as case study in university courses and conferences

Opportunities to make sense of the situation grow as knowledge feedback loop links community with outside researchers (i.e. reviewing research papers and designing new research questions); community resilience builds for ‘staying the course’

Provincial election platform FPMB featured in Community provides a new opportunity for Conservation Research Network engaged dialogue case study (2012); community partner in OceanCanada Partnership (2014); FPMB join international eel grass monitoring project (2015)

(2009–ongoing) (4)  Scientific collaboration and networking (2012–ongoing); university scientists partner with FPMB and begin co-designing research projects and publications

(2012–ongoing) (5)  Scaling up information sharing; linking across diverse communication platforms

Opportunity for dialogue to expand Local municipal councillor (and local business owner) is member of across NS Friends of Port Mouton Bay; FPMB share their science via website and model a new norm of information transparency

(2007–ongoing) (3)  Political engagement and local voice in municipal governance; local voice in province-wide coalition

As the community engages in university research partnerships, a new domain for learning and sharing knowledge about local marine ecosystem stewardship is created

Regulatory review process includes members of FPMB on Roundtable, Scientific Advisory Committee; local ecological knowledge is recognised as a valid knowledge contribution to scientific evidence of aquaculture marine ecosystem impacts

Municipal leaders voice concerns to Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; pressure from provincial coastal community network pushes aquaculture as an election issue (2013); moratorium on new aquaculture sites and Doelle-Lahey aquaculture regulatory review panel announced and completed

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

54   L. Loucks et al.

between the science-­based community goals of the FPMB and the policies adopted by the provincial government. The governance gap, apparent in poorly designed Nova Scotia regulations, is also evident at the national level. Recent changes in Canada’s Fisheries Act, and federal cutbacks in funding for local-­level ecological monitoring and ecosystem assessment, have widened the governance gap (Hutchings and Post, 2013). While several new ‘Fisheries Protection Provisions’ aim to protect the ‘sustainability of the ongoing productivity of fisheries’ (Rice et al., 2015), the large spatial scale at which fisheries productivity is assessed is incapable of incorporating the results of habitat monitoring in a smaller location like Port Mouton Bay. Indeed, the risk of harming ecosystem services at the local community level is not even a measureable consequence in the most recent Canadian fisheries protection legislation. Similarly, the interconnection between social and ecological systems is not articulated in the amended Act as an important aspect of sustainability. Given these challenges, what lessons can be drawn from the social learning and community science in Port Mouton Bay? More broadly, what can be learned about ideas of transformation and its links to governance fit? First, the timing of transformation is critical, especially when a change in the dominant world view in government regulatory frameworks is required for the shift to occur. Second, the process of transformation requires many leaders engaged within the social learning process. Third, the role of community agency is vital in the co-­production of community science and shaping the broader context within which more opportunities for transformation can arise. Fourth, the collective sense of place connection is critical for building community resilience in Port Mouton Bay and integral to the co-­ production of community science. Without a strong collective sense of place, it is unlikely that transformation would occur. We discuss each of these below.

The timing of transformation Transformation, or transformability, is described as the capacity ‘to create untried beginnings from which to evolve a new way of living’ (Walker et al., 2004; Goldstein, 2009) analysed the specific resilience that arises after disasters, noting that disturbances and crises of various kinds may provide windows of opportunity to transform social-­ecological systems, including the role of informal and community­based knowledge networks. Dorado (2005), in her analysis of social movement literature, defines opportunity as ‘the likelihood that an organisational field will permit actors to identify and introduce novel institutional combinations and facilitate the mobilisation of resources to make it enduring’ (2005: 413). One key window of opportunity for transformation in Port Mouton Bay emerged during a 2014 provincial election, and corresponding government commitment to review the role of aquaculture in the province. Consistent with Dorado’s (2005) notion of opportunity, the Friends of Port Mouton Bay social learning process and expanded social network helped to create an appropriate context within which the Nova Scotia provincial aquaculture policy was reviewed. The freely

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community science as a transformation   55

accessible online community science reports facilitated a high degree of legitimacy for the pre-­election announcement of a temporary moratorium on new aquaculture lease applications and the subsequent province-­wide aquaculture regulatory review panel. And as noted earlier, the submission of research findings to the panel review influenced the final report recommendations. Still, time is a malleable concept when thinking about transformative changes, and any positive outcomes associated with the election and the panel review are still short term. The institutionalised barriers to transformative change are not easy to transcend even in a context where capacity to do so is relatively high.

The role of many leaders While the social network is well documented as a key organisational structure for social learning (Armitage et al., 2007), the leadership style emerging in the Friends of Port Mouton Bay is somewhat unique. There are no formal organisational structures, no assigned, elected or appointed leaders, no staff, no budgets or strategic plans. Rather, there is a self-­organising web of relationships within the community and beyond, through which knowledge is shared and continuously reflected upon. Some individuals naturally gravitate to leadership roles depending on circumstances, although the ‘flat’ organisational structure remains. Community members voluntarily walk the beaches and shorelines to take photographs of contaminated beach sand, gather sludge samples for sediment tests, and participate in eelgrass monitoring and lobster habitat studies. When they need money to send samples for laboratory tests, they either fundraise or donate the money themselves. When a leadership role is required, the appropriate leader for the situation is encouraged to take on the task. As a result, there are many leaders at work and no one leader is in control. Everyone is welcome to participate in community meetings and all information is posted on the website by a local volunteer. Information is continuously shared with local community members, outside scientists, academic advisors and government agents. Collective action, communication and reflection occur simultaneously as community science, leading to a subsequent stage of action. Transformation is embedded in the iterative and reflexive knowledge-gathering process within a web of tightly knit community relationships and among social network members. The focus in Port Mouton Bay now is not just on natural science issues and monitoring in the Bay, but a series of related social aspects – brainstorming ideas for economic development, and considering ways to generate value-­added in the fishery. These issues also lead to community science activities, particularly where they are embedded in a communication process that includes social learning at the community scale.

The role of community agency The practice of community agency in this case study is also a key lesson for leveraging windows of opportunity. The collaboration between local fishers, scientists

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

56   L. Loucks et al.

and community members to transform their individual types of knowledge into a hybrid form of knowledge, community science, demonstrates a high level of agency underlying the community’s actions. The process of sharing this knowledge both inside and outside the community across a growing social network also demonstrates that high level of agency. One lesson to be learned from this case is that community science, especially when peer reviewed and supported by other scientists, is a strong form of community agency.

Community resilience and connection to place Berkes and Ross (2013) identify a number of characteristics of community resilience. Many of these were observed in this case study on Port Mouton Bay, and included people-­place connections, shared values and beliefs, high level of skills and learning, social networks both within the community and extending outwards beyond the community, governance that includes local political engagement, and collaborative institutional processes. As illustrated in Table 3.1, these characteristics emerged in Port Mouton Bay as strategies and self-­organising skills consistent with the community resilience literature that documents the importance of agency and scaling up community processes for transformative change (Westley et al., 2013). Also consistent with Berkes and Ross (2013), the co-­production of knowledge (community science) and the communication of this knowledge reflect specific skills and strategies to respond to the disturbance of finfish aquaculture on local lobster habitat. The ongoing transformation in Port Mouton Bay is both an interior and exterior process of iterative reflection and action. Local community members have clearly articulated their collective values and re-­affirmed their strong identity as a lobster fishing community. Community science emerges from the strong sense of connection to place which resonates with local ecological knowledge holders and scientific knowledge holders. These community members, in an iterative and cyclical transformation process, blend the two forms of knowledge in the practice of learning about their local social-­ecological system and what impacts the flow of ecosystem services.

Conclusion The events in Port Mouton Bay since 2006 mark a deliberate transformation originating from the efforts of the local people towards social-­ecological resilience and better governance. These changes, which have developed and drawn upon community science and shared learning, are compatible with broader trends towards ecosystem-­based management and local stewardship (Charles, 2012). The ongoing challenges and lessons learned from this case study re-­affirm what the literature has already articulated about the complexity of social-­ecological systems and the cross­scale linkages that can unintentionally unravel and disturb locally designed collective action agreements, resulting in cascading collective action dilemmas. In this case, the poorly designed Nova Scotia provincial aquaculture regulations permitted

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community science as a transformation   57

a finfish farm in a location where low tidal flushing rates are unsuitable for the accumulating sources of fish waste that can potentially impact a wider and wider area of lobster habitat. However, the lack of rigorous environmental assessment is not unique to Port Mouton Bay. Recent changes in the federal Fisheries Act and cutbacks in funding for local-­level ecological monitoring have widened the knowledge gap between political decision makers and local communities experiencing the loss of ecosystem services (Hutchings and Post, 2013; Shirk et al., 2012; Bonny et al., 2009). The problem of the knowledge gap and governance ‘fit’ is a growing trend throughout Canada and North America, and perhaps elsewhere in the world. In response to this gap, community groups are mobilising to monitor threats to local ecosystem processes in an effort to reduce the decline of ecosystem services and sustain their level of human well-­being (Conrad and Hilchey, 2011). Several key factors have contributed to the ongoing transformative efforts in Port Mouton Bay since 2006, and include issues of timing, the role of many leaders, the practice of community agency, community resilience and a strong sense of place identity. In the attempt to resist the persistent unravelling that can occur when local social-­ecological systems are disrupted by outside forces, a community organisation, the Friends of Port Mouton Bay, played a critical role in bridging the governance gap with community science. In this context, community science has been both a process for and product of transformation that blends local ecological knowledge with scientific methods of observation within a process of social learning. The result in Port Mouton Bay is the ongoing transformation towards a new way of learning, reflecting and taking action within the community and beyond.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Friends of Port Mouton Bay for sharing their knowledge and reviewing this manuscript. This research was facilitated by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)-funded Community Conservation Research Network (CCRN), a long-­term initiative in which researchers are comparing community conservation initiatives and policy interactions across a variety of social-­ecological systems throughout the world. We also acknowledge the support for this research provided through the SSHRC-­funded OceanCanada partnership.

References Armitage, D. and Plummer, R. (eds). (2010). Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-­Verlag. Armitage, D., Berkes, F. and Doubleday, N. (eds). (2007). Adaptive Co-­Management: Collaboration, Learning and Multi-­Level Governance. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (eds). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

58   L. Loucks et al.

Berkes, F. and Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 26(1): 5-20. Bonny, R., Cooper, C., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. and Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59: 977–984. Charles, A. (1997). Fisheries management in Atlantic Canada. Ocean and Coastal Management, 35: 101–119. Charles, A. (2012). People, oceans and scale: governance, livelihoods and climate change adaptation in marine social-­ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4: 351–357. Conrad, C. and Hilchey, K. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-­based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 176(1–4): 273–291. Cundill, G. and Rodela, R. (2012). A review of assertions about the processes and outcomes of social learning in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 113: 7–14. Diduck, A., Sinclair, A.J., Hostetler, G. and Fitzpatrick, P. (2012). Transformative learning theory, public involvement, and natural resource and environmental management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(10): 1311–1330. Doelle, M. and Lahey, B. (2014). A new regulatory framework for low-­impact/high-­value aquaculture in Nova Scotia. The final report of the independent aquaculture regulatory review for Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia. 147 pp. [Online] URL: http://novascotia. ca/fish/documents/Aquaculture_Regulatory_Framework_Final_04Dec14.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking and convening. Organizational Studies, 26(3): 385–414. Ediger, M. (2007). Fishermen Interviews in Port Mouton Bay. Port Mouton Bay: Friends of Port Mouton Bay. Ekstrom, J.A. and Young, O.R. (2009). Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 16. FPMB. (2008). Contribution #15, March. Overview report. [Online] URL: www.friendsofportmoutonbay.ca/docs/PMB_OverviewReport.pdf. [Accessed August 2014]. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Oxford: Continuum. Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Svedin, U. (2008). The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: O. Young, L.A. King and H. Schroeder (eds) Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Findings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 147–186. Garcia, S.M. and Charles, A. (2008). Fishery systems and linkages: implications for science and governance. Ocean and Coastal Management, 51: 505–527. Garcia, S.M., Rice, J. and Charles, A. (2014). Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution. Oxford: Wiley-­Blackwell. Gilbert, G. (2007). Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Port Mouton Bay: Friends of Port Mouton Bay. Goldstein, B. (2009). Resilience to surprises through communicative planning. Ecology & Society, 14(2): 33. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art33/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Hargrave, B. (2009). Application of a traffic light decision system for marine finfish aquaculture siting assessment in Port Mouton, Nova Scotia. Report submitted to Friends of Port Mouton, Owen Sound, Ontario. 12 pp. [Online] URL: www.friendsofportmoutonbay.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community science as a transformation   59

ca/docs/Summary-­MFADSS-application-­Port-Mouton-­20090423-HargraveBT.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Hutchings, J. and Post, J. (2013). Gutting Canada’s Fisheries Act: no fishery, no fish habitat protection. Fisheries, 38: 497–501. Keen, M., Brown, V.A. and Dyball, R. (eds). (2005). Social Learning in Environmental Management: Towards a Sustainable Future. London: Earthscan. Loucks, R. (2013). Recounting the evolution of community science in Port Mouton Bay. Telephone interview with Laura Loucks, 10 October 2013. Loucks, R., Smith, R., Fisher, C. and Fisher, B. (2012). Copper in the sediment and sea surface microlayer near a fallowed open-­net fish farm. Marine Pollution Journal Bulletin, 64: 1970–1973. Loucks, R.H., Smith, R. and Fisher, E.B. (2014). Interactions between finfish aquaculture and lobster catches in a sheltered bay. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 88(1–2): 255–259. Marshall, J. (2001). Landlords, leaseholders and sweat equity: changing property rights regimes in aquaculture. Marine Policy, 25: 335–352. Medema, W., Wals, A. and Adamowski, J. (2014). Multi-­loop social learning for sustainable land and water governance: towards a research agenda on the potential of virtual learning platforms. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 69: 23–38. Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 191: 58–63. Moss, T. (2012). Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. Ecology and Society, 17(3): 2. NSDE. (2012). Nova Scotia Department of Environment Proposed Parks and Protected Areas Plan. 10. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Nova Scotia Department of Environment. Pottie, J. (2013). Recounting the first meetings of friends of Port Mouton Bay. Conversation with Laura Loucks, 7 August 2013. Reed, M.S., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C. and Stringer, L.C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15: r1. Rice, J., Bradford, M., Clarke, K., Koops, M., Randall, R. and Wysocki, R. (2015). The science framework for implementing the fisheries protection provisions of Canada’s Fisheries Act. Fisheries, 40(6): 268–275. Shirk, J., Ballard, H., Wilderman, C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordon, R., McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B., Krasny, M. and Bonny, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2): 29. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 5. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Walters, B. (2007). Competing use of marine space in a modernizing fishery: salmon farming meets lobster fishing on the Bay of Fundy. The Canadian Geographer, 51: 139–159. Westley, F., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Cronoa, B. and Bodin, O. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3): 27. Wiber, M., Young, S. and Wilson, L. (2012). Impact of aquaculture on commercial fisheries: fishermen’s local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology, 40: 29–40. Wilson, J.A. (2006). Matching social and ecological systems in complex ocean fisheries. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 9.

4 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Rights-­based coastal ecosystem use and management From open access to community-managed access rights A. Minerva Arce-­Ibarra, Juan Carlos Seijo, Maren Headley, Karla Infante-­Ramírez and Raúl Villanueva-­Poot

Introduction Quintana Roo state is one of the newest states of Mexico; until 1973, because of its relatively low density of human population, Quintana Roo was classified as a ‘federal territory’, and was only given the status of State in October 1974. During the 1960s and early 1970s, Quintana Roo’s economy was based on forestry, including sap (‘chicle’) harvesting, rural rain-­fed agriculture and small-­scale coastal fishing (Dachary, 1992; Araújo-Santana et al., 2013). Currently, Quintana Roo’s economy is primarily based on tourism-­oriented industry, which accounts for approximately 80 per cent of Quintana Roo’s GDP annually. Other relevant economic activities are forestry and coastal fishing. The history of geopolitical-­administrative development of Quintana Roo, from the 1970s to the 2010s, has had an influence on the access, use, management and conservation of its natural resources. This chapter introduces the components and depicts some of the dynamics of a coastal system in Quintana Roo, in which there is a strong human-­nature relationship. The latter is derived from the fact that in this case, coastal communities are dependent upon coastal marine resources to pursue major coastal livelihoods, namely tourism and fishing. In particular, coastal communities of Quintana Roo are dependent upon the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) for livelihoods. This close human-­nature interaction can be framed in terms of the so-­called social-­ecological system (SES) lens (Berkes and Folke, 1998), an approach that will be used herein. Given the relevance of tourism and fishing activities in the study area, this chapter will address how federal policies on tourism and fishing have resulted in shaping the geopolitical-­administrative development of a social-­ecological system located on the coast of Quintana Roo. In particular, three coastal communities – Punta Allen, Xcalak and Mahahual (Figure 4.1) – were selected to analyse, in

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   61

USA

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Mexico

Cancún

Mérida

Yucatán Cozumel Punta Allen Quintana Roo

Caribbean Sea

Campeche Mahahual Chetumal Xcalak

Guatemala

Belize

Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve National roads FiguRe 4.1 

S tudy area with the communities of interest (Punta Allen, Xcalak and Mahahual). Also shown is the Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve

general terms, how rights-­based coastal ecosystem access, use and management have been evolving, from open access to community-managed access rights during the last four decades. This chapter examines how, in response to public policies, each community’s user groups ‘are engaging in proactive ways to … create better conditions for themselves and their environments’ (Armitage et al., see Chapter 1); some authors refer to such changes as deliberate transformations. Armitage et al., (Chapter 1), refer to deliberate transformations as including those changes in governance processes and institutions through which societies make decisions to seek alternative pathways of development (see also O’Brien, 2012). In this case we will address how community groups organise themselves to have access and management rights for fishing and tourism in the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS). The analysis is based on FAO’s rights-­based use and management approach (Orensanz and Seijo, 2013). Related to this, our study also examines how coastal communities respond to global exogenous drivers, namely climatic variability derived from climate change, the latter in terms of extreme weather conditions

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

62   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

such as excessive rainy events. In general, the analysis here is made in terms of two interrelated themes, the social-­ecological systems (SES) approach and governance, and moreover, uses the theory of collective action (Olson, 1965; Schmid, 1978; Ostrom, 1990). In this study, the governance of coastal use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System is understood as a process by which coastal communities, governments, institutions and other stakeholders of the coral reef ecosystem elaborate, adopt and implement appropriate policies, plans and management strategies to ensure that resources are utilised in a sustainable and responsible manner to conserve the functional integrity of this fragile marine ecosystem (Seijo and Salas, 2014). Good governance is characterised by being participatory, transparent, equitable, accountable, consensus-oriented and effective. The data and information presented herein come from two sources. First, there is fieldwork undertaken by all co-­authors of this study during the years 2013–2015 at the study area. The second source is previous published research undertaken by some of the co-­authors and their graduate students, as well as other researchers, and public sources such as management plans and published governmental data.

A coastal social-­ecological system context From a geological point of view, the coast of Quintana Roo has two major characteristics; first, it is part of a land platform of karstic origin, and second, it has associated a coral reef system. Together these produce white sandy beaches sought by tourists. Since the pre-­classic Maya period (approximately in the year 300 bc), this area had been intermittently inhabited (Gallareta Negrón et al., 1991), and during the early twentieth century the region based its economy on coconut farming. The communities Xcalak, Punta Allen and Mahahual are relatively small towns having 375, 630, and 920 inhabitants respectively (Figure 4.1). Xcalak was founded in the year 1900, whereas Punta Allen and Mahahual were settled respectively in 1969 and 1980 (López Santos et al., 1997; Seijo and Fuentes, 1989). The former two communities are located in natural protected areas, respectively the Xcalak Reefs National Park (or PNAX) and the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve (SKBR), whereas Mahahual is not located in any natural protected area. In simplified terms, our SES is composed of two subsystems, namely the resource and the governance subsystems. The so-­called Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, which is on the marine side of our coastal study area, comprises the communities’ resource subsystem (RS). This is the second largest barrier reef in the world; it provides a portfolio of ecosystem services to the users and communities, including: (1) provisioning services such as food (e.g. fish and invertebrates for subsistence and commercial purposes); (2) regulating services such as protection from hurricanes; (3) cultural services such as recreational fisheries and non-­use values; and (4) supporting services including nutrient recycling, and a CO2 sink (MEA, 2005) (Figure 4.2). In turn, the governance subsystem of our SES is multi-­level with local, municipal, state and federal actors (Figure 4.2). At the local level, resource users and

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   63

Interactions

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

RS: Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System

GS: Institutions from the local, municipal, state and federal levels Meanings

Ecosystem services • Source of food • Protection from hurricanes • Recreational fisheries • CO2 sink source • Nursery habitats • Aesthetic values

Motivations

Outcomes

Users/communities • Fishing cooperatives • Tourist cooperatives • Artisan cooperatives • Ship cruises • Scuba-diving clubs • Hotels and restaurants • Visitors • Tourists

Interactions

FiguRe 4.2 

 he coastal social-ecological system of the Mexican study site of the ComT munity Conservation Research Network

Source: adapted from Berkes et al., 2014.

communities are organised into different productive groups such as tourism-­based and fishing cooperatives. The cooperatives found at the study area are of three types. One, in Xcalak, is composed only of women who work on handmade arts and crafts primarily using marine discarded shells. A second type of cooperative provides tours to users and tourists interested in enjoying the coral reef system through scuba diving and skin diving. This type of cooperative is found in the three study sites (Punta Allen, Xcalak and Mahahual) and provides services to national and international tourism. The third type, also at the three studied communities, refers to cooperatives which pursue fishing on fish and spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), a species inhabiting coral reefs; the catch is sold in local restaurants but also sold for export. Moreover, the three communities also have several privately owned hotels, restaurants and scuba diving clubs which offer services to tourists and visitors; however, our study will focus primarily on the former community groups. With respect to the municipal level, each community has a delegate – a public authority in charge of looking after the communities’ well-­being in terms of human and civil rights. The state institutions that interact with local stakeholders are the Ministry of Tourism (SEDETUR), the Ministry of Economy (SEDE) and eventually the Ministry of Health (SESA). Lastly, the federal institutions participating in the governance of the SES include the Ministry of Tourism (SECTUR) and a Harbourmaster (in charge of monitoring the safety of the maritime transit). Also, to

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

64   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

regulate fishing activities at the three communities, there is a Sub-­Delegation office from the National Commission of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CONAPESCA-­ SAGARPA) in Chetumal city. Additionally, in the two communities located in natural protected areas (Punta Allen and Xcalak) there is an office of the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP, from the Ministry of Natural Resources or SEMARNAT) where the Director and the staff of each protected area are located. The multiple interactions between the depicted resource and governance subsystems result in seasonal dynamics, which, together with exogenous drivers, shape the main attributes of the coastal SES (Figure 4.2).

Exogenous coastal drivers As defined in Chapter 1 of this volume, exogenous drivers encompass a broad range of factors that lead to changes in coastal social-­ecological systems (Ban et al., 2013). This section will address two major exogenous drivers that are affecting the dynamics of this coastal SES. One of these is the set of public policies affecting the study area, particularly policies on tourism industry development and on fisheries. The tourism policy began its implementation in the 1970s whereas the fisheries policy was launched in the 1940s. It is the policy on tourism development which has led to the major (and most recent) changes in development of Quintana Roo’s coast, related to economic growth and the increase in size of coastal towns. The second driver affecting the study area is climatic variability derived from climate change that is affecting most regional productive systems; in this case, we will address the effect of extreme weather conditions, such as excessive rains affecting fishing, particularly spiny lobster production in some fishing areas.

Public policies With respect to public policies on tourism development, some authors report that, overall, the growth of the tourism industry worldwide is part of a larger global policy coinciding with rapid post-­Second World War economic growth (Clancy, 2001; Torres and Momsen, 2005). Moreover, Mexico’s geographical location – its closeness to the USA, as well as to Cuba and its revolution – contributed to the increase in numbers of tourists from the USA. It is reported that by the early 2000s, the USA provided approximately 85 per cent of foreign visitors to Mexico. Concurrent to these events, in the late 1960s, Mexico initiated an active policy for developing its national tourism industry. As a result, five developing ‘poles’ focused on tourism planning and development had been selected, with Cancún, in Quintana Roo, one of them (Clancy, 2001). Moreover, in 1974, Mexico’s tourism department was granted a cabinet-­level status as a secretariat (Secretaría de Turismo, SECTUR, 1992 ). Hence, since the early 1970s, the Mexican government supported construction of infrastructure, international airports and required facilities at the selected development poles using several international loans (IDB, 1972: 24; Clancy, 2001).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   65

Until the late 1960s, Cancún was only a fishing camp; nevertheless, once it was selected as a tourism pole, its development entailed developing most of Quintana Roo’s coast. In particular, the ‘Riviera Maya’ tourism programme – a coastal development plan encompassing Cancún to Playa del Carmen to Tulúm was launched in 1985, and the ‘Costa Maya’ programme encompassing a coastal area from Bahia Espiritu Santo to Bahia Chetumal was launched in 1997 (Thomassiny-­Acosta, 2010). The first of these development programmes focused on the coastal dune, and included removing tracts of natural vegetation and mangroves which naturally protected the coast from erosion and from natural events such as hurricanes. In the case of Cancún, its development included an artificially built sand barrier, wider than the original one, to give space to build five-­star hotels and golf courses (Guido Aldana et al., 2009). As several authors on integrated coastal management point out, one of the problems with coastal development in Quintana Roo’s coast is its fresh water table, which is relatively thin and therefore fragile (Molina et al., 1998; POGQR, 2006). To avoid fresh water salinisation of coastal ecosystems, advice was given that primarily low-­density hotel infrastructure should be built (Molina et al., 1998). However, this advice was not followed in the Riviera Maya, and, as a result, the development pattern affected the sustainability and integrity of fragile coastal ecosystems (Molina et al., 1998; Martell-­Dubois et al., 2012; Jiménez-Orocio et al., 2015), and posed risks to the investments in tourism infrastructure. The latter was most evident when hurricanes Gilbert (1988), Ivan, Emily and Wilma (2004–2005) hit the area, which resulted in extensive coastal erosion in the Riviera Maya, with hotel infrastructure seriously damaged and the disappearance of artificial sandy beaches (Martell-­Dubois et al., 2012). Overall, the Riviera Maya area is currently seeing sandy beach rebuilding projects, the costs of which are absorbed by the federal government. Concurrent to these events, access rights to coastal land of the Riviera Maya changed from open access (when fishers, from fishing camps, were the only users) to federal area concessions at the federal maritime zone conferred to the private sector, i.e. the owners of hotels on the coastal dune. In general terms, the aforementioned promotion of development brought a boom of immigrants to Quintana Roo’s coast from several parts of Mexico (and  from elsewhere) seeking involvement in this developing tourism industry (Araújo-Santana et al., 2013). For instance, from 1970 to 2000, Mexico’s population doubled, but Quintana Roo’s population increased ten times in size (Pech-­ Várguez, 2002). With respect to public policies on fishing, a major change occurred in Mexico when the most valuable species, including spiny lobsters, evolved from open access (res nullius) to common property (res communis) in 1947, when the federal government granted the fishing cooperatives (referred to in Mexico as ‘the social sector’) the exclusive rights to harvest them. This resulted in the social fishing sector being organised into fishing cooperatives to harvest the most valued species (i.e. conch, abalone, shrimp and spiny lobsters). In 1992, however, the federal government switched these exclusive rights on the high valued species from being exclusively

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

66   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

allocated to the fishing cooperatives or social sector, to being allocated to all interested sectors (DOF, 2007). Despite this change, to date, the only valued species the private sector (i.e. industry, businesses) has become involved with is open ocean shrimp fishing (because the rights to pursue shrimp in coastal lagoons are still held by cooperative fishers). To the best of our knowledge, no study has reported that the private sector had yet entered the spiny lobster fishery. Hence, to date, fishing rights on spiny lobsters are being conferred to fishing cooperatives only, in the form of area concessions and fishing permits (Salas et al., 2005) – this could be considered a de facto exclusive right. As a result of this fishing policy, currently, Quintana Roo has 19 fishing cooperatives targeting spiny lobster (P. argus) and finfish (Salas et al., 2012).

Climatic variability The Yucatán Peninsula is located in a transitional region wherein its climate shifts from dry to humid weather conditions. These transitional zones have been reported as the most vulnerable to climatic variability effects (Orellana et al., 2011; Cook, 2013). Three major natural climate patterns such as the ENSO (or El Niño Southern Oscillation) event, the ENSO-­cold phase (or La Niña) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are known to influence the climate on a year-­to-year or decade­to-decade basis. In general terms, extended regional droughts have been related to the ENSO event, whereas La Niña is related to a pattern of greater rainfall and greater solar radiation (Riehl, 1979; Carrillo-­Bastos, 2013). It has been reported that, compared to the average temperature from 1981 to 2010, in the year 2013, the globally averaged sea surface temperature was among the ten highest on record (NOAA, 2014a). This was the result of a negative PDO pattern recorded in the North Pacific as well as of neutral ENSO conditions in the South Pacific. In 2013, unusual rain patterns occurred in Mexico. In particular, total accumulated rainfall reached 920.6 mm which was 18 per cent above the national average for the period 1941–2012 (SMN, 2014). From July to December 2013, both Quintana Roo and Yucatán states had the highest historical (1941–2012) rainfall period. From January to December 2013, Quintana Roo had a historically high rainfall record of 1898.5 mm (SMN, 2014). Excessive rainfall patterns have been reported to affect saltiness of marine and coastal waters worldwide (NOAA, 2014b). In Quintana Roo, excessive rainfall in 2013 caused perturbations in the distribution of several species, including the spiny lobster (P. argus) at coastal areas close to Punta Allen. As a result, during the opening of the lobster season (February 2014), some groups of fishers from Punta Allen were unable to find and capture lobsters in some fishing areas. Furthermore, climatic variability and overall climate change is affecting Quintana Roo’s coastal communities and their resource system (the MBRS), with all coral reefs worldwide being affected by the acidification of oceans and by an increase in superficial water temperature (Seijo et al., 2016). These factors pose a big challenge to coastal and marine conservation, particularly in coral reefs such as the MBRS.

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   67

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Adaptive strategies to cope with exogenous drivers It is often noted that public policies on tourism development in Quintana Roo do not take into consideration the needs of local communities in terms of well-­being and basic household services (Daltabuit et al., 2006, 2007). Thomassiny-­Acosta (2010) undertook a household survey in Xcalak and Mahahual and found that not all households therein had full electricity, tap water and sanitation services. Likewise, from its beginning in 1969 through to 2016, Punta Allen lacks full electricity service and its paved road is intermittently damaged. Moreover, health services in the three communities are occasional and sometimes absent. This unplanned policy poses difficulties to the communities’ development and well-­being (Torres and Momsen, 2005). Despite the challenges posed by the aforementioned exogenous drivers, community groups have responded with adaptive livelihood strategies on tourism and fishing, as well as recent coping strategies related to climatic variability (heavy rain patterns); all of these will be introduced in the following paragraphs.

Xcalak, Mahahual and Punta Allen: adaptive strategies to cope with tourism policies In Xcalak, local community groups – dependent upon both coconut plantations and spiny lobster and finfish fishing for livelihoods – were also conscious of the tourism boom slightly to the north, from Cancún to Tulúm, where open access to public beaches had virtually disappeared. These groups were concerned that, at any time, this development pattern would reach the southern part of the state where Xcalak is located (Hoffman, 2009). In particular, local inhabitants knew that the ‘Costa Maya’ tourism development programme already included developing Mahahual and Xcalak, as well as other villages (Hadad and Fraga, 2014). Thus, in order to keep their access rights to local coastal resources, several community groups took the decision to gather with environmentalist groups to plan and devise a communitymanaged natural protected area (Hoffman, 2009). This deliberate action can be considered a form of community-­based stewardship of coastal resources. As a result of their gatherings and discussions on devising a local protected coastal area, some environmental groups undertook studies in the coastal area between Xcalak and Mahahual, in the form of environmental assessments and biological and social surveys (López Santos et al., 1997; Amigos de Sian Ka’an, 2003). Afterwards, other meetings of these stakeholders took place, and there was contact with the staff of the National Ecology Institute (INE) and later on, the National Commission on Natural Protected Areas (CONANP). From this process, a federal natural protected area, Xcalak Reefs National Park, was declared for this area in 2000 (DOF, 2000a). Several authors, including CONANP-­SEMARNAT itself, acknowledge this protected area to be the result of a bottom-­up or community-­based process (DOF, 2004; Hoffman, 2009; Hadad and Fraga, 2014). Once the protected area had been declared, local user groups organised themselves to form new cooperatives to

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

68   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

deliver services (including snorkelling, scuba diving and birdwatching) to visitors to this area. Since then, they have had advice from environmental groups, universities and research institutes, as well as capacity building from CONANP and international NGOs. This form of tourism is more closely related to the concept of ecotourism than it is to the sun and beach tourism type promoted in Cancún and Playa del Carmen. Mahahual was intended, during the early 1990s, to be the centre of development of the Costa Maya Programme (POGQR, 2006; Hoffman, 2009). During the early years of development, the price of coastal land skyrocketed and local fishers whose households were located close to the beach were approached by foreign investors to buy their land (P.L. 2015, fieldwork). Most of them sold their coastal land and sought new land in Mahahual’s downtown, where they settled (P.L. 2015, fieldwork). A major contributor to tourism development in Mahahual has been a cruise ship dock, built in 1999–2000. There has been a gradual increase in the number of seasonal immigrants to Mahahual, from 950 to approximately 2000 people during the high season of ship cruises (October to April) (Thomassiny-­Acosta, 2010). Related to this, many inhabitants – primarily fishers – from this community are part-­time migratory people. In the fishery, despite there being two fishing cooperatives in place, and active fishing on the Banco Chinchorro atoll, it has been reported that many fishers stay in Mahahual only seasonally, responding primarily to the open season (July–February) of the spiny lobster fishery (Thomassiny-­Acosta, 2010). Given the federal tourism policy in place, local people in Mahahual have responded by organising themselves to form new cooperatives, this time to cope with tourism. Moreover, local indirect resource users, such as restaurant owners, report that some state institutions dealing with tourism (e.g. the Ministry of Economy, SEDE) have given advice to them as well as credit to improve their small-­scale business (Thomassiny-­Acosta, 2010). In this regard, the local economies in Mahahual currently depend upon both tourism and fishing. Punta Allen has responded significantly to tourism policies, as it is located in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve. Groups of users have organised themselves and formed six new cooperatives focused on providing tourism services. The new cooperative members are composed of local fishers and their wives (M.M. 2013, fieldwork). These new cooperatives have received economic support from the United Nations Development Program (PNUD-­COMPACT) to buy outboard motors (Faust, 2005), and have received training and capacity building from several public organisations (e.g. CONANP) as well as from NGOs (Araújo-Santana et al., 2013).

Punta Allen: adaptive strategies to cope with climatic variability Spiny lobster distribution, and hence its availability to fishers, is very sensitive to the concentration of water salinity. As a result of an extreme rainy season in 2013 (highest precipitation in 40 years for Quintana Roo), some fishing areas located near freshwater effluents experienced a substantial reduction in catch rates during the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   69

2014–2015 fishing season. This in turn affected fishers’ income at the beginning of that fishing season (July 2014). According to fishers’ local knowledge, when there are heavy rain patterns, these usually affect the same fishing areas located near freshwater effluents (E.P.M. 2015; V.M.B. 2015; and R.A. 2015, fieldwork). Given these patterns, community adaptive strategies have developed, accompanied by a strong sense of community solidarity. In particular, during the 2014–2015 fishing season: (1) community cooperative members agreed to form ‘fishing groups’ to allow unfortunate fishers based in fishing areas (with low lobster densities) to participate in the harvesting of artificial shelters – ‘casitas’ – located in high density lobster areas; and (2) some of the less fortunate fishers were able to join other members of the community who provide recreational snorkelling services in the MBRS.

Coastal governance and rights-­based management The governance subsystem of the study area was depicted in Figure 4.1. It is multi­scale, i.e. encompassing scales of time and geography in terms of its history and the location of the coastal SES. It is also multi-­level, because at the sociopolitical scale, community groups and the three levels of government are interacting within it. Nevertheless, as the access, use and management rights to the MBRS are granted at the federal level, the two most active stakeholders of this subsystem are community groups (i.e. cooperatives) and federal institutions. For true stewardship of the resource subsystem (MBRS) to gradually emerge in coastal communities, a rights access scheme needs to be both clear to stakeholders and allocated either by the group of users themselves or by a legitimate authority. In particular, community groups need to be aware of who has the right to use, access and manage this local coastal ecosystem and its resources, to work in either the tourism or the fisheries sectors. In this section, we portray how community groups of both these sectors – i.e. community-­based tourism service providers and tourism and fishing cooperatives – work under a right-­based access approach to utilise the MBRS. This is based on a set of seven attributes of the FAO’s rights-­based use and management approach (Orensanz and Seijo, 2013), ranging from ‘How the rights are conferred and upheld’ to ‘Enforceability of rights and compliance with use-­rights limitations’ (Table 4.1).

Tourism service providers with similar rights-­based attributes All providers of snorkelling and scuba diving tours from the three studied communities have similar access rights to the MBRS (Table 4.1). They all use the same standard permit to deliver those services to tourists. The only difference in their current governance is related to whether or not each community is within a natural protected area (like Punta Allen and Xcalak) or outside (like Mahahual). The communities located in protected areas also have the CONANP office in place, which collaborates with other federal institutions in enforcing local rules (Table 4.1). In other words, tourism service providers also follow rules regarding zoning for natural

Six years, renewable upon compliance with regulations and conditional on a review of boat and appropriate gear and equipment every two years

Non-transferable

Duration of the rights conferred

Transferability of the rights

Federal regulations are strictly enforced by the Harbourmaster which results in high compliance. CONANP also enforces regulations

Enforceability of rights and compliance with use-rights limitations

Note 1 Community located within a natural protected area.

Source: adapted from Orensanz and Seijo (2013).

Highly secure in this area because of effective enforcement

Highly secure in this area because of effective enforcement

Security of the title conferred by the rights

Highly secure in this area because of effective enforcement

Non-divisible

Non-transferable

Six years, renewable upon compliance with regulations and conditional on a review of boat and appropriate gear and equipment every two years

Tourism service providers have exclusive access rights for coral reef ecosystem sightseeing. These are rights to extract rent from non-use and recreational values of visitor

The state (SCT) grants access rights to tourism service providers

Mahahual

Federal regulations are strictly enforced Federal regulations are strictly enforced by the Harbourmaster which results in by the Harbourmaster which results in high compliance high compliance. CONANP also enforces regulations

Non-divisible

Divisibility of the rights assigned Non-divisible

Non-transferable

Six years, renewable upon compliance with regulations and conditional on a review of boat and appropriate gear and equipment every two years

Tourism service providers have exclusive access rights for coral reef ecosystem sightseeing. These are rights to extract rent from non-use and recreational values of visitor

Tourism service providers have exclusive access rights for coral reef ecosystem sightseeing. These are rights to extract rent from non-use and recreational values of visitor

Exclusivity of participation in having access to the coral reef ecosystem

Xcalak1 The state (SCT and CONANP/ SEMARNAP) grants access rights to tourism service providers

Punta Allen1

How the rights are conferred and The state (SCT and CONANP/ upheld SEMARNAT) grants access rights to tourism service providers

Rights-based attribute

hual and Xcalak

TABLE4.1  Summary of attributes of rights-based access to the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System by tourism service providers of Punta Allen, Maha-

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   71

protected areas. Additionally, cooperatives within protected areas are allowed to send a representative to participate in the management committee and therefore have a voice at these meetings. In this case, having access rights conferred means that boats with tourists can reach the MBRS, enabling tourists to swim close to coral reefs and benefit from its aesthetic values (through snorkelling and scuba diving). They are, however, not allowed to touch or take any piece of coral reef; therefore, contrary to what would happen in finfish and spiny lobster fisheries, in this case the State only conferred service providers with access rights but not extractive rights. In general terms, this process related to use of the MBRS also evolved from open access to rights-­based access. For instance, before 1974, when Quintana Roo was granted the status of a State, people living on the coast had open access to pursue, among others, snorkelling and scuba diving in the MBRS, including collecting marine species and catching finfish (but not to harvest spiny lobster, shrimp and conch, for which exclusive rights were held by a designated set of fishers). After 1974, in order to enforce a rights-­based management system over coastal resources, the federal government established offices of Harbourmaster (Ministry of Transportation and Communications, or SCT) in Quintana Roo’s coastal communities. Currently, these offices are in charge of both conferring access rights to service providers working on snorkelling and scuba diving tours, and enforcing the corresponding rules (DOF, 1994, 1998, 2000b). At some stages, problems arose in enforcing the rights. For example, before 2013, when the list of service providers of several coastal communities, including Mahahual, was not properly updated, there was a free-­rider problem regarding access to the MBRS for tourism service providers (A.F.C. 2013, fieldwork). This reflected, as Olson (1965) noted, the high incentive from an individual’s (e.g. tourism service provider) point of view to free­ride on the efforts of others and to provide a suboptimal or unsustainable level of the good (e.g. conservation of the MBRS over time). However, from 2013 to date, the Harbourmaster office from Mahahual has solved this problem by regularly updating the local list of tourism service providers, and enforcing rules or a regular monitoring of the use of the MBRS for scuba diving and snorkelling purposes (A.F.C. 2013, fieldwork).The main attributes of the rights-­based access to the MBRS by the tourism service providers’ sector are shown in Table 4.1 (Orensanz and Seijo, 2013). Considering the women’s cooperative based in Xcalak, working on arts and crafts, the CONANP office grants a special permit to this cooperative providing the right to collect discarded shells and scales, contrary to the management plan of the Xcalak Reefs National Park, which bans any collection of live and dead specimens, including discarded shells. The permit means that these materials can be used to craft a variety of souvenirs, including, for example, earrings and necklaces, which are primarily for the national tourism market. In this cooperative, free-­rider ­behaviour is unlikely to happen due to the small size of both the Xcalak community and the cooperative itself (~10–15 members); in other words, any non-­ contributing user collecting discarded shells in the local protected area could be easily identified (Schmid, 1978).

72   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Spiny lobster fishing and its rights-­based attributes The spiny lobster (P. argus) fisheries of Punta Allen, Mahahual and Xcalak are rights-­based co-­managed fisheries, in that the fishery is managed using federal and internal community-­based rules. Its management and governance is complex because it is a shared resource in the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem in its larval stages but also as an adult (Cochrane et al., 2001). The latter imposes management difficulties on the fishing people of Punta Allen, Xcalak and Mahahual. Its management under a rights-­based access approach at the MBRS is shown in Table 4.2. Again, our study shows the seven basic rights-­based attributes of its management. However, in contrast to the case of the tourism service providers, these fisheries do show differences in their rights-­based management schemes. There are differences between the fishery in Punta Allen and those in Xcalak and Mahahual, in particular exclusive rights to individual fishers at Punta Allen versus non-­exclusive rights to individual fishers at Xcalak and Mahahual (Table 4.2). The same applies to transferability of rights versus non-­transferability; and divisibility of rights versus non-­ divisibility (see Seijo, 1993) (Table 4.2). These differences in rights for co-­managing spiny lobster fisheries are related to the cooperatives’ history which is related to the presence or absence of community­based enforced rules in the three communities. For instance, the history of Punta Allen’s settlement in 1969 is related to the creation of its only fishing cooperative. Since that year, a limited entry policy has been agreed upon by fishers. As their fishing areas are within a relatively shallow bay (~3 m in depth), the community agreed to establish informal (currently legal) allocation of spatial property rights (fishing areas) among its 56 members. In particular, cooperative members granted among themselves exclusive individual fishing rights of 150 fishing lots ranging in size from 0.5 to 3.0 km2 in which artificial shelters are used to attract and capture spiny lobsters. Additionally, local rules for responsible fishing and community self-­ enforced mechanisms were implemented. These internal rules resulted in mitigating, and during several fishing seasons even eliminating, free-­rider behaviour (e.g. fishing in someone else’s exclusive fishing lot; or fishing during the closed season). As time passed, the State recognised the spatial rights conferred by cooperative members among themselves. Because of their responsible fishing practices and transparent and effective self-­governance, the small-­scale spiny lobster fishery of Punta Allen has been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council since 2012. Currently, there are well-­defined and legally recognised fishing rights in the Punta Allen area (Table 4.2). In contrast to Punta Allen’s early limited entry policy established at the fishing cooperative, in Xcalak and Mahahual, the decisions of the general assemblies of their cooperatives regarding permitting new cooperative members have been more flexible; as a result, the dynamics of their fishing effort (in terms of number of cooperative members and number of outboard motors) have varied in time (Sosa-­ Cordero, 2011; Salas et al., 2012). Moreover, cooperatives in Xcalak and Mahahual pursue fishing not in easily enforceable shallow bay areas but in marine open-­ocean

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   73

fishing areas, including Banco Chinchorro atoll (Figure 4.1). This complexity could be a factor that precluded the emergence of community self-­enforced rules as happened in Punta Allen. Even more complexity to this area is added because, in the last decade, some of these cooperatives have had accountability problems, which together with the aforementioned problems resulted in the presence of free-­riding behaviour. Nevertheless, to date, the cooperatives of these communities are struggling to ‘turn the tide’ and after many meetings and hard work, they are now part of the Kanan Kay Alliance, an international social-­academic-governmental-­NGO initiative organised around coastal and marine conservation, with emphasis on the MBRS (Kanan Kay Alliance, 2013). It is expected that these new partners will pave the way for these cooperatives to move towards good governance.

Lessons learned From the three communities studied comprising the coastal SES, it has been shown that their coastal governance evolved from open access to community-managed access rights. Our chapter has shown that the multi-­scale, multi-­level governance of Quintana Roo’s coastal social-­ecological system is being affected by exogenous drivers, including (among others) federal policies on tourism development and fishing, and climatic variability. Moreover, its governance is related to complexities such as the geographical location of the communities, the presence or absence of a natural protected area, and each community’s deliberate decisions to maintain their access rights together with governance capacities in place. In particular, community groups of service providers have adapted to tourism policies and currently, their tourism cooperatives and local clubs have similar access rights to the MBRS as conferred by the federal government. Also, the women’s cooperative in Xcalak has a secure right to access and use the MBRS. In these community groups, the free-­rider problem, which is usually a key source of failure of many collective action initiatives, is almost absent. Moreover, our chapter shows that all these community groups are pursuing proactive ways to create better conditions of living while seeking to retain access rights to local coastal resources. Of all the cases examined, the bottom-­up deliberative action of the community to create a local protected area in Xcalak can be considered as a deliberate transformation in the sense of the definition set by O’Brien (2012). In this case, to reach the desired transformation, multi-­level collaboration and suitable institutional arrangements were needed (with local, regional and federal institutions collaborating towards the same goal). Once the local natural protected area of Xcalak had been declared, the local social-­ecological system changed in both form and structure. With respect to the fisheries sector, spiny lobster fisheries have been being co-­ managed since 1947, using various rights-­based attributes. Similarly, our chapter showed that these community groups pursue proactive ways to create better livelihoods. Among the three analysed communities, Punta Allen has exhibited effective and transparent governance of their spiny lobster fishery using a collectively

Punta Allen1 The state grants territorial (area) concessions to users, including fishers’ cooperatives. The state grants fishing permits to cooperatives

Xcalak1

Twenty years, renewable upon compliance with regulations and conditioned on evidence of continued productivity of the target species

Concession rights on specific fishing lots are transferable within cooperative members. Rights can be inherited among cooperative members

Transferability of the rights

Twenty years, renewable upon compliance with regulations and conditioned on evidence of continued productivity of the target species

De facto exclusive use rights to fisher cooperatives but non-exclusive rights to individual fishers

The state grants territorial (area) concessions to users, including fishers’ cooperatives. The state grants fishing permits to cooperatives

Mahahual

Non-transferable. Rights can be Non-transferable. Rights can be inherited among cooperative members inherited among cooperative members

Twenty years, renewable upon compliance with regulations and conditioned on evidence of continued productivity of the target species

De facto exclusive use rights to fisher De facto exclusive use rights to fisher cooperatives and exclusive rights to cooperatives but non-exclusive rights individual fishers in specific fishing lots to individual fishers

Duration of the rights conferred

Exclusivity of participation in the fishery

How the rights are conferred and The state grants territorial (area) upheld concessions to users, including fishers’ cooperatives. The state grants fishing permits to cooperatives

Rights-based attribute

TABLE4.2  Summary of attributes of rights-based co-managed spiny lobster fisheries of Punta Allen, Mahahual and Xcalak

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community internal rules and federal regulations are strictly enforced by the cooperative, resulting in high compliance and low or absent freerider behaviour

Enforceability of rights and compliance with use-rights limitations

Note 1 Community located within a natural protected area.

Source: adapted from Orensanz and Seijo (2013).

Not secure because there is illegal fishing and there is no self-policing

Secure in this fishing area because of self-policing. The size of the group of fishers (∼76 cooperative members) allows for self-policing

Security of the title conferred by the rights

Fishing rights are moderately enforced Weak cooperative organisational capacity attenuates fishing rights, and but compliance with use-rights compliance with use-rights limitations limitations is weak is weak

Not secure because there is illegal fishing and there is no self-policing

Non-divisible

Divisibility of the rights assigned Spatial rights are fully divisible among Non-divisible cooperative members. Sea bed is federal property; the shelters used as attracting devices are private property. The partition of lots called campos is justified by the need to protect property

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

76   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

determined spatial rights-­based approach. Currently, the literature acknowledges Punta Allen’s spiny lobster fishery to be a form of self-­governance (Sosa-­Cordero et al., 2008). Hence, in contrast to what is found at Xcalak and Mahahual, free-­rider behaviour is not a major problem in Punta Allen. Nonetheless, the free-­rider problem faced by many other fishing cooperatives in Quintana Roo (and elsewhere) provides by itself a simple explanation as to why so many fishers fail to organise themselves effectively and sustainably, even though they would certainly benefit from doing so. From the individual (fisher) point of view, it is assumed that there is a high incentive to free-­ride on the efforts of others and provide an unsustainable level of the good (e.g. spiny lobster) (Olson, 1965). One factor that could mitigate or eliminate free-­rider behaviour is the size of the group of fishers. If the size of the group is big, the propensity for free-­rider behaviour among cooperative members increases. When the group is small, exclusion costs are not necessarily lower, but the non-­contributing user could be easily identified, thus reducing the number of free-­riders (Schmid, 1978). Also, if the group is small, there is the possibility of effective monitoring and self-­policing. Many research projects have been launched at Punta Allen and have addressed the several factors that have contributed to its good governance and its long-­enduring fishing institutions (Seijo and Fuentes, 1989; Seijo, 1993, 2007; Sosa-­Cordero et al., 2008; Orensanz and Seijo, 2013). The key attributes of the collective action of Punta Allen’s spiny lobster fishers, which are seldom found in other fishing cooperatives, are (Ostrom, 1990): true community organisation, internal cohesiveness, trust, and good leadership, which have maintained order and stability in this site. Furthermore, a lesson learned concerning Xcalak and Mahahual spiny lobster fisheries is the need for capacity building to be able to keep their traditional use of the MBRS, and the need to work with marine conservation partners to pursue the path of good governance. Lastly, for all three communities, in order to have better community development and well-­being, all community user groups are in need of better-­planned federal tourism policies.

Acknowledgements This chapter benefited from the constructive criticism of two anonymous reviewers. We acknowledge support from Marista University of Merida, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, CONACyT and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through the Community Conservation Research Network.

References Amigos de Sian Ka’an. (2003). Manejo Integrado de Recursos Costeros en Mahahual. Final Report. October 2002–September 2003. Narragansett, Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island. 42  pp. [Online] URL: www.crc.uri.edu/download/CM_MahahualLocalStrategyReport.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Araújo-Santana, M.R., Parra-­Vázquez, M.R., Salvatierra-­Izaba, B. and Arce-­Ibarra, A.M. (2013). Políticas Turísticas, Actores Sociales y Ecoturismo en la Península de Yucatán. Economía, Sociedad y Territorio, 13(43): 641–674.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   77

Ban, N.C., Mills, M., Tam, J., Hicks, C.C., Klain, S., Stoeckl, N., Bottrill, C.M., Levine, J., Pressey, R.L., Satterfield, T. and Chan, K.M.A. (2013). A social-­ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4): 194–202. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In: F. Berkes and C. Folke (eds) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–20. Berkes, F., Arce-­Ibarra, M., Armitage, D., Charles, A., Loucks, L., Makino, M., Satria, A., Seixas, C., Abraham, J. and Berdej, S. (2016). Analysis of Social-­Ecological Systems for Community Conservation. Halifax, Canada: Community Conservation Research Network. [Online] URL: www.communityconservation.net/resources/social-­ecological-systems. [Accessed 23 December 2016]. Berkes, F., Armitage, D., Arce-Ibarra, M., Charles, A., Loucks, L., Graham, J., Seixas, C., Makino, M., Satria, A. and Abraham, J. (2014). Guidelines for analysis of social-­ecological systems. [Online] URL: www.communityconservation.net/wp-­content/uploads/2016/ 01/FINAL_CCRN-­G uidelines-for-­A nalysis-of-­S ocial-Ecological-­S ystemsSeptember-­2014.pdf. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Carrillo-­Bastos, A. (2013). Paleoecología, Paleoclimatología y Variación Geoespacial de la Vegetación de la Península de Yucatán durante el Holoceno Tardío. Doctoral dissertation. Chiapas, Mexico: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. CCRN Working Group on Social-­Ecological Systems and Community Resilience. (2013). Guidelines for analysis of social-­ecological systems. [Online] URL: www.communityconservation.net/wp-­content/uploads/2016/01/FINAL_CCRN-­Guidelines-for-­Analysis-of-­ Social-Ecological-­Systems-September-­2014.pdf. [Accessed 13 January 2017]. Clancy, M. (2001). Mexican tourism: export growth and structural change since 1970. Latin American Research Review, 36: 128–150. Cochrane, K., Tandstad, M., Cruz, M., Ehrhardt, N.M., Gonzalez, J., Medley, P., Restrepo, V.R. and Seijo, J.C. (2001). Management: review of existing regulations. In: WECAFC (ed.) Report on the FAO/DANIDA/CFRAMP/WECAFC Regional Workshops on the Assessment of the Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus). Rome: FAO Fish. Rep. 619, 136–154. Cook, K.H. (2013). Climate Dynamics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dachary, C. (1992). Quintana Roo: Los Retos del Fin de Siglo ¿Hacia un Desarrollo Desigual?. In: C. Dachary, D. Navarro López and S. Arnaiz Burne (eds) Quintana Roo: Los Retos del Fin del Siglo. Chetumal: Universidad de Quintana Roo, pp. 9–29. Daltabuit, M., Cisneros, H. and Valenzuela, E. (2007). Globalización y Sustentabilidad: El Turismo en el Sur de Quintana Roo. Cuernavaca, Mexico: UNAM/Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias. Daltabuit, M., Vázquez, L.M., Cisneros, H. and Ruiz, G.A. (2006). El Turismo Costero en la Ecorregión del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano. Cuernavaca, Mexico: UNAM/Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias. DOF (Federal Gazette). (1994). Ley de Navegación. Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes. 4 January 1994. Mexico City, Mexico. DOF (Federal Gazette). (1998). Reglamento de la Ley de Navegación. Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes. 10 November 1998. Mexico City, Mexico. DOF (Federal Gazette). (2000a). Parque Nacional Arrecifes de Xcalak. 27 November 2000. Mexico City, Mexico. DOF (Federal Gazette). (2000b). Disposiciones transitorias. Reglamento de la Ley de Navegación. Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes. 8 August 2000. Mexico City, Mexico.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

78   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

DOF (Federal Gazette). (2004). Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional Arrecifes de Xcalak. 8 October 2004. Mexico City, Mexico. DOF (Federal Gazette). (2007). Ley General de Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables. 24 July 2007. Mexico, City, Mexico. Faust, B. (2005). Evaluación del Programa PNUD-­COMPACT. Unpublished manuscript. Mexico: Departamento de Ecología Humana, CINVESTAV Unidad Mérida and PNUD. Gallareta Negrón, T.G., Andrews, A.P. and Palma, R.C. (1991). Reconocimiento arqueológico de la Península de Xkalak, Quintana Roo, México. Boletín de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropológicas de la Universidad de Yucatán, 108: 48–74. Guido Aldana, P., Ramírez Camperos, A., Godínez Orta, L., Cruz León, S. and Juárez León, A. (2009). Estudio de la erosión costera en Cancún y la Riviera Maya, México. Avances en recursos hidráulicos, 20: 41–55. Hadad, W. and Fraga, J. (2014). Parque Nacional Arrecifes de Xcalak en el Caribe Mexicano. In: J. Fraga, L. Khafash and G. Villalobos (eds) Turismo y Sustentabilidad en la Península de Yucatán. Mérida, Mexico: EPOMEX and CINVESTAV Unidad Mérida I.P.N., pp. 153–169. Hoffman, D.M. (2009). Institutional legitimacy and co-­management of a marine protected area: implementation lessons from the case of Xcalak Reefs National Park, Mexico. Human Organization, 68(1): 39–54. IDB (Inter-­American Development Bank). (1972). Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo Informe Anual 1971. [Online] URL: http://publications.iadb.org/handle/11319/1462? scope=123456789/2&thumbnail=true&rpp=5&page=37&group_by=none&etal=0. [Accessed 30 January 2015]. Jiménez-Orocio, O., Espejel, I. and Martínez, M.L. (2015). La investigación científica sobre dunas costeras de México: origen, evolución y retos. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 86: 486–507. Kanan Kay Alliance. (2013). Official website. [Online] URL: www.alianzakanankay.org/. [Accessed 19 January 2014]. López Santos, C., McCann, J., Molina Islas, J. and Rubinoff, J. (1997). Estrategia Comunitaria para el Manejo de la Zona de Xcalak, Quintana Roo, México. 31 pp. Unpublished manuscript. Xcalak: Comité Comunitario para la Protección y Manejo de los Recursos Costeros de Xcalak. Martell-­Dubois, R., Mendoza-­Baldwin, E., Mariño-Tapia, I., Silva-­Casarín, R. and Escalante-­Mancera, E. (2012). Impactos de corto plazo del huracán ‘Dean’ sobre la morfología de la playa de Cancún, México. Tecnología y ciencias del agua, 3(4): 89–111. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report. Washington DC: Island Press. Molina, C., Rubinoff, P. and Carranza, J. (1998). Normas prácticas para el desarrollo turístico de la zona costera de Quintana Roo, México. University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, Rhode Island. [Online] URL: www.crc.uri.edu/download/FullDocument_NormasPracticas.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). (2014a). 2013 state of the climate: sea surface temperature. 12 July 2014. [Online] URL: www.climate.gov/news­features/understanding-­climate/2013-state-­climate-sea-­surface-temperature [Accessed 24 January 2015]. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). (2014b). Shifting ocean surface saltiness 2004–2013. 28 July 2014. [Online] URL: www.climate.gov/news-­features/ featured-­images/shifting-­ocean-surface-­saltiness-2004-2013. [Accessed 23 January 2015]. O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II. From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5): 667–676.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Rights-based coastal ecosystem use and management   79

Olson, M. (1965). Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Orellana, R., Espadas, C., Conde, C. and Gay, C. (2009). Atlas: Escenarios de Cambio Climático en la Península de Yucatán. Mérida: Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, Centro  de Ciencias de la Atmósfera–UNAM, FOMIX (CONACyT y Gobierno Del Estado De Yucatán); SEDUMA-­Gobierno del Estado De Yucatán; SIDETEY; and ONU-­PNUD. Orensanz, J.M. and Seijo, J.C. (eds). (2013) Rights-­based Management in Latin American Fisheries. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 582. Rome: FAO. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pech-­Várguez, J.L. (2002). El Caso Cancún. Paper presented at the Coloquio Internacional sobre Gobiernos Regionales y Desarrollo Sustentable en Economías basadas en el Turismo. 21 February 2002, Cancún, Quintana Roo. POGQR (Periódico Oficial del Gobierno de Quintana Roo). (2006). Decreto mediante el cual se reforma el programa de ordenamiento ecológico territorial de la región Costa Maya, Quintana Roo, México. 31 October 2006. [Online] URL: http://po.qroo.gob. mx/portal/index.php. [Accessed 5 October 2015]. Riehl, H. (1979). Climate and Weather in the Tropics. London: Academic Press. Salas, S., Bello, J., Ríos, V., Cabrera, M.A., Rivas, R. and Santamaría, A. (2005). Programa Maestro del Sistema-­Producto de las Pesquerías de Langosta en Yucatán. Unpublished manuscript. Mérida, Mexico: CONAPESCA-­SAGARPA-CINVESTAV Unidad Mérida. Salas, S., Ríos-Lara, G.V., Arce-­Ibarra, A.M., Velázquez-Abunader, I., Cabrera-­Vázquez, M.A., Cepeda-­González, M.F., Quijano-­Quiñones, D., Huchim-­Lara, R.O., Acosta-­ Cetina, J., Infante-­Ramírez, K.D. and Perez, A.U. (2012). Integración y Asistencia para la Concertación del Programa de Ordenamiento de la Pesquería de Langosta en la Península de Yucatán. Unpublished manuscript. CINVESTAV-­Mérida-INAPESCA-­ ECOSUR. Schmid, A.A. (1978). Property, Power and Public Choice: An Inquiry into Law and Economics. New York: Praeger. SECTUR (Secretaría de Turismo). (1992). Estadísticas Básicas de la Actividad Turística. [Online] URL: www.sectur.gob.mx. [Accessed 3 February 2015]. Seijo, J.C. (1993). Individual transferable grounds in a community managed artisanal fishery. Marine Resource Economics, 8: 78–81. Seijo, J.C. (2007). Considerations for management of metapopulations in small-­scale fisheries of the Mesoamerican barrier reef ecosystem. Fisheries Research, 87: 86–91. Seijo, J.C. and Fuentes, D. (1989). The spiny lobster fishery of Punta Allen, México. In: U. Tietze and P. Merikin (eds) Fisheries Credits Program and Revolving Loan Funds: Case Studies. Rome: FAO, Fisheries Technical Paper 212, pp. 89–100. Seijo, J.C. and Salas, S. (2014). The role of capacity building for improving governance of fisheries and conservation of marine ecosystems. In: S. Garcia, J. Rice and A. Charles (eds) Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interactions and Coevolution. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, pp. 373–384. Seijo, J.C., Villanueva-­Poot, R. and Charles, A. (2016). Bioeconomics of ocean acidification effects on fisheries targeting calcifier species: a decision theory approach. Fisheries Research, 176: 1–14. SMN (Sistema Meteorológico Nacional). (2014). CONAGUA. Reporte del Clima en México. Reporte Anual 2013. [Online] URL: http://smn.cna.gob.mx. [Accessed 27 January 2015].

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

80   A.M. Arce-Ibarra et al.

Sosa-­Cordero, F.E. (2011). La Langosta, Pesquería Emblemática de Quintana Roo. In: C. Pozo, N. Armijo Canto and S. Calmé (eds) Riqueza Biológica de Quintana Roo: Un Análisis para su Conservación, I. Mexico City: ECOSUR, CONABIO, Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo, and el Programa de Pequeñas Donaciones, pp. 221–227. Sosa-­Cordero, E., Liceaga-­Correa, M.L.A. and Seijo, J.C. (2008). The Punta Allen lobster fishery: current status and recent trends. In: R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida (eds) Case Studies in Fisheries Self-­Governance. Rome: FAO, Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, pp. 149–162. Thomassiny-­Acosta, J.S. (2010). Análisis de los Modos de Vida de Mahahual y Xcalak y su Relación con el Estado de Conservación del Arrecife de Coral. MSc dissertation. Chiapas, Mexico: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Torres, R. and Momsen, J. (2005). Planned tourism development in Quintana Roo, Mexico: engine for regional development or prescription for inequitable growth? Current Issues in Tourism, 8(4): 259–285.

5 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformations of the reef, transformations of the mind Marine aquarium trade in Bali, Indonesia James Barclay (Jack) Frey and Fikret Berkes

The problem: cyanide use kills reefs The live aquarium-­fish trade which involves the capture of ornamental fish from the coral reef is problematic because of the destructive processes used. This chapter focuses on efforts in one Indonesian community (Les) to solve this problem. The global trade in these fish, which started in the Philippines in the 1960s, involves exports mainly from South East Asia to North America and Europe. Use of cyanide in ornamental fishing inflicts damage on corals at a time when coral reef ecosystems are also coming under many other kinds of environmental pressures (Hughes et al., 2010). Destructive environmental change, including over-­exploitation of certain reef fish populations, can result in undesirable ecosystem transformation in the entire coral reef ecosystem (McClanahan et al., 2011; Fujita et al., 2014). Ornamental fishers use cyanide because it causes fish to become sluggish and easy to catch. However, the high toxicity of cyanide can result in up to 90 per cent mortality of the captured fish (Rubec et al., 2001). Worse, non-­target species and organisms are also killed, including the eggs and larvae of commercial and food species (Johannes and Riepen, 1995). Perhaps the most serious effect is on the health of coral reef ecosystems that provide biodiverse and productive environments. The main mechanism for damage is that cyanide kills corals’ algal symbionts, which are responsible for photosynthesis (Jones and Steven, 1997). Over time, the net effect is the diminished ecological capacity and overall productivity of the reef – and the reduction of fishing community livelihoods. The marine aquarium trade case provides a striking illustration of three of the themes explored by this volume. First, the ornamental fishery is an example of linked social-­ecological systems. What happens in the coral reef is influenced by fishing practices, fishers’ knowledge and world views, and their institutions. The consequences of these practices and the factors that underlie them, in turn, impact

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

82   J. Frey and F. Berkes

the ecosystem, as well as fisher incomes and livelihoods. Hence, ecological losses or gains confer livelihood losses or gains. Second, cyanide fishing is a case of the tragedy of the commons driven by ‘roving bandits’, mobile fishing enterprises (and their local harvesters) who can move around the globe, exploiting resources in response to global market opportunities (Berkes et al., 2006; Berkes, 2010). The ‘tragedy’ occurs because when most fishers are using cyanide, all fishers are compelled to use cyanide; otherwise they cannot compete and make a living. Third, the case shows that solutions through new governance arrangements are possible, and they involve technological innovation and a deliberate transformation involving multi-­level collaboration. Here we define deliberate transformation as a fundamental shift in the social-­ ecological system, and the governance processes and institutions through which societies make decisions to seek alternative development pathways (O’Brien, 2012; see Chapter 1, this volume). The transformation may be triggered by an ecological crisis that motivates the community to question its own destructive practices; it also involves a number of other ‘ingredients’, such as leadership, individual learning and social learning, trust building, and the availability of partners (Seixas and Davy, 2008; Gutiérrez et al., 2011). Collective action is enabled by self-­organisation (Ostrom, 1990; Folke et al., 2005) to create a new institutional arrangement, the ornamental fishers’ association in our case. The institution enables the community to make and enforce its own rules within its fishing area through social means. However, in the present case, communities and fishers lack secure property rights under Indonesian law, so the transformation is not robust (Frey and Berkes, 2014). Also, market structures make it difficult to establish community conservation incentives, an impediment to the diffusion or ‘scaling up’ of the Les experiment. How the transformation of the reef came about in Les through the transformation of the fishers’ minds, the objective of this chapter, is significant because it provides insights regarding how environmental degradation can be reversed and the factors involved in such a transformation. However, Les is an exception among communities of ornamental fishers, many of which continue to use cyanide. The chapter explores these issues, starting with some background, tracing the historical evolution of the marine aquarium trade in the area, the coral reef crisis and the transformation of the ornamental fishery, followed by an analysis of opportunities, challenges and the lessons learned.

Study area and methods The study was carried out in Buleleng District, Bali, Indonesia, with data collection in 11 coastal communities (Figure 5.1). Les, the primary community of study, has some 8000 residents, nearly all of whom are Hindu. The population varies according to season and availability of local employment, with some people working across Bali, particularly in construction and fishing. Agriculture is limited in the area due to the presence of volcanic mountains immediately to the south. The land is characterised by steep slopes, and according to fishers at Les, the sea reaches a

Transformations of the reef and of the mind   83

A, B

C D

Singaraja

E,

F

G Les

H, I

N

Buleleng District

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Bali

0 FI5.1 

15

30 km

 he study area. Les, the primary research site, is on the east side of the T north coast. Other sites where data were collected are labelled on the map, A through I: Pejarakan, Sumberkima, Pemuteran, Pidada, Kampong Baru, Tejakula, Penuktukan and Sembirenteng, respectively

depth of 30–40 m within 100 m of the shore. The shoreline and adjacent seafloor across Buleleng varies, with some regions dominated by sand and others by large rocks, as in Les. These features directly influence the local marine ecology, shape tourism-­related activities and affect the ease with which fishers can access resources. Important economic activities in the coastal areas of the District include fishing and collection (for both ornamental and food species); aquaculture (shrimp, fish, seaweed, pearls); salt production; boat building and repair; and tourism. Tourism revenues are commonly received by hotels, ‘homestays’ (losmen) and restaurants; dive operators and other providers of ecotourism; and personal charters and guides (usually with some level of foreign-­language ability). In this regard, the economic benefits of tourism in the region tend to accrue to a limited number of individuals, and are often poorly distributed across communities, as well as across social and gender lines (Long and Kindon, 1997). Les was selected as the primary community of focus based on observations made during a 2006 field visit by Berkes. Nine other sites were selected based on the presence of ornamental fishers’ associations, or because of high numbers of ornamental fishers. Communities were accessed through a community researcher, an ornamental fisher from Les who also acted as translator. The research was conducted in a participatory manner with the cooperation of local fisher groups, local NGOs and enterprises, and researchers from Bogor Agricultural University. The research used a case study approach. Methods included semi-­structured and key informant interviews; participant observation and diving transects; and focus groups. There are a total of 50 active ornamental fishers in Les, 16 of which were interviewed. In total, 33 people at Les and 18 elsewhere were interviewed. The data

84   J. Frey and F. Berkes

were triangulated, verified and cross-­checked with the community and other stakeholders for validity and accuracy. More details of methods may be found in Frey (2012).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

A chronology of the marine aquarium trade in Buleleng District This section provides a historical perspective of ecological stressors of the coral reefs in Buleleng, as well as a chronology of the marine aquarium trade. The case at Les highlights the devastating impact human activities can have on ecological systems, as well as the potential for institutional changes to positively transform human behaviours and degraded ecosystems. Table 5.1 gives the timeline of events associated with the marine aquarium trade in Buleleng from the 1960s to 2012.

Before the marine aquarium trade (1960s and 1970s) Although the activities associated with the marine aquarium trade have had devastating effects upon the coral reefs in Buleleng, and across the Indo-­Pacific in general (Barber and Pratt, 1998), damage from other causes was incurred earlier. A particularly harmful form of fishing is blast fishing (dynamite fishing), in which fishers drop explosives into the water to kill or stun fish for easy capture. This practice also causes severe damage to living coral and the underlying skeletal framework of the reef (Fox et al., 2005). Subsequent wave action and currents cause the loose coral rubble to shift across the seafloor, hindering the natural process of coral recruitment. Although blast fishing has been illegal in Indonesia since 1985, according to journalist Ret Talbot, the practice is still widespread. It was commonplace to hear seven bombs go off near the coast of this village each day. (Dive operator) The reef just became worse and worse. All day long we heard boom, boom, boom. (Ornamental fisher A) Although respondents from various parts of Buleleng stated that, at one time or another, blast fishing was fairly commonplace on the reefs adjacent to their communities, the practice was not common at Les. This is important because, although other damages to the coral reefs at Les did occur, the underlying structures of the reefs nevertheless remained intact. Consequently, although the living coral and other biota on the reef had been severely damaged, the reef remained architecturally sound, so that when the stressors to the reef were eliminated, it was capable of rapid regeneration, relative to reefs that had been dynamite-­fished. Additionally, the absence of blast fishing at Les may have provided local fishers with a unique perspective to identify cyanide as a principal cause of damage to coral reefs, whereas

Transformations of the reef and of the mind   85

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

TABLE 5.1  Timeline of marine aquarium trade (MAT), Les, Buleleng (1960s–2012)

1960s–1970s

•  Damage to reefs caused by coral mining, vessel anchoring and groundings (at other villages, damage also caused by blast fishing)

1980s

•  MAT expands significantly in Bali

1982

•  First ornamental fishers in Les, taught by fishers from East Java

1986

•  Cyanide first used by fishers on reefs at Les •  Reefs still ‘healthy’ (40%1 live coral cover)

1990

•  All fishers at Les adopt cyanide use •  Damage by pollution and sedimentation •  Precipitous decline in health of reefs (25% live coral cover) •  Numerous ornamental fish middlemen

2000

•  Coral reefs in state of crisis (|z|

0.0808236 –1.614371 –0.0462164 –0.0848168 –4.3106 –0.1233257 –0.297623 –3.805223

0.3345122 0.9186184 0.0162025 0.0702245 0.0000534 0.7960769 0.2496771 –0.0062182

95% confidence interval

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community participation in biosphere reserves   127 TAB7.3  Results of the regression analysis for the ecological/biodiversity outcomes

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Ecological/biodiversity Coefficient outcome Community   participation Date Density PPP Constant

Standard error

0.1445118 0.0834145 –0.0225093 0.0253251 –0.0000123 1.437569

0.021089 0.0555471 0.0000159 0.7701338

z

P>|z| 95% confidence interval

1.73

0.083

–0.0189775 0.3080012

–1.07 0.46 –0.77 1.87

0.286 0.648 0.440 0.062

–0.0638431 –0.0835452 –0.0000435 –0.0718658

0.0188244 0.1341954 0.0000189 2.947003

These results are based on a very simple analysis of association between community participation and ecological/biodiversity and social/economic outcomes in biosphere reserves. Because they are based on data from a single time period, they cannot be viewed as having a causal import, but they do suggest that community participation goes together with a greater likelihood of improvement in ecological/ biodiversity and social/economic outcomes. The results also suggest that a clearer understanding of why community participation has a statistically significant association with outcomes of interest requires closer examination through more qualitative work. We therefore consider these linkages in the context of our case study.

Camargue (Rhone delta) Biosphere Reserve in southern France In this section, we explore further how community participation is linked to positive outcomes in biosphere reserves. We pay particular attention to the definition of community, noting that the local coastal community does not exist per se in the field, but rather is permanently redefined according to social-­ecological problems and individual and collective concerns. We also explore how increased participation and institutional diversity shape both the vulnerability and resilience of a specific coastal wetland biosphere reserve in France and help to conserve and sustainably use the natural resources and their cultural landscape. In this regard, we focus on institutions – defined as rules in use and norms that govern the local society, as well as the formal organisations that manage the landscape (Ostrom, 2005). The term ‘coastal’ is used here to refer to the area in the sea and on the land near the coast (i.e. no more than 50 km inland), a region in which commonly managed coastal resources (i.e. wetlands, fisheries, waterfowl) have been reduced all over the world with changes in property rights or with poorly conceived commodification or land privatisation (Berkes and Folke, 2000). The analysis of both biodiversity and water management in Camargue shows the ‘ecologisation’ (i.e. the integration of environmental constraints within the decision-­making process) of the landscape and how this conflictual social process contributed on the one hand to reinforcing both a sense of place and the resilience of the local community to social, economic and ecological changes, and, on the other hand, to underpinning the objectives of the biosphere reserve which are to preserve this unique natural and cultural landscape.

128   M. Bouamrane et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

The Delta du Rhone (Camargue) Biosphere Reserve social-­ecological system The Camargue lies in the Rhone River delta on the Mediterranean coast in south­east France. This deltaic system covers an area of about 145,000 ha and is characterised by a mosaic of fresh, brackish and saline wetlands interspersed with areas used by intensive agriculture or industries (Mathevet, 2004). It is recognised as a wetland of international importance due to the diversity of its ecosystems and the large numbers of breeding and wintering waterbirds (i.e. Ramsar site, Tamisier and Dehorter, 1999). Covering about 16 per cent of the whole area, rice is the most widespread crop in the delta, either in rotation with wheat or in monoculture; the alternative crops being limited by soil salinity (Barbier and Mouret, 1996). The construction of embankments, which started in the early Middle Ages, was finished during the second part of the nineteenth century. The dikes contributed to the isolation of the deltaic land from its natural drivers: the Rhone River and the sea. Water control is an ongoing issue for each stakeholder (State, landowners, fishers, farmers, hunters, conservationists) and thus the source of regular social conflicts. The Camargue paradox rests, on the one hand, on the necessity to protect the land from floods (i.e. natural flooding dynamics and their consequences being impacted by the general seashore erosion, and the artificialisation of the Rhone River catchment area) but also from stagnant water (i.e. which led to a malaria crisis and which makes crop cultivation difficult) and, on the other hand, on the necessity to irrigate crops or freshwater marshes to combat summer drought and rising salt levels. Presently, in the face of global climate change and the growing involvement of local stakeholders in participatory regional planning, the managers of the Delta du Rhone Biosphere Reserve are developing adaptive co-­management strategies and methods to adjust land use and conservation policies to the effects of climate change, agricultural policy evolution, industrialisation, urbanisation, tourism development, Rhone River flooding and rising sea levels.

The biodiversity crisis, landscape change and institutional interactions At the end of the nineteenth century some poets and writers from the Provence region created a symbolic value based on the idea of a nature that was spoiled and threatened by progress, as was the case with other French regions, which were losing their local lingua franca and traditions (Allard, 1992; Picon, 1988; Pelen and Martel, 1990; Mathevet, 2004). The Camargue thus became the last remnant of ‘wild’ nature, but also of enduring local traditions. The poets and writers selected the most interesting traditions and some features were invented to make them distinguishable from those resulting from the cultural normalisation process initiated by the French State. The fate of the Camargue’s gardians (i.e. local cowboys that are residents and amateurs who promote the outfits, horsemanship and tradition of the land of the bulls) became an emblem of a traditional society that was seen to be living in harmony with the wild, primitive and rough nature of the Rhone River

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community participation in biosphere reserves   129

delta. In a few decades the landscape of the Camargue, comprised of vast halophytic scrublands, freshwater and brackish marshes and lagoons, became an emblem of ‘wild nature’ that was to be protected from progress. This process contributed to the creation of the first national reserve in 1927 (Picon, 1988). This myth-­ construction also contributes to the sense of place and the sense of belonging among the landowners, farm workers and inhabitants and led to the demise of the former vision of the Camargue as a land of conquest for farmers, an under-­exploited wetland that should be drained, symbolising the growing domination of nature by  science and technology that had occurred during the previous centuries (Mathevet, 2004). After the Second World War, subsidies and an attractive national market contributed to the speeding up of the development of rice cultivation. In the 1960s, specific agricultural policies contributed to a huge increase of the area under rice cultivation at the expense of halophytic scrublands, some marshes and vine fields. After this expansionist period, price stagnation combined with cultivation issues and increasing costs led to a progressive reduction of the rice cultivated areas to the benefit of wheat and sunflowers, as well as commercial hunting marshes in the lowlands. During the 1980s and until the mid-­1990s, a national plan supported rice farmers to redevelop their activity, just before they were faced with another dramatic decrease with changes in the international agricultural market and the European Union’s common agricultural policies. The creation of the National Reserve of the Camargue, before the Second World War, symbolised nature protection in France (Picon, 1988). Additional protected areas, through land acquisition, were progressively created and represent about 22 per cent of the whole surface area of the delta in 2015. A Natural Regional Park (covering three-­fifths of the total surface area of the Rhone delta) was created at the beginning of the 1970s to conciliate development and nature conservation. Natural regional parks (Parc natural regional or PNR) are contract-­based parks established between local authorities and the French national government stemming from a bottom-­up initiative and participatory process. PNRs are subject to guidelines for managing urban development, farming and tourism activities, and must promote natural and cultural heritage conservation through scientific research programmes, environmental education and public awareness programmes. This governance organisation (i.e. legal status of a private foundation funded by public subsidies) was not really efficient until the 2000s, due to the power held by local landowners in the decision-­making process. For 30 years, they managed to avoid strong environmental constraints on their activities. The Natural Regional Park extended its surface to the eastern part of the delta and is now managed by local and regional authorities, with the entire delta becoming a biosphere reserve in 2006. Camargue Biosphere Reserve was designated in 1976, among the first biosphere reserves of the World Network. Initially, it consisted solely of the Camargue nature reserve. It was extended in 2006 after a periodic review and changed its name to Delta du Rhone to reflect this important extension and to highlight more complex interactions.

Its governance is ensured by a syndicat mixte. It is an association of municipalities and other local authorities that pool financial resources and work together on common projects. It can be considered as a sort of joint initiative between local government agencies with the aim of promoting landscape conservation, tourism development in the Camargue based on a combination of bottom-­up participatory processes and deliberative approach with representatives of landowners and direct or indirect users and NGOs (Mathevet, 2004). Figure 7.2 shows the huge development of farmlands at the expense of natural habitats, which mainly took place during the 1950s and the 1960s, and contributed to reinforcing the myth of the ‘fragile Camargue’, threatened by progress. New organisations (Natural Regional Park, NGOs) and institutions (laws, regulations) modified this discourse to address environmental issues. In the first period (until the 1970s), the vision of the Camargue as unspoiled and wild nature was established and its cultural heritage value was created in connection to both its traditions and landscapes. In the second period, mainly during the 1980s and 1990s, the same institutions and organisations acknowledged and developed the idea that the Camargue was a human-­dominated landscape and, as such, it had to be managed to save its biodiversity value. Bridging organisations, contractual tools, management plans, scenario simulations and participatory approaches (Mathevet et al., 2003, 2007) facilitated the development of adaptive-­management strategies for both water

Percentage of 145,000 ha (Rhone River delta) or index value

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

130   M. Bouamrane et al.

Biodiversity crisis in the Camargue

120

100

80 Protected area (%) Agricultural area (%)

60

Natural area (%) Institutional index Breeding bird species (number) Probability of species loss (×102)

40

20

0

1942

1953

1976

1984

1995

2005

2010

Year Figure 7.2 

 raph depicting change in land use and impact on bird species between G 1942 and 2010

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community participation in biosphere reserves   131

control and natural habitat management in both public and privately owned areas (i.e. about 80 per cent of the land). Since the mid-­1980s, ecological restoration programmes have helped to reduce and stabilise the annual loss rate of natural habitats with the establishment of new protected areas on former farmlands. Despite this improvement and the reduction of the probability of extinction of bird species (i.e. from 0.07 to 0.02), coupled with the growth of three to four new breeding species every decade on average (Barbraud et al., 2004), the number of regulations and organisations increased, due to the perception of a threatened wild Camargue. These organisations are mutually supportive in terms of aims, competences and functioning (i.e. when one leading organisation is faced with some issues, another organisation will take the lead on conservation matters) but are competing more and more for public financial support. Power relationships among them as well as with resource users explains that none of them really addressed the air and water pollution issues mainly generated by industrial and intensive farming areas located upstream and nearby. In addition, national and EU policies which are driving the local land use dynamics (i.e. agriculture and environmental policies) were not implementing cross-­sectoral approaches. The catastrophic flooding crisis which occurred in 1994 and 2003 led (1) to a drastic change in the power relationships between local actors at the expense of the landowners who used to control almost the entire social system since the creation of the Natural Regional Park in the 1970s, to the benefit of the public authorities and the inhabitants (i.e. the latter created an NGO to express their willingness to fully integrate the decision-­making process related to landscape management); and (2) to the reorganisation of the whole flooding control system (i.e. both control institutions and maintenance of levees). Today, the ‘natural’ lands that could not be farmed during the two last centuries represent the very identity of the Camargue and constitute its main assets for sustainable development (Mathevet, 2004). Ecotourism, waterfowling and development of outdoor activities have enhanced the economic value of the remaining wetlands. There is some consensus among conservation scientists that the biodiversity issue is linked presently to (1) the stabilisation of salt and water levels; and (2) the change from large surface areas of natural Mediterranean habitats to small and embanked areas of European freshwater marshes. By losing its specificity of being a dynamic, unpredictable landscape, this Mediterranean wetland is transformed into a ‘common place’ (Tamisier and Dehorter, 1999). However, despite this major ecological trend, Camargue history highlights the role of sense of place in fostering social-­ecological resilience, and in providing a foundation to support deliberate transformation.

Sense of place and resilience The breeding of livestock illustrates how the sense of place and cultural factors contributed to the development of new management regimes in the Camargue. Since

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

132   M. Bouamrane et al.

the Middle Ages, extensive grazing of wetlands in large estates by local breeds of bulls and horses was widespread. These hardy and primitive animals were used for farming work and for their meat until the eighteenth century. The mechanisation of the farming system reduced the interest to breed such animals, which led to a dramatic decrease in the number and size of herds during the nineteenth century. However, the development of ‘bull games’ contributed to the revival of the breeds while the ovine populations decreased in the face of international market changes. At the beginning of the century, the development of vine cultivation and cultural drivers were superimposed onto the hard natural factors that had previously contributed to the maintenance of the species and gave to livestock breeding an economic profitability (i.e. people pay to visit ranches, to see bull games or to enjoy local horsemanship). A major change took place from the beginning of the twentieth century. The Camargue was initially a place of sheep grazing. But the accumulation of economic problems during the century associated with the decrease of the grazing areas (i.e. dry natural habitats being converted into crop fields), the absence of social valorisation of the job of shepherd, and tourism development around the bull breeding activity contributed to a drastic decline in sheep numbers in the whole delta. The development of touristic activities in the Camargue’s farming system is rare within the French farming system. The growth in the number of bulls and the number of farms came with a dramatic reduction of the grazing areas together with the expansion of rice cultivation. This phenomenon increased the competition for accessing remnant wetlands and grazing areas between livestock breeders, and some of them developed a more intensive grazing system by creating meadows and fodder crops. In contrast to rice cultivation, the development and maintenance of the breeding systems for bulls and horses in the Camargue is not based on external economic markets. Rather, it is linked to cultural factors, which by giving an economic profitability to this activity contributed to moderating the impact of rice cultivation on natural habitats, and opened a new way of conversion for sheep breeders in difficulties. Obviously the cultural features of the Camargue contributed to limiting the crop development acting as a buffer against the rice crop conversion and the social and economic impacts of international sheep market changes. The resilience of the Camargue cultural landscape is mostly based on the relationships between the mix of land uses, the mosaic and patchy landscape. Based on the reversibility of water management regimes at local scales (reed harvesting/duck hunting, rice/wheat cropping, bull breeding/rice farming), water levels trigger the flips between states; thus water management at smaller scales by a diversity of stakeholders reinforces the heterogeneity of land cover at the landscape level (Mathevet et al., 2011). New socio-­cultural regimes can have profound consequences on the functioning of the social-­ecological system (SES) at different scales and in different domains (Mathevet et al., 2015). The priority given to the economic valorisation of natural habitats by the landowners (e.g. commercial waterfowling, bull grazing, reed harvesting) led to (1) the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community participation in biosphere reserves   133

specialisation of management and of land cover at the local scale; (2) the increase of the complexity of interdependencies; and (3) the increase in diversity of land cover at the larger scale of the region (Mathevet, 2004; Mathevet and Mesléard, 2002). The environmental history of this region shows that social crisis (frequent changes in agricultural market, global economy and both agricultural and environmental policies) limited the overarching domination of a single activity (i.e. rice farming), as ecological crisis used to do in the past at a larger scale (i.e. sea and river floods). At a larger scale, the growing complexity of land use increased the number of institutions and the complexity of water control. To overcome regional and national governance structures that are hierarchical and often unresponsive to local interests, we observed the development of informal relationships among local interest groups and authorities aiming to address issues at scale (Mathevet, 2004). The resulting inter-­organisational and redundant networks across multiple levels, and polynuclear frameworks that formally or informally institutionalise cooperation or conflicts are a form of participatory polycentric governance (Ostrom, 2005) mostly based on conservationist and land user leaders’ engagements and social learning processes. The search for decreasing ecological vulnerabilities (i.e. sea level rise, climate change) increases economic vulnerabilities, given that simplification of the social and ecological system might be a social trap. As we have seen, in the Camargue there is a clear link between social and ecological resilience, as the different landscape users are usually dependent for their livelihoods on ecological processes (i.e. related to salt/freshwater dynamics, floods from the sea or the river) and environmental resources (i.e. reed harvesting, bull grazing, duck hunting, fishing) (Mathevet, 2004; Mathevet et al., 2015). Studies on landscape change over time demonstrate the co-­evolutionary dimension of the social and natural systems. Resilient coastal wetland ecosystems (i.e. local ecosystems can undergo management and/or land use changes and still retain the same function and structure while maintaining options to develop) facilitate resilient communities, the social and economic systems being more or less adaptive and resilient to external environmental or market stresses. By promoting farming intensification, water pollution and land concentration, the market liberalisation and the EU Common Agricultural Policy reduce the resilience of ecosystems as well as social systems (i.e. increasing the vulnerability of local inhabitants, land users and wildlife by increasing the exposure to economic or practice perturbations, and by reducing the capacity to adapt due to a ‘path dependency’ to farm machines and technologies). However, during the last 20 years, environmental policy and participatory and bottom-­up approaches developed either by the Natural Regional Park authority, local nature reserve managers or local scientists in the context of action­research projects have contributed to limiting the loss of ecological and social resilience. The cumulative effects of all these various initiatives contributed to reinforcing the collective institutional resilience that was undermined by several decades of privatisation, intensive farming and tourism development. The resilience of local bridging organisations, such as the Natural Regional Park authority, or local

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

134   M. Bouamrane et al.

institutions, such as the Camargue sense of place and tradition, is determined by permanent or frequent participatory processes that reinforce the social capital (i.e. social networks where interactions are marked by trust and cooperation and where the actors contribute to common good and collective interest). The Camargue is a land of tradition also opened to external technical changes and innovations (i.e. farming systems, water management). It is favoured by a cultural context of institutional adaptation to changes based on stakeholder social reactivity. The issue at stake is to always set an arena to discuss and collectively define the desirable characteristic of a resilient delta and design the ways to transform the social-­ecological conditions to reach this desirable state despite local land use conflicts. To improve community participation in regional planning and collective actions, several approaches have been explored during the last three decades. Participatory modelling such as companion modelling (Antona et al., 2003; Etienne, 2011; Le Page et al., 2013) seems useful to facilitate the individual and collective exploration of ecological solidarity by discussing moral, social, cultural and economic values of social-­ecological interdependencies (Mathevet et al., 2003, 2007; Mathevet, 2012). This approach integrates the plurality of perspectives and perception of the social-­ ecological community being formed by humans and non-­humans and the evolution of the interactions of these interrelationships. This approach facilitates the identification of adaptations or necessary transformations to ensure the continuity of the present state and desired functioning of the SES. Individually and collectively recognising and acknowledging ecological solidarity provides insights into the importance of social capital for the well-­being and resilience of the social-­ecological community (Mathevet and Bousquet, 2014). Finally, the Camargue Biosphere Reserve case study illustrates that it is not enough to focus solely on the patterns and practices of resource uses and their adaptation to a changing social and physical environment (Cumming et al., 2015). To study social-­ecological resilience of coastal and wetland communities, we need to focus on the access/control of resources and the accumulation of capital, but also to explore discourses, knowledge and social representations (Mathevet et al., 2015, 2016). The shifts between regimes are driven by environmental or technological perturbations that in turn are driven by economic dynamics and environmental policies, but also the sense of place of the local community.

Conclusion The analysis of community participation in this chapter highlights several lessons regarding how communities can govern and manage biodiversity and coastal areas in a tightly connected world. First, the quantitative analysis of the association between participation and economic and ecological outcomes, drawing upon a dataset on biosphere reserves that we created from individual country reports, shows that community or stakeholder participation in the management of a biosphere reserve has a positive association with both social and ecological outcomes. Both national and local institutions (i.e. management plans) contribute to the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community participation in biosphere reserves   135

improvement of natural resource management and to the conservation of biodiversity. Although the causal direction is difficult to identify through the data we possess, the quantitative analysis suggests productive directions for future investigations. In particular, it suggests the need to investigate through more qualitative approaches why community participation may have a positive association with social and ecological outcomes. The Camargue case study shows how the local communities of this coastal wetland adapted to change, and developed a governance system to build social-­ecological resilience and to transform untenable ecological, social or economic conditions for their own interests, values and environmental quality of life. This case study highlights that the key ingredients of the governance and of social-­ecological resilience are (1) an intensive participatory governance based on social learning and co-­production of knowledge processes; (2) involvement of interactive and redundant social networks across multiple levels; and (3) recognition that ‘local community’ does not exist and is built according to the problem to be resolved and the scales that are involved in that resolution. When transformation occurs in some aspect of the SES, and community participation is enhanced, there is an obvious need to carefully explore whether community values within the SES have actually changed or whether value tensions exist (and continue from before). Coping with change and social learning is important to facilitate institutional and technical innovations in the context of biosphere reserves. Indeed, these also constitute critical future challenges for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to warmly thank and acknowledge the contributions of Antoine Messager, Leila Mekias, Elleore Bomstein and Melina Gesberg in the building of the database during their internships at UNESCO. Raphaël Mathevet would like to thank stakeholders, professional and non-professional historians, and archives staff for participating in or commenting on the study of the Camargue. The work took place in the SETER Project supported by the Agropolis Fondation and the research project ‘Multi-­scale adaptations to global change and their impacts on vulnerability in coastal areas’ (MAGIC), funded by the French National Research Agency and the Belmont Forum and G8 International Opportunities Fund (IOF, 2013).

References Allard, P. (1992). Arles et ses terroirs 1820–1910. Mémoires et documents de géographie. Nouvelle collection. Paris: Edition du CNRS. Antona, M., D’Aquino, P., Aubert, S., Barreteau, O., Boissau, S., Bousquet, F., Daré, W., Etienne, M., Le Page, C., Mathevet, R., Trébuil, G. and Weber, J. (Collectif Commod). (2003). Our companion modelling approach (La modélisation comme outil d’accompagnement). Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 6(2). [Online] URL: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html. [Accessed 7 January 2017].

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

136   M. Bouamrane et al.

Barbier, J.M. and Mouret, J.C. (1996). Qualité du produit et qualité de l’environnement: des connaissances à l’aide aux agriculteurs. In: Qualité et compétitivité des riz européens. CIHEAM (Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes), Cah. Options Méditerranéennes, 15(4): 127–135. Barbraud, C., Sadoul, N., Kayser, Y., Pineau, O. and Isenmann, P. (2004). Evolution du peuplement des oiseaux reproducteurs en Camargue dans les temps récents. In: P. Isenmann (ed.) Les oiseaux de Camargue et leurs habitats: Une histoire de cinquante ans 1954–2004. Paris: Buchet Chastel. Berkes, F. and Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, 1: 13–20. Berkes, F. and Folke C. (2000). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 476. Berkes, F. and Ross, H. (2013). Community resilience: toward an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 26(1): 5–20. [Online] URL: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.736605. Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E.L., Burn Silver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T.M., Evans, L.S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A.M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp­Hearne, C., Robards, M.D., Schoon M.L., Schultz, L. and West, P.C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37: 421–448. Blondel, J., Barruol, G. and Vianet, R. (sous.dir.). (2013). L’encyclopédie de la Camargue. Paris: Buchet Chastel. Bouamrane, M. (ed.). (2006). Biodiversity and stakeholders: concertation itineraries. Biosphere reserves technical notes 1. Paris: UNESCO. [Online] URL: http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146566e.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Bouamrane, M. (ed.). (2007). Dialogue in biosphere reserves, references, practices and experiences. Biosphere reserves technical notes 2. UNESCO, Paris. [Online] URL: http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001591/159164F.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Coles, E. and Buckle, P. (2004). Developing community resilience as a foundation for effective disaster recovery. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 19(4): 6–15. Cumming, G.S., Allen, C.R., Ban, N.C., Biggs, D., Biggs, H.C., Cumming, D.H.M., De Vos, A., Epstein, G., Etienne, M., Maciejewski, K., Mathevet, R., Moore, C., Nenadovic, M. and Schoon, M. (2015). Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-­scale, social-­ecological approach. Ecological Applications, 25(2): 299–319. Etienne, M. (ed.). (2011). Companion Modelling: A Participatory Approach to Support Sustainable Development. Editions Quae. Versailles: Springer, p. 347. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S. and Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31(5): 437–440. Hanna, S. (1995). User participation and fishery management performance within the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Ocean & Coastal Management, 28(1): 23–44. IOF. (2013). 2013 International Opportunities Fund. [Online] URL: https://belmontforum.org/iof-­2013. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Le Page, C., Bazile, D., Becu, N., Bommel, P., Bousquet, F., Etienne, M., Mathevet, R., Souchère, V., Trébuil, G. and Weber, J. (2013). Agent-­based modelling and simulation applied to environmental management. In: B. Edmonds and R. Meyer (eds) Simulating Social Complexity. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-­Verlag, pp. 499–540. Mathevet, R. (2004). Camargue incertaine. Sciences, usages et natures. Paris: Buchet-­Chastel.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community participation in biosphere reserves   137

Mathevet, R. (2012). La solidarité écologique: Ce lien qui nous oblige. Arles: Ed. Actes Sud. Mathevet, R. and Bousquet, F. (2014). Résilience et environnement: Penser les changements socio­écologiques. Paris: Buchet-­Chastel. Mathevet, R. and Mesléard, F. (2002). The origins and functioning of the private wildfowling lease system in a major Mediterranean wetland: the Camargue (Rhone delta, southern France). Land Use Policy, 19(4): 277–286. Mathevet, R., Etienne, M., Lynam, T. and Calvet, C. (2011). Water management in the Camargue Biosphere Reserve: insights from comparative mental models analysis. Ecology and Society, 16(1): 43. Mathevet, R., Le Page, C., Etienne, M., Lefebvre, G., Poulin, B., Gigot, G., Proréol, S. and Mauchamp, A. (2007). ButorStar: a role-­playing game for collective awareness of wise reedbed use. Simulation & Gaming, 38(2): 233–262. Mathevet, R., Mauchamp, A., Lifran, R., Poulin, B. and Lefebvre, G. (2003). ReedSim: simulating ecological and economical dynamics of Mediterranean reedbeds. In: D. Post (ed.) Integrative Modelling of Biophysical, Social and Economic Systems for Resource Management Solution. Townsville, Australia: Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc, pp. 1007–1012. Mathevet, R., Peluso, N., Couespel, A. and Robbins, P. (2015). Using historical political ecology to understand the present: water, reeds and biodiversity in the Camargue Biosphere Reserve, southern France. Ecology and Society, 20(4): 17. Mathevet, R., Thompson, J., Folke, C. and Chapin, S.F. (2016). Protected areas and their surrounding territory: social-­ecological systems in the context of ecological solidarity. Ecological Applications, 26(1): 5–16. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pelen, J.N. and Martel, C. (1990). L’homme et le taureau en Provence et Languedoc (histoire, vécus, représentations). Grenoble: Glénat. Picon, B. (1988). L’espace et le temps en Camargue. Arles: Ed. Actes Sud. Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652): 1912–1916. Price, M., Park, J.J. and Bouamrane, M. (2010). Reporting progress on internationally designated sites: the periodic review of biosphere reserves. Environmental Science & Policy, 13: 549–557. Schultz, L., Duit, A. and Folke, C. (2011). Participation, adaptive co-­management and management performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. World Development, 39: 662–671. Tamisier, A. and Dehorter, O. (1999). Camargue, canards et foulques: Fonctionnement et devenir d’un prestigieux quartier d’hiver. Nîmes: Centre Ornithologique du Gard. UNESCO. (1996). Biosphere reserves: the Seville strategy and the statutory framework of the world network. Paris: UNESCO. [Online] URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0010/001038/103849Eb.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017].

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

part II

Opportunities

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

8 Navigating the Transformation to Community-­Based Resource Management Jessica Blythe, Philippa Cohen, Kirsten Abernethy and Louisa Evans

Introduction Discourses of unprecedented and accelerated human impacts on the earth’s ecosystems underpin increasing scholarship on deliberate and desirable transformations towards sustainability (ISSC and UNESCO, 2013). While transformations in dynamic social-­ecological systems are inherently difficult to define and identify, they broadly describe a profound change when existing systems become untenable; a change that recombines existing elements of social-­ecological systems in fundamentally novel ways (Walker et al., 2004). Transformations in ecological systems can include changing stability landscapes or fundamental alterations in species composition and biomass (Biggs et al., 2009; McClanahan et al., 2011; Scheffer et al., 2012). In social systems, transformations can lead to restructuring of social institutions, changes in human agency, or new ways of making a living (Chapin et al., 2010). An emerging literature on transformational pathways aims to characterise transformative change and identify its key drivers (e.g. Biggs et al., 2010; Leach et  al., 2012; Olsson et al., 2006; Westley et al., 2011). Understanding how to deliberately trigger and navigate such transformations is an important frontier of sustainability science (Brown et al., 2013). In this chapter, we use the case of community-­based resource management (CBRM) in the Solomon Islands to contribute a critical social science perspective on navigating social transformations towards sustainability. As elsewhere, marine systems in the Pacific are under increasing pressure from a suite of interactive drivers, including weakening customary institutions and degradation of coastal ecosystems (Bell et al., 2009; Bennett et al., 2015). Globally, these changes provide strong impetus for transformation to new governance regimes that support flexible, adaptive management approaches that are tailored to place (Armitage et al., 2008; Barnett, 2001). The Pacific is held up as an example of the growing

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

142   J. Blythe et al.

momentum in the promotion and spread of CBRM, an approach that is believed to precipitate improvements in equity, inclusion and resource sustainability (Govan, 2009; Jupiter et al., 2014). In this chapter we ask: What critical elements characterise the transformation towards CBRM in the Pacific? We explore CBRM as a governance transformation in the Solomon Islands on the premise that the establishment of 137 co-­managed areas (500 across 15 South Pacific countries) represents a significant change in the country’s governance landscape (Govan et al., 2009). We analyse both the national context, and the more localised experiences of a cluster of five communities in Western Province. We begin by presenting our methods and background to the case study. In the section entitled ‘Windows of opportunity – enabling political environment’, we describe how windows of opportunity created the space for transformation towards CBRM. Progressing current thinking on transformations, we argue that windows of opportunity are multiple, not singular (e.g. Olsson et al., 2006) – they form in response to a collision of many, multi-­scaled processes, some peripheral to the transformation of focus. Our argument resembles earlier notions on the importance of multiple streams in creating opportunity for policy change (Kingdon, 1995). In the section entitled ‘Windows of opportunity – triggers for local governance transformation’, we describe the events that triggered communities to take action towards governance reform in five communities; two of which succeeded in implementing CBRM and three of which did not. In the section entitled ‘Transformations of what?’, we look into the governance system, focusing on the extent to which a transformation towards CBRM led to changes in: (1) rules and practices; (2) norms, values and beliefs; and (3) the distribution of power, authority and resources (Moore et al., 2014). Often resource users are the focus of institutional reform, and so in the section entitled ‘Transformations for whom?’, we bring a critical social science perspective to consider the questions: Who is driving transformation? For whose benefit? And from whose perspective is change considered to be transformative? To date, these questions have rarely benefited from empirical insights. We end with a discussion of the lessons generated through this case study that are broadly applicable to community-­driven transformations in the context of natural resource management.

Methods and background to the case study: CBRM in the Solomon Islands The Solomon Islands is an archipelago of more than 990 islands scattered across the Pacific Ocean. Coastal fisheries play a critical role in the livelihoods of Solomon Islanders, supplying daily protein requirements and serving as one of the few sources of cash income for the largely rural population. Customary tenure systems are enshrined in the national constitution. In general, tenure defines that specific clans have ownership of particular areas of land and the sea, and clan members have rights to decide how resources within those areas are used and shared. In many cases subsistence use rights are granted to the wider community (to different degrees) by

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating to community-based resource management   143

resource owners. Customary institutions are promoted as the foundation for national decentralisation strategies that aim to devolve power and responsibility away from centralised government agencies towards local-­level actors. For the past two decades, international, regional and local non-­governmental organisations (NGOs) have played a central role in supporting the roll-­out of CBRM across the  nation and in some cases facilitating links to central government (Cohen et al., 2013). Our case study draws on data produced over the past eight years through a CBRM project with a cluster of five communities in Western Province of the Solomon Islands. Data include those reported in peer-­reviewed papers (Abernethy et al., 2014; Cohen et al., 2013; Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015), grey literature (WorldFish, 2012, 2013) and unpublished documents (field notes, workshop minutes and community management plans). We employed an inductive qualitative approach for coding data (Saldaña, 2012). We also drew on the first-­hand experience of authors working with communities across the Solomon Islands on marine resource management, which enabled us to triangulate and expand our findings.

Windows of opportunity – enabling political environment A window of opportunity for transformation can open when three circumstances converge: a problem emerges, a contextually appropriate solution is possible, and the political climate is favourable (Kingdon, 1995; Olsson et al., 2006). Here, we describe the emergence of these conditions at Pacific regional level and at the national level in the Solomon Islands.

Identification of a problem Many actors report that weakening governance and accelerating environmental degradation are converging to present an emergent problem in the Solomon Islands. Officially, the central state is mandated with the responsibility for environmental governance in the country. Yet in practice, the efficacy and reach of resource management by the national government is limited and governing via local and traditional structures is, arguably, more influential. Contemporary contexts present a challenge to this governance arrangement since customary marine tenure is weakening (Macintyre and Foale, 2007), respect for traditional leaders and customs is in decline (Abernethy et al., 2014), and in the context of growing interests in marine areas for commercial exploitation or conservation, traditional ownership is increasingly contested. Simultaneously, pressures on coastal ecosystems are becoming more intense and diverse as a result of terrestrial run-­off from logging, mining, forestry and agriculture (Aswani et al., 2015), emerging climate change impacts (Cinner et al., 2015), and growing coastal populations (Bell et al., 2009). These problems have fuelled growing concern for natural resource management, demonstrated by the ten-­year investment in improving governance of marine resources in the Coral Triangle, which includes the Solomon Islands (MECM/MFMR, 2010),

144   J. Blythe et al.

the creation of an independent national Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (in 2007) and the development of new national policies on environment, fisheries and climate change.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Foundations for a solution Historically, governance of inshore fisheries in the Solomon Islands was based on customary tenure (Foale et al., 2011). Customary tenure systems define access and fishing rights, bans on some sectors of society consuming or fishing certain species, and temporary closures placed over fishing grounds (Hviding, 1998). These regulations were socially motivated to affirm claims on resources and to manage social relationships through mutual help, food-­sharing and reciprocity (Ruddle, 1998). It is less likely that these regulations were explicitly intended to achieve long-­term sustainability objectives (Foale et al., 2011). Nonetheless, customary institutions, such as tenure and taboos (i.e. customary restrictions), are recognised as an important foundation on which to build contemporary CBRM (Aswani et al., 2007; Govan, 2013).

Enabling political climate Multiple signs at the national, regional and global levels suggest that narratives about resource management are increasingly focused on community-­based approaches (Berkes, 2009). Internationally, CBRM has been championed for its ability to protect the rights of resource users, improve management legitimacy and achieve resource sustainability outcomes – though evidence of success remains mixed (Evans et al., 2011). In recent years, several regional policies in the Pacific, such as the ‘New Song for Pacific fisheries governance’, espouse high-­level support for CBRM and promote it as an important, or even primary, strategy to address coastal fisheries concerns (SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community) 2015). At the national level, CBRM is promoted by many external donors and NGOs, and is now enshrined in state environment and fisheries policy as a key tool to contribute towards the Solomon Islands’ commitments to international initiatives such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (Govan, 2009) and the Coral Triangle Initiative (MECM/MFMR, 2010). In summary, weakening governance in the context of declining natural resources (a problem), the identification of governance strategies that build on the strengths of customary institutions (a potential solution), and increasing policy support for devolved resource governance at several scales (an enabling political climate) contribute to a fertile environment for governance transformations in the Solomon Islands.

Navigating to community-based resource management   145

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Windows of opportunity – triggers for local governance transformation While the conditions for transformation might exist for many communities across the Solomon Islands, and indeed the broader Pacific, a window of opportunity must also ‘open’ at the local level. Here, we describe how a window of opportunity emerged for a cluster of five communities in Western Province. We highlight that while the window appeared open to all five communities, not all communities have succeeded in implementing or sustaining CBRM. In the months leading up to the establishment of CBRM, several pertinent events triggered communities’ action towards governance reform. In early 2007, local sea cucumber fisheries were faltering and a national ban was imposed. Arguably it was the rapid change in legislation (e.g. an open fishery shifting to a nationwide closure), more than localised declines in sea cucumber abundance, that influenced communities’ interest in alternative forms of marine governance. Simultaneously, an earthquake and tsunami in Western Province caused substantial destruction to villages and coastal habitats and severely disrupted livelihoods, with many fishers losing homes and fishing gear (Schwarz et al., 2011). While devastating, this provided an opportunity for WorldFish (an international research organisation) to visit communities for a rapid impact assessment. This brought WorldFish staff into contact with communities they had not previously engaged with. Finally, CBRM had been implemented in other villages in Western Province; some residents from the five communities had visited those villages and observed increased fish abundance within their closed marine areas. These observations were discussed locally, and generated, among some, enthusiasm within the community cluster about the potential of implementing CBRM in their villages. The culmination of these events prompted one community to seek assistance from WorldFish to help address their concerns about immediate and longer-­term marine resource management. In early discussions between WorldFish and community leaders, it became clear that five communities shared coral reefs and reciprocal marine resource use rights. The five communities considered themselves part of a common region and all had concerns about the state of their marine resources. As a result, all five communities were included in the marine management planning process. The first step in initiating the CBRM process was the selection of a management committee. The committee consisted of one or more leaders plus one or more representatives from each of the five communities. Over the course of a number of workshops, facilitated by WorldFish, the committee defined the management regions and drafted a management plan, which included management objectives and a set of resource use rules. Committee representatives took the draft plan back to their respective villages for discussion in open community meetings. Following several rounds of consultation between communities, the provincial government and WorldFish representatives, the CBRM plan was finalised in 2008.

146   J. Blythe et al.

Transformations of what?

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

In social systems, three dimensions can be expected to change during a transformation of governance: (1) rules and practices; (2) norms, values and beliefs; and (3) distribution of power, authority and resources (Moore et al., 2014). Using the three dimensions, we describe how the introduction of CBRM catalysed changes in the cluster of communities in Western Province.

Rules and practices People’s behaviour is guided by many types of rules or practices. Here, we describe how the introduction of CBRM in Western Province led to changes in operational, collective-­choice and constitutional rules (Ostrom, 2005). Operational rules define how a resource is accessed and used. They include formal and informal rules about what type of resources may be extracted, by whom, during what seasons, and using which harvesting gear type (McGinnis, 2011). For example, patterns of marine resource use may be influenced by informal local rules (e.g. gendered norms that prohibit women from using certain harvesting methods) or by formal national rules (e.g. national ban on the use of specific destructive gear). We observed three notable shifts in operational rules in the five cluster communities. First, the most common operational rule prior to CBRM was a customary taboo (e.g. temporary reef closures implemented in response to the death of an esteemed community member) (Foale et al., 2011). In contrast, CBRM introduced a suite of new rules, founded on ‘science-­based’ fisheries management and intended to reduce fishing effort on the more heavily exploited areas and to enhance ecological sustainability. These measures included restricting the times of harvesting, bans on the use of destructive gear, and bans on harvesting of juvenile animals (Cohen et al., 2013; Table 8.1a). Second, engagement in contemporary CBRM led to a shift in the way that area taboos were implemented; shifting from predominantly open taboos to taboos that remained closed for the majority of the year (Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015). Third, the introduction of CBRM led to the formalisation of operational rules. Resource use rules were written into management plans and posted on community notice boards. It should be noted, however, that the rules on paper did not always equate with the rules in practice (for more detail, see Cohen et al., 2013). Collective-­choice rules define who can make, modify or revoke operational rules and under what conditions (McGinnis, 2011). At the collective-­choice level, CBRM expanded decision-­making authority from resource-­owning clans to include members of non-­resource-owning clans, the broader community and the external CBRM partner (Table 8.1b). CBRM was designed such that decisions about marine resources were made collectively by the committee and community members were invited to contribute to the discussions. In this sense, transformation to CBRM was characterised by a shift towards more democratic collective-­choice rules. Yet in practice, community elites often retained final decision-­making power (Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015). For example, members of the management

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating to community-based resource management   147

committee who were not from a reef-owning clan were unable to deny a harvesting request from a member of a reef-owning clan. Constitutional rules determine who is authorised to participate in collective-­ choice rules (McGinnis, 2011). At the constitutional level, perceptible changes in national and regional policy (discussed in the section ‘Windows of opportunity – enabling political environment’) can be characterised as reflective of the groundswell towards CBRM at the local level (Table 8.1c).

Norms, values and beliefs The introduction of CBRM, in the five communities in Western Province has precipitated some changes in marine resource governance norms, values and beliefs. In addition to social motivations that have driven marine resource governance for generations, long-­term resource sustainability has become an explicit objective. For example, traditional closures were historically triggered by social events. After the introduction of CBRM, we observed that committee members used underwater qualitative assessments about the readiness to open an area to harvest based on the resource abundance. In another instance, leaders responded to overharvesting during a month-­long reef opening by shortening the next opening to two weeks in order to reduce the probability of overharvesting. The practice of adapting management based on ecological assessments suggests a shift towards environmental sustainability values. A fascinating element of resource management transformation in the Solomon Islands is that communities have adopted new norms (e.g. conservation ethos), while maintaining traditional values and beliefs. Communities now implement three types of closures: customary, church and environmental (Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015). Each type of closure has its own form of demarcation (Figure 8.1)

FIGURE 8.1 

 oconut frond used to demarcate a customary reef closure (left panel) C compared with a written management sign demarcating a contemporary conservation-based reef closure (right panel) in the Solomon Islands

Source: photos by P. Cohen and K. Abernethy.

(a)  Operational rules

(CBRM)

•  Traditional taboos, predominantly open •  No harvest of trochus less than 8 cm or over 12 cm1 •  Limited use of nets and poison leaf •  No dynamite

Rules before CBRM (prior to 2008)

All pre-CBRM operational rules, plus: •  Contemporary taboos, predominantly closed •  No harvesting of juvenile animals including all fish, shells and sea cucumbers •  No harvesting of undersized crayfish and mud crabs and those with eggs1 •  Use of poison leaf is banned •  Use of hookah/compressors is banned1 •  No destruction of mangroves, including unnecessary cutting of trees •  No spearfishing at night •  Use of nets:   •  Nets less than 2.5 inches banned   •  Netting for icebox cooler business is banned   •  Netting for humphead wrasse is banned •  No harvest or fishing on known spawning sites during known aggregations •  Rocket bombs for sea cucumber harvest are banned

Rules after CBRM (2008–present)

TA8.1  Marine resource rules in Western Province, Solomon Islands, before and after the introduction of community-based resource management

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Notes 1 National fisheries regulation. 2 Here, we do not imply that constitutional level changes resulted because of the introduction of CBRM in Western Province. Rather, we mean to highlight that governance changes were occurring simultaneously at multiple scales.

All constitutional rules prior to 2008, plus: •  Western Province Fisheries Ordinance (2011) ‘acknowledges and upholds the customary fisheries rights and practices of the indigenous people of the Western Province’ •  Fisheries Act 2015 legally recognises Community Fisheries Management Plans •  CBRM identified as a management priority by A New Song, the Apia policy, and the Solomon Islands’ Coral Triangle Initiative’s National Plan of Action, among others

•  Traditional leaders and reef-owning clans All pre-CBRM decision makers, plus: decided on reef openings and closures •  Marine resource management committee (including members of non-reef owning clans) •  Community members •  External partner

(c)  Constitutional rules2 •  Traditional ownership recognised in the national constitution •  CBRM identified as one of five pillars in the Ministry of Fisheries’ Inshore Fisheries Strategy •  Fisheries Act 1998 makes the provision for the formulation and registration of Community Fisheries Management Plans

(b) Collective-choice rules

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

150   J. Blythe et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

and can elicit different sanctions and levels of compliance (Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015). For example, in a community where the church plays a large role in village life, a reef manager might add a church closure to an environmental closure to increase compliance (Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015). Community-­driven governance transformation may, therefore, be characterised by the addition of new norms rather than the abandonment of traditional values.

Distribution of power, authority and resources As decentralisation initiatives spread through communities, it is often suggested that devolved natural resource management will lead to more equitable distribution of power, authority and resources (Berkes, 2009; Larson and Ribot, 2004). We observed some early signs of this change in Western Province. In contrast to customary marine tenure, where resource use decisions are often exclusively made by resource-­owning clan leaders (who are often older males), the contemporary CBRM process is characterised by the inclusion of multiple voices. For example, the proposed management plan in Western Province was discussed in open community forums before being finalised. WorldFish supported the emergence of a more democratic decision-­making process by facilitating separate meetings for men, women and youth, and by facilitating community-­wide consultations, thereby creating space for the inclusion of previously marginalised voices. However, shifting the distribution of power may be the most challenging of the three components of social transformations and require the longest time frame. While decision-­making around CBRM involves a more diverse group of community members than before CBRM, the power, and ultimate decision-­making authority, still largely rests with male leaders of clans with tenure rights. Further, we observed that preferential harvesting rights were given to people from the reefowning clan, which meant that elites benefited more from CBRM than the rest of the community (Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015). This experience is reflected in other cases where community-­based management approaches may in fact reinforce or even exacerbate existing inequalities (Béné et al., 2009). Fostering governance transformations that entail greater equitability in distribution of power, authority and resources presents an ongoing challenge for governance transformation.

Transformations for whom? When existing ecological, economic or social configurations render a social-­ ecological system unacceptable, transformations (as opposed to adaptations) may be desirable (Walker et al., 2004). Yet for many social scientists, the notion of desirability is highly subjective and requires careful and critical consideration (Brown et al., 2013). Research has shown that community-­based development and resource management initiatives can reinforce existing power imbalances (Béné et al., 2009). Some individuals and communities may be better positioned to capitalise on change than

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating to community-based resource management   151

others. In Western Province, two communities successfully implemented their management plan and continue to engage with WorldFish, while the other three were unable to overcome barriers such as contested leadership, disputed land tenure and competing priorities (Abernethy et al., 2014). Entrepreneurial leaders from the two successful communities pursued their engagement in CBRM as a way to secure future development initiatives with other NGOs (Abernethy et al., 2014), suggesting that strong communities will become stronger, while communities already struggling with governance challenges may be left behind. Developing strategies to support communities facing governance hurdles will be an important area for future transformations research. A critical social science perspective highlights the question: Who are the agents of transformation and what are their objectives? Communities’ decisions to participate in CBRM may be driven by the desire to improve resource sustainability, strengthen customary tenure claims or obtain material benefits through working in partnership with an external organisation (Jupiter et al., 2014). Moreover, external partners may define and promote very different brands of CBRM (e.g. conservation vs livelihoods focus). In Western Province, one of the five communities was able to leverage support from WorldFish to furnish their resource centre and may have seen their partnership as an opportunity to gain material benefits. It is likely to be constructive for both community and partner organisations to recognise that their primary objectives for supporting CBRM initiatives may not necessarily align. Being transparent about multiple perspectives may be useful for understanding why a transformation to a new governance system does not proceed as anticipated and might help to address mismatch in CBRM objectives. Finally, determining whether transformation has occurred in complex social-­ ecological systems can be subjective. Efforts to foster deliberate transformations should be accompanied by explicit consideration of how transformations are evaluated and by whom. The interpretation of whether a system has become fundamentally altered can be fuzzy and subject to personal biases (Walker et al., 2004). For example, some researchers have characterised a shift towards CBRM as a dynamic process that requires building transformational capacity and innovation (Abernethy et al., 2014), while others frame CBRM as an incremental series of changes away from customary forms of management (Cohen and Steenbergen, 2015).

Challenges and opportunities Navigating governance transformations presents several challenges. Governance transformations involve the negotiation between multiple, sometimes conflicting, priorities (Daw et al., 2015; Gelcich et al., 2010; Jupiter et al., 2014). Transformations towards more inclusive natural resource management may result in greater equity in distribution of benefits, yet be seen as a threat to the authority of those in traditional positions of power (Larson and Ribot, 2004). Moreover, in the context of governance reform in the Pacific, the degree to which CBRM is able to contribute to long-­term ecological sustainability in the face of contemporary pressures

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

152   J. Blythe et al.

such as large-­scale environmental disturbance associated with climate change, modern fishing gear, growing populations and expanding markets remains uncertain (Foale et al., 2011). Yet, transformation towards contemporary CBRM offers several reasons for optimism. First, devolved governance regimes have been most successful when local people have driven the transformation (Larson and Ribot, 2004). In the Solomon Islands, CBRM persists in two of the five communities we examined, where strong leaders championed the process, empowered marginalised groups in the community, and communicated effectively about the benefits of CBRM with the wider community. Second, CBRM offers the opportunity for communities to build on the current ubiquity of devolved governance regimes and reclaim a larger role in managing their natural resources. Third, scholars argue that cultural practices may not meet contemporary objectives without some form of transformation (Foale et al., 2011), and CBRM offers an opportunity to strengthen and adapt customary governance to meet contemporary circumstances, capitalising on the strengths of local knowledge and Western-­based science.

Conclusions What are the lessons learned from the Solomon Islands case study for communities and partners wishing to foster deliberate governance transformations? First, this study illustrates that windows of opportunity for transformation can emerge when specific circumstances converge across scales (Kingdon, 1995; Olsson et al., 2006). A surge in regional and national support for devolved natural resource governance provided an enabling legislative, financial and broader political environment. Simultaneously, at the local scale the recognition of a problem and the support from a partner agency helped catalyse the design and implementation of a management solution and a governance transformation in some communities, but not in others. We argue that windows of opportunity for governance transformation may expand and contract as the focus and funding of government and external agencies and the contexts and priorities of community ebb, flow and shift. We suggest that transformation is not a linear process and it does not end. Instead the process will move forward and backward, quickly and slowly, and will differ between communities (Abernethy et al., 2014). Second, transformations are seldom discrete in time or in space (Abernethy et al., 2014). Our experience in the Solomon Islands suggests that while scaled-­up change processes at the national or regional level can appear profound from certain perspectives, the changes experienced by individual communities are often mixed and subtle. Navigating social transformations requires flexibility, adaptation and learning (Gelcich et al., 2010). In the Solomon Islands, the fluidity of customary marine tenure systems enabled them to be adapted to meet contemporary purposes. As Hviding (1998: 255) remarked, ‘[n]ew forms arise out of old, as is to be expected in a region characterized by thousands of years of migration, maritime travel and cultural diversification’. As contemporary circumstances continue to change in

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating to community-based resource management   153

coastal communities, adapting elements of customary tenure may remain a successful pathway through which to foster deliberate governance transformation towards sustainable resource management. Finally, transformation is always political and subjective. It is shaped by multiple actors, with multiple forms of power, pursuing multiple objectives. While it is often appropriate, and necessary, to work with existing governance structures, these institutions may reinforce systemic inequalities (Béné et al., 2009). This raises important questions such as what does governance transformation mean for how outcomes are experienced differently by local people? What does it mean for long-­term social-­ecological resilience? Importantly, how can transformations be fostered in a way that respects community structure, processes and leadership without reinforcing existing inequalities? Twenty years ago, Hviding and Ruddle argued that the Pacific Island region ‘has much to contribute to innovative thinking about small scale fisheries management worldwide’ (Johannes, 2002). We argue that the same holds true today. Our analysis of how transformation towards CBRM is unfolding in the Solomon Islands provides insights into social theory about transformations of social-­ecological systems and identifies generalisable lessons for sustainable governance of coastal marine resources.

References Abernethy, K., Bodin, O., Olsson, P., Hilly, Z. and Schwarz, A. (2014). Two steps forward, two steps back: the role of innovation in transforming towards community-­based marine resource management in Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change, 28: 309–321. Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-­Hunt, I.J. and Marschke, M. (2008). Adaptive co-­management for social-­ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2): 95–102. Aswani, S., Albert, S., Sabetian, A. and Furusawa, T. (2007). Customary management as precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs, 26(4): 1009–1021. Aswani, S., Vaccaro, I., Abernethy, K., Albert, S. and de Pablo, J.F.L. (2015). Can perceptions of environmental and climate change in island communities assist in adaptation planning locally? Environmental Management, 56(6): 1487–1501. Barnett, J. (2001). Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island countries: the problem of uncertainty. World Development, 29(6): 977–993. Bell, J.D., Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., Nash, W.J., Keeble, G., Demmke, A., Pontifex, S. and Andréfouët, S. (2009). Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Marine Policy, 33(1): 64–76. Béné, C., Belal, E., Baba, M.O., Ovie, S., Raji, A., Malasha, I., Njaya, F., Andi, M.N., Russell, A. and Neiland, A. (2009). Power struggle, dispute and alliance over local resources: analyzing ‘democratic’ decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa inland fisheries. World Development, 37(12): 1935–1950. Bennett, N.J., Blythe, J., Tyler, S. and Ban, N.C. (2015). Communities and change in the Anthropocene: understanding social-­ecological vulnerability and planning adaptations to multiple interacting exposures. Regional Environmental Change, 16(4): 907–926.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

154   J. Blythe et al.

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-­management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5): 1692–1702. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001. Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R. and Brock, W.A. (2009). Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(3): 826–831. Biggs, R., Westley, F.R. and Carpenter, S.R. (2010). Navigating the back loop: fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society, 15(2): 9. Brown, K., O’Neill, S. and Fabricius, C. (2013). Social science understandings of transformation: the complexity and urgency of global environmental change and social transformation. World Social Science Report. Paris, France: UNESCO, pp. 100–106. [Online] URL: http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002246/224677e.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Chapin, F.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W.C., Olsson, P., Smith, D.M.S., Walker, B., Young, O.R., Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J.M., Naylor, R.L., Pinkerton, E., Steffen, W. and Swanson, F.J. (2010). Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4): 241–249. Cinner, J.E., Pratchett, M.S., Graham, N.A.J., Messmer, V., Fuentes, M.M.P.B., Ainsworth, T., Ban, N., Bay, L.K., Blythe, J., Dissard, D., Dunn, S., Evans, L., Fabinyi, M., Fidelman, P., Figueiredo, J., Frisch, A.J., Fulton, C., Hicks, C., Lukoscheck, V., Mallela, J., Moya, A., Penin, L., Rummer, J.L., Walker, S. and Williamson, D.H. (2015). A framework for understanding climate change impacts on coral reef social-­ecological systems. Regional Environmental Change, 16(4): 1133–1146. Cohen, P.J. and Steenbergen, D.J. (2015). Social dimensions of local fisheries co-­management in the Coral Triangle. Environmental Conservation, 42(3): 278–288. Cohen, P.J., Cinner, J.E. and Foale, S. (2013). Fishing dynamics associated with periodically harvested marine closures. Global Environmental Change, 23(6): 1702–1713. Daw, T.M., Coulthard, S., Cheung, W.W.L., Brown, K., Abunge, C., Galafassi, D., Peterson, G.D., McClanahan, T.R., Omukoto, J. and Munyi, L. (2015). Evaluating taboo trade-­offs in ecosystems services and human well-­being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(22): 6949–6954. Evans, L., Cherrett, N. and Pemsl, D. (2011). Assessing the impact of fisheries co-­management interventions in developing countries: a meta-­analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(8): 1938–1949. Foale, S., Cohen, P., Januchowski-­Hartley, S., Wenger, A. and Macintyre, M. (2011). Tenure and taboos: origins and implications for fisheries in the Pacific. Fish and Fisheries, 12(4): 357–369. Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernández, M., Foale, S., Gunderson, L.H., Rodriguez-­Sickert, C., Scheffer, M., Steneck, R.S. and Castilla, J.C. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(39): 16794–16799. Govan, H. (2009). Achieving the potential of locally managed marine areas in the South Pacific. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin, 25: 16–25. Govan, H. (2013). Strategic review of inshore fisheries policies and strategies in Melanesia: Fiji, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. Part I: General Overview. SPC Report. Noumea, New Caledonia: The Pacific Community (SPC). Govan, H., Tawake, A., Tabunakawai, K., Jenkins, A., Lasgorceix, A., Schwarz, A., Aalbersberg, B., Manele, B., Vieux, C., Notere, D., Afzal, D., Techera, E., Rasalato, E.R.,

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating to community-based resource management   155

Sykes, H., Walton, H., Tafea, H., Korovulavula, I., Comley, J., Kinch, J., Feehely, J., Petit, J., Heaps, L., Anderson, P., Cohen, P., Ifopo, P., Vave, R., Hills, R., Tawakelevu, S., Alefaio, S., Meo, S., Trokniak, S., Malimali, S., Kukuian, S., George, S., Tauaefa, T. and Obed, T.(2009). Status and potential of locally-­managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-­ spread implementation of LMMAs. 95 pp. + 4 annexes. [Online] URL: www.sprep.org/ att/publication/000646_Report.pdf. [Accessed 7 January 2017]. Hviding, E. (1998). Contextual flexibility: present status and future of customary marine tenure in Solomon Islands. Ocean & Coastal Management, 40(2): 253–269. ISSC and UNESCO. (2013). World Social Science Report 2013: Changing Global Environments. Paris: OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. Johannes, R.E. (2002). The renaissance of community-­based marine resource management in Oceania. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33(1): 317–340. Jupiter, S.D., Cohen, P.J., Weeks, R., Tawake, A. and Govan, H. (2014). Locally-­managed marine areas: multiple objectives and diverse strategies. Pacific Conservation Biology, 20(2): 165–179. Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collins. Larson, A. and Ribot, J. (2004). Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens: an introduction. The European Journal of Development Research, 16(1): 1–25. Leach, M., Rokstrom, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I.C., Stirling, A.C., Smith, A., Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Ely, A., Around, E., Folke, C. and Olsson, P. (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(2): 11. McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A., MacNeil, M.A., Muthiga, N.A., Cinner, J.E., Bruggemann, J.H. and Wilson, S.K. (2011). Critical thresholds and tangible targets for ecosystem­based management of coral reef fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(41): 17230–17233. McGinnis, M.D. (2011). An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1): 169–183. Macintyre, M. and Foale, S. (2007). Land and marine tenure, ownership, and new forms of entitlement on Lihir: changing notions of property in the context of a goldmining project. Human Organization, 66(1): 49–59. MECM/MFMR. (2010). Solomon Islands Coral Triangle Initiative National Plan of Action. Honiara, Solomon Islands: SIG. Moore, M.-L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., Knapp, C., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J.A., Noström, A., Olsson, P. and Biggs, D. (2014). Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-­ecological transformations. Ecology and Society, 19(4): 54. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C. and Holling, C.S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 18. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ruddle, K. (1998). The context of policy design for existing community-­based fisheries management systems in the Pacific Islands. Ocean and Coastal Management, 40(2–3): 105–126. Saldaña, J. (2012). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (No. 14). London: Sage Publications. Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R., Lenton, T., Bascompte, J., Brock, W., Dakos, V., van de Koppel, J., van de Leemput, I.A., Levin, S.A., van Nes, E.H., Pascual, M. and Vandermeer, J. (2012). Anticipating critical transitions. Science, 338(6105): 344–348.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

156   J. Blythe et al.

Schwarz, A.M., Béné, C., Bennett, G., Boso, D., Hilly, Z., Paul, C., Posala, R., Sibiti, S. and Andrew, N. (2011). Vulnerability and resilience of remote rural communities to shocks and global changes: empirical analysis from the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change, 21(3): 1128–1140. Secretariat of the Pacific Community. (2015). A New Song for Coastal Fisheries: Pathways to Change: The Noumea Strategy. Koror, Palau: SPC. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 5. Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-­Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., Thompson, J., Nilsson, N., Lambin, E., Sendzimir, J., Banerjee, B., Galaz, V. and van der Leeuw, S. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40(7): 762–780. WorldFish. (2012). Lessons Learned and Way Forward: Community-­based Resource Management Workshop. Honiara, Solomon Islands: WorldFish Solomon Islands.  WorldFish. (2013). Community-­based Marine Resource Management in Solomon Islands: A ­Facilitator’s Guide. Honiara, Solomon Islands: WorldFish Solomon Islands.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

9 Navigating from government-­centralised management to adaptive co-­management in a Marine Protected Area, Paraty, Brazil Turbulence, winds of opportunity and progress towards transformation Cristiana Simão Seixas, Ana Carolina Esteves Dias and Rodrigo Rodrigues de Freitas Introduction This chapter examines a sequence of attempts to build adaptive co-­management for artisanal fisheries at a marine reserve in Brazil. Tamoios Ecological Station was legislated as a reserve in 1990 by the federal government as an environmental compensatory measure for a nearby nuclear power plant. The reserve is composed of a set of 29 islands and a seascape of one kilometre around those islands within the Ilha Grande Bay area. Caiçara communities, such as Tarituba, use a large amount of this seascape as fishing grounds. The implementation of the reserve began in 2006, and since then, a series of conflicts have occurred between fishers who historically fished those waters and officers attempting to enforce the no-­take marine protected area (MPA). To address the conflicts, efforts towards adaptive co-­management emerged in 2009 as a strategy to better account for fishers’ concerns and livelihoods. In particular, a ‘Terms of Agreement’ was collaboratively designed by fishers and the reserve managers in 2012–2013 but, as of 2016, it has not yet been signed. We examine the opportunities within the Brazilian institutional framework, the influence of higher-­level government agencies and conflicting ideologies of government agents, progress towards adaptive co-­management, and, in particular, local efforts to collaboratively design a participatory monitoring programme for local fisheries. We discuss the challenges of navigating uncertain institutional ‘seas’ as well as the opportunities for improving community ecosystem stewardship in fisheries and protected area governance. The use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for managing fishing resources is growing worldwide (Gaines et al., 2010), but the efficacy of MPAs as a fisheries

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

158   C.S. Seixas et al.

management tool is contested (Kearney et al., 2012). MPAs represent an institutional arrangement adopted internationally as a biodiversity conservation strategy and as integrated fisheries management (Fox et al., 2012; Lester et al., 2009). However, there is a paucity of research related to the governance of MPAs considering the multiple objectives these tools intend to address, and the number and diversity of institutions involved in their design and establishment (Sanders et al., 2011). According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2012, unpaged), Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are: any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment. Marine reserves, sanctuaries, closed areas and fisheries exclusion areas are special types of no-­take MPAs, where direct use (e.g., fishing) is prohibited (Kalikoski, 2007). In this chapter, we are drawing attention to the role of no-­take MPAs, in particular marine reserves, in dealing with fishers’ participation in management. We examine the ongoing attempts to transform a centralised and ineffective management system towards a more collaborative and adaptive system, that is adaptive co-­management. Adaptive co-­management devotes explicit attention to learning (experiential and experimental) and collaboration (vertical and horizontal) between stakeholders (Armitage et al., 2009) In Brazil, no-­take protected areas have historically been created for the protection of key species and habitats, or as environmental compensatory measures for impact mitigation, regardless of the uses made by communities living in these areas or in their surroundings (Diegues, 1998). The top-­down creation and centralised management of protected areas has led to conflicts with local populations who had historically fished those areas, such as in the southern lagoons (Almudi and Kalikoski, 2009), the coast of São Paulo state (Castro et al., 2006; Diegues, 1998, 2008; Ferreira, 2004) and the coast of Rio de Janeiro state (Bahia et al., 2013; Idrobo, 2014). Over the past two decades, the use of participatory tools in the management of protected areas in Brazil has been employed to minimise conflicts generated by government-­centralised and solely ecologically-oriented management approaches (Lopes et al., 2013). Since 2000, protected areas (sensu conservation, i.e., not including indigenous lands and Maroons’ (quilombola) lands) in Brazil have been regulated by the Conservation Units Policy. This policy created mechanisms for the participation of civil society (including resource users) in the management of protected areas through consultative and deliberative management councils. However, until recently, there had been no institutional arrangements or practical tools able to deal with conflicts of human populations living inside, or using the resources of no-­take, protected areas.

Navigating from government-centralised management   159

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Based on this policy of participation, the Federal Conservation Agency (Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation – ICMBio) went on to facilitate the establishment of a temporary agreement, called ‘Terms of Agreement’, with traditional communities using resources in no-­take protected areas. According to Brazilian law, traditional people and communities are: [c]ulturally differentiated groups who recognise themselves as such, which have their own forms of social organization, which occupy and use territories and natural resources as a condition for their cultural, social, religious, ancestral and economic reproduction, using knowledge, innovations and practices generated and transmitted by tradition. (Federal Decree 6.040/2007) By January 2013, four Terms of Agreement had been signed, all in no-­take protected areas located in the northern region of Brazil (Ribeiro and Drumond, 2013). A Term of Agreement is a:  management and conflict mediation tool of a temporary nature, to be signed between the Federal Conservation Agency and traditional people living in protected areas where their presence is not admitted or disagrees with the management instruments in order to ensure biodiversity conservation and socio-­economic and cultural characteristics of social groups involved.  (ICMBio, 2012) As a Term of Agreement is temporary, it should be periodically revised after evaluation based on the results of social and ecological monitoring. Monitoring is an essential step in adaptive management of MPAs (McCook et al., 2010). The idea is that monitoring results should be continuously incorporated into management, providing feedback to an adaptive cycle. Participatory monitoring involves negotiation between resource users, managers and other interested parties seeking agreement on what should be monitored to assess the effectiveness of a management action (Gujit, 1999). The transformation of a government-­centralised MPA management approach towards a participatory and adaptive approach is much needed. This opportunity has emerged through the development of a Term of Agreement for community conservation near the Tamoios Marine Reserve (Estação Ecológica de Tamoios) in south-­east Brazil. However, progress towards this transformation must overcome many challenges. The ‘institutional sea’ that resource users and government staff need to navigate (i.e., legislations, decision-­making arenas and policies), the ‘turbulence’ they may face (i.e., institutional change and change in political agenda), and the ‘winds of opportunity’ that favour transformations are all metaphors used to present this case study. In this chapter, we first present the history that led to the preparation of a Term of Agreement between the Tamoios Marine Reserve, managed by the Federal

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

160   C.S. Seixas et al.

Conservation Agency, and the community of Tarituba, in the municipality of Paraty, Rio de Janeiro state. We then discuss the prospects for adaptive co-­management through the implementation of a participatory social and ecological monitoring system. Finally, we indicate the main challenges and opportunities for scaling up the process of the Term of Agreement between Tamoios Marine Reserve and Tarituba community. Importantly, throughout this document, the term ‘Marine Reserve’ will be used to refer to the physical space, managers/staff or the institution per se. The material and analysis presented below are based on a five-­year participatory research project. Research methods included semi-­structured interviews, non-­ structured interviews, surveys, participatory mapping, archival research and document analysis, and direct and participant observation (see De Freitas (2014) and Dias (2015) for further details).

The social-­ecological system: the interconnection of Tarituba Fisheries and Tamoios Marine Reserve Tarituba is located in Paraty municipality, on the southern coast of Rio de Janeiro state, between the coordinates 23°15′50″ and 23°15′53″ south latitude and 44°30′40″ and 44°30′42″ west longitude. It is 15 km away from two nuclear plants that are located in the neighbouring municipality of Angra dos Reis. The coasts of Paraty and Angra dos Reis shape the Ilha Grande Bay, where Tamoios Marine Reserve is located. Tamoios Marine Reserve is composed of 29 islands, slabs, rocks and the surrounding area of a 1-kilometre radius (Figures 9.1 and 9.2).

FIG9.1 

 he study area: Tamoios Marine Reserve and the community of Tarituba T in the municipality of Paraty, at Ilha Grande Bay, south-east coast of Brazil. Delimitation of Tamoios Marine Reserve is in dark green. Numbers 1 and 2 correspond to the Comprida Islands and Araraquara Islands, respectively. Number 3 corresponds to the nuclear power plants located in Angra dos Reis municipality

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating from government-centralised management   161

FIG9.2 

Views of Tarituba bay

Source: photos by A.C. Esteves Dias.

The approximately 430 residents of Tarituba (about 1.5 per cent of the population of Paraty, (De Freitas, 2014)) are organised into the Tarituba Residents Association and the Tarituba Recreational and Folklore Association. Most of Tarituba’s inhabitants are Caiçara, a socio-­cultural identity of a mix of descendants of Indigenous, Portuguese and African people, whose traditional livelihoods are based on

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

162   C.S. Seixas et al.

the harvest of natural resources, livestock, and shifting cultivation in the Atlantic forest coast of Brazil (Diegues et al., 1999). Fishing is the main activity in about 9 per cent of households and is present as primary or secondary activity in 32 per cent of 70 households (Hanazaki et al., 2013). Most of the 65 artisanal fishers (i.e., those holding a fishing licence and usually fishing from canoes and small boats) are affiliated with the Paraty Fishers Organisation (Colônia de Pescadores) (Figure 9.3). In addition to these, other fishers in the community work in shrimp trawling. The latter may occasionally fish from small engine boats or paddle canoes, while artisanal fishers sometimes work on trawling boats. In the community, there are about a dozen motor vessels, between six and eight metres long, using trawls to catch white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti) and sea-­bob shrimp (Xyphopenaeus kroyeri) – the main fishing resources. The main fishing gear for artisanal fishers using small boats or canoes are gill nets for shrimp and various fishes (Begossi et al., 2012). Boats equipped with an engine to pull gill nets in the water enable the use of twice as much gill net as compared to when paddled in a dugout canoe (i.e., up to 2000 m of gill net). Throughout the year, the resources caught by fishing vary due to both natural factors (e.g., fish spawning migration) and policies that establish closed seasons related to the reproductive period of some species (e.g., shrimp, mullet and snook). In Tarituba, the only closed-­season government compensatory benefit (a month’s minimum wage) accessed by fishers is related to the closed season for shrimp, during March, April and May of each year (Begossi et al., 2011). In addition to fishing, tourism – mainly related to transporting passengers to the islands and restaurants – is another important source of income in the community. De Freitas and Seixas (2013) analysed changes in property-­rights regimes (Ostrom, 1990) regarding fishing resources in Tarituba. They found that communal property (i.e., the presence of local institutions or rules regarding access) in some areas and open access in other areas predominated until the end of the 1960s, and production was directed to subsistence and sale of surplus. From the early 1970s until the mid-­1980s, due to government incentives for technical innovations and the opening of new markets, fishers’ financial capital increased along with their fishing effort, and competition led to an increasingly open access system. Between the mid-­1980s and mid-­2000s, despite the legal framework developed with the creation of protected areas and regulation of the fishing industry (i.e. de jure a state regime), the State did not have mechanisms to enforce the rules it created, and a de facto open access system prevailed, leading the fishing system to a crisis. From the mid-­2000s, with the implementation of Tamoios Marine Reserve, until 2012, the formal rules began to be enforced, featuring the emergence of a state-­property regime. Tamoios is the largest Marine Reserve in its category (Ecological Station) in Brazil (Kalikoski and Vasconcellos, 2011). This category of Marine Reserve only allows for scientific research and environmental education. Any other use is prohibited, including fishing and tourism. This type of Marine Reserve does not require public consultation to be created (Brasil, 2000).

FIG9.3 

Traditional fishing vessels

Source: photos by A.C. Esteves Dias.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

164   C.S. Seixas et al.

Tamoios Marine Reserve was established by a Federal Decree in 1990 (Brasil, 1990) and is currently managed by the Federal Conservation Agency, a branch of the Ministry of Environment. Given the policy of co-­location of nuclear power plants and ecological stations (Brasil, 1980), the Tamoios Marine Reserve was created as an environmental compensatory measure, to monitor the quality of the biophysical environment of Ilha Grande Bay, where two nuclear power plants are located on the coast. Seawater is used to cool off the plants’ engines, which causes an increase in water temperature in the surrounding marine areas. Implementation of the Tamoios Marine Reserve began in 2006 after some staff were allocated to the region. Improvements were made to local infrastructure and a surveillance boat was acquired. This led to enforcement operations with support from the local office of the Federal Environmental Agency (the Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable Natural Resources – IBAMA) in Angra dos Reis, the Environmental Police, and other government agents. The main fishing grounds used by Tarituba fishers are distributed around the coastal islands (Comprida and Araraquara) that are close to the community (Begossi et al., 2010). The Comprida Islands is used mainly by artisanal fishers while Araraquara is used both by artisanal fishers and trawlers. In most of these areas, fishing is prohibited because they are part of the Tamoios Marine Reserve. The implementation of a Marine Reserve, with boundaries that overlap with the area used by Tarituba fishers, has caused conflicts between fishers (both artisanal and trawlers) and MPA managers. For example, the enforcement in Tarituba resulted in greater compliance to the closed season for shrimp and reduced the activities of purse-­seining boats in the Comprida Islands. The responses of artisanal fishers to this enforcement included: (1) abandonment of commercial fishing by some fishers, who usually turn to tourism as another source of income; (2) fishing with fear of surveillance; (3) complaining about the attitudes of government agents; (4) health problems in the elderly resulting from stress due to the disrespectful and violent approach by government agents (including the use of inappropriate language and firing of guns); and (5) establishing an informal agreement between fishers and Tamoios Marine Reserve staff prohibiting snook fishing at the Mambucaba River mouth (De Freitas, 2014). Motivated by complaints by artisanal fishers, associations of the fishing industry began a process to request changes in institutional arrangements of Tamoios Marine Reserve, and in the modus operandi of surveillance operations carried out by the Federal Environmental Agency. The main complaints and claims were related to the process of implementation of biodiversity conservation policies in the region since 2006. Among them it is worth mentioning: (1) fishers’ perception of the disrespectful attitude of surveillance agents; (2) the criticism of unfair penalties according to fishers; (3) lack of enforcement for large fishing vessels while focusing on small-­scale artisanal fishing only; and (4) specific criticism about Tamoios Marine Reserve related to unequal treatment of different users (fishers, industry, tourists, etc.) regarding rule compliance and the lack of physical boundaries surrounding the islands. In 2009, the City Council of Paraty, with support from fishers’ organisations,

Navigating from government-centralised management   165

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

formally demanded an authorisation for artisanal fishing inside the Tamoios Marine Reserve area. This demand was discussed within the consultative management council and in other meetings addressing fishing until 2012, when a Term of Agreement was proposed by Tamoios Marine Reserve to deal with this situation.

The fisheries terms of agreement: ‘winds of opportunity’ and ‘turbulence’ In 2012, several events contributed to triggering the process of the Terms of Agreement regarding Tamoios Marine Reserve. The Federal Environmental Agency fined a federal politician for fishing with hook and line near one of the reserve’s islands. This politician started a campaign to approve a bill intended to allow fishing inside the Marine Reserve. In addition, the local fishing sector was strengthened by a former mayor of the neighbouring municipality who became Federal Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and by a representative of the Paraty fishing sector who became chief of the regional office of this same Ministry in Rio de Janeiro state. At the same time, local fishers’ organisations took to the court several cases of what they considered unfair fines and confiscation of fishing gear and boats by the Federal Environmental Agency agents in charge of enforcement. The Terms of Agreement for Tamoios Marine Reserve was the Federal Conservation Agency’s response to the conflict with the fishing industry. It was announced in April 2012 under the Thematic Chamber of Aquaculture and Fisheries of the Tamoios Marine Reserve Consultative Management Council. This Chamber was in charge of following the process of designing and implementing the Terms of Agreement (see Trimble et al., 2014 for details of this announcement). The Tamoios Marine Reserve released staff to work exclusively on this subject, with support from an intern. The possibility of negotiation with Tamoios Marine Reserve was greeted with hope by artisanal fishers, although there was low legitimacy of this MPA among local people. Low legitimacy was related to the presence of mansions with heliports on some of the reserve islands and the occurrence of medium-­scale fishing (trawlers and purse-­seiners) in its area. Fishers still question the fact that Tamoios Marine Reserve is funded in part by the nuclear power plants, which are not legitimate third parties to carry out environmental monitoring of the Ilha Grande Bay. Finally, many fishers mistake the Federal Environmental Agency surveillance agents for Tamoios Marine Reserve agents (Trimble et al., 2014), because until 2007, the former was in charge of all federal protected areas in Brazil. The beginning of the Terms of Agreement process coincided with the end of a project (UFRJ/FIPERJ/MPA, 2012) which held fisheries co-­management courses at the Ilha Grande Bay. These courses were undertaken to promote negotiations for the construction of Fisheries Agreements between the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the bay fishers. These Fisheries Agreements were never concluded as the project lacked institutional and financial support (see Araújo, 2014 for details).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

166   C.S. Seixas et al.

In addition to capacity building for co-­management, the political timing within the Federal Conservation Agency was conducive to experimentation, given the novelty of the ‘Term of Agreement’ within the organisation. The legislation which regulates the Terms of Agreement (ICMBio, 2012) was published in the midst of discussions for their preparation at Tamoios Marine Reserve in July 2012. The development of a Term of Agreement was initially proposed to artisanal fishers of Tarituba and Mambucaba with the intention to extend to other communities affected by Tamoios Marine Reserve later. However, during the negotiation process, the Federal Environmental Agency decided to focus on only 25 artisanal commercial fishers of Tarituba considered traditional – i.e., native to the area – and who were fishing from canoes and rowboats. In addition to the 25 commercial fishers, there are another 40 fishers who fish for subsistence only. Trawlers were not considered due to the impact of their activity on the sea bottom species and habitat. In Mambucaba community, several questions were raised regarding the criteria by which fishers could join the agreement or not (since many were not natives of that community and the region). As no consensus was reached, the development of the Terms of Agreement in Mambucaba community was postponed. The Marine Reserve staff held five meetings in the communities throughout 2012 to explain the development stages of the Terms of Agreement. A Working Group was established involving government representatives and fishers’ organisations. In negotiating with Tarituba fishers, the first point discussed was to decide who would ratify the Terms of Agreement with the Federal Conservation Agency. Fishers understood that if they signed individually rather than as an association, this instrument would be more instructive, since a fisher who chose to cheat on the agreed rules would be subject to penalties himself, such as exclusion from the Terms of Agreement. The Terms of Agreement for Tarituba considered: 1

2 3 4

the inclusion of the Araraquara Islands (a set including Araçaiba and Araçatiba islands) in addition to the Comprida Islands (originally proposed by Federal Conservation Agency, see Figure 9.1); access permission to the Reserve by canoes and rowboats; fishing gear allowed; and indication of the co-­signers (fisher association, family or individual).

Tarituba fishers considered the inclusion of the Araraquara Islands in the Terms of Agreement a prerequisite for concluding the agreement. The Araraquara Islands represent one of the main fishing grounds of Tarituba fishers (Begossi et al., 2012); hence, they claimed that their exclusion from the agreement would generate an accumulation of fishers in the Comprida Islands, which is located in front of Tarituba. The first version of the Terms of Agreement agreed between fishers and Tamoios Marine Reserve included access permission for rowboats to the Comprida and Araraquara Islands, and the use of the following fishing gear:

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating from government-centralised management   167

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

hand line; setting gill net with mesh size equal to or greater than 30 mm; a trapping gear (covo); squid dig; longline (bottom and surface); cast net; encircling gill net for mullets with mesh size greater than 30 mm; and a floating trap net as an experiment to be monitored.

Fishers were concerned about negotiating the use of floating trap nets in the Agreement because all the areas used for this fixed gear are inside the Marine Reserve. The strategy developed was to consider one floating trap net as a monitored experiment to provide information for further revision of the Agreement. Both fishers and the Tamoios Marine Reserve would have new obligations for which they would be accountable during the implementation of the agreement. Fishers were required to submit monthly spreadsheets calculating the number and types of species caught at the Marine Reserve, and to attend training courses on environmental legislation and participatory monitoring. Tamoios Reserve staff were responsible for (1) enforcing the agreed upon rules and undertaking monitoring; (2) implementing education and fisheries extension programmes whose focus will be decided with fishers; and (3) helping to issue fishing licences and documents for the vessels. The proposal of the Terms of Agreement developed for Tarituba, when implemented, will last for three years, and the effects of its implementation in the ecological and socio-­economic systems will be monitored. Within that period, the Federal Conservation Agency will make a plan to definitively solve the conflict, which may include, for example, modifying the reserve limits or changing its category from no-­take to sustainable use MPA. Thus, the renewal of the Terms of Agreement, in addition to being subject to review of the rules based on the monitoring findings, may indicate possibilities for changes in the institutional arrangement of Tamoios Marine Reserve. In the first version of the Terms of Agreement of October 2013, a technical information note (IT 21/2013) was produced by the Tamoios staff responsible for preparing the Terms of Agreement, describing the entire participatory process and collective development of the Terms of Agreement. In addition to this, another technical information note (IT 24/2013) was produced at the request of the head of Tamoios Marine Reserve. The staff member who prepared the second technical information note had not participated in the development of the Terms of Agreement and she was against its development due to a fear that these would make the Marine Reserve more permissive of fisheries, and prevent the reserve from achieving its preservation objective. The issue of staff with different agendas (‘preservationist’ vs ‘socio-­environmentalist’) within the same agency and the consequences for building trust and accountability will be further addressed in this chapter.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

168   C.S. Seixas et al.

The Terms of Agreement was sent to the Federal Conservation Agency headquarters in Brasilia in December 2013 by the head of Tamoios Marine Reserve with both technical information notes IT 21/2013 and IT 24/2013. This second IT note questioned the established agreements, misinterpreted and misused scientific research data (e.g., Nora, 2013), and as a fishers’ representative said, ‘disqualified the signed agreements, causing distrust and a lack of respect for all work produced’. Fishers and their leaders were outraged. In March 2014, a meeting was held in Tarituba community where it was proposed that fishers interrupted dialogue with Tamoios Marine Reserve until the Terms of Agreement was signed. Researchers working in the region also questioned the second technical information note and wrote reviews (e.g., A. Begossi and V. Nora, personal communication) and a Scientific Technical Note (Seixas et al., 2014) sent to the Federal Conservation Agency, the Ministry of Environment, the Federal Public Prosecution Office and other agencies. In April 2014, the Terms of Agreement was modified to a ‘Behaviour Adjustment Term’ (Brasil 1985, 2003), based on recommendations from the Federal Conservation Agency headquarters in Brasilia, and on the grounds that the Terms of Agreement is a tool to be used only when the community is embedded within the border of the protected area (Tamoios Marine Reserve manager, personal communication). The change to a Behaviour Adjustment Term created the need to involve the Federal Public Prosecution Office to approve the agreement. At a meeting in September 2014, it was established that, despite the fact that the right instrument for Tarituba should be a Term of Agreement as it involves traditional people (Caiçaras), it would be retained as a Behaviour Adjustment Term to avoid further delaying of the process. In December 2014, the president of the Federal Conservation Agency authorised signing the Behaviour Adjustment Term with an initial group of 25 fishers. The Term signed by fishers was sent to the headquarters of the Federal Conservation Agency to be finally signed by its president and published in the Official Gazette of Brazil to be made valid. However, this has not occurred yet. At the first 2015 meeting of the Tamoios Marine Reserve management council in early April, there was great expectation that with the presence of the president of the Federal Conservation Agency, the Behaviour Adjustment Term would be signed by him. However, this president said the Term would need reformulation and the text would be sent back to Tamoios at the beginning of June 2015. At the end of April 2015, this president was replaced by another one. It remains unknown whether there will be a new version of the document and whether it will maintain the terms and conditions agreed to by fishers and the Tamoios Marine Reserve managers. Meanwhile, artisanal fishers continue illegally fishing on the reserve area, and the reserve staff and the Environmental Agency have concentrated enforcement efforts on trawlers and other medium-­sized engine boats, avoiding approaching artisanal fishers. Figure 9.4 shows the main stakeholders, facts, conditions and processes that have affected the preparation and (lack of ) conclusion of the agreement (whether Terms

FIGURE 9.4 

• Audience at the National Congress about the Tamoios Marine Reserve

• Dispute between technical reports in favour of and contrary to the Terms of Agreement

2014

ion borat Re-ela g itorin Mon luation va e d an ion Revis

Capacity building in monitoring and legislation

Implementation (to be concluded)

• New Environmental Agency president is announced at the end of April

2015

ntal onme Envir ency Ag

r Fishe n iatio Assoc iation t Nego

Protocol of Terms of Agreement in the Environmental Agency

Celebration (to be concluded)

• Environmental Agency’s president announces postponing signing TAC to June (April)

Postponing the TAC 2015

 ey interactions during the Terms of Agreement (TofA) elaboration process and other ongoing processes influencing it. (IT stands for K Technical Information Note and IN is Normative Instruction)

• Fisheries co-management training in Tarituba

• Terms of Agreement Legislation (IN 26/2012)

• Visit of the Environmental Agency’s president to Paraty

2013

Other ongoing processes influencing the Terms of Agreement process

• Ending the 1st Stage of GPesca Programme

2012

• Behaviour Adjustment Term signed by fishers (December)

• Approval of the TofA draft (IT 21) (October)

• IT 24 contesting the agreements (December)

• Participatory workshops to design a monitoring programme (April & August)

Key interactions during the Terms of Agreement elaboration process

• Fisher registration in Tarituba (October)

• Debate on criteria and on fisher registration (August)

• Establishment of Working Group and criteria of who should be involved (June)

• Indication of a Behaviour Adjustment Term (TAC) instead of a TofA (April), confirmed by the Public Prosecution Office (September)

Contesting the Terms of Agreement 2014

• Definitions about (1) who should sign the TofA; (2) mutual commitments; (3) use of territory and (4) access rules (August)

• Redefinition of criteria of who should be involved based on registered profiles (April)

• TofA announcement at Tamoios Marine Reserve management council (April)

• Divulgation in Tarituba (May)

Designing the Terms of Agreement 2013

Setting the Terms of Agreement (TofA) process 2012

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

170   C.S. Seixas et al.

of Agreement or Behaviour Adjustment Term) between the Tamoios Marine Reserve and Taributa artisanal fishers.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Participatory monitoring for adaptive co-­management The Behaviour Adjustment Term, as the Terms of Agreement, is a transitory instrument. Hence, it is important to monitor fishing activities when the Term is implemented in order to plan future management measures. Participatory monitoring of Tarituba community fishing areas could be an opportunity to generate relevant information on the ecological and socio-­economic context of local fisheries in order to support decision-­making for future management. After drafting the first version of the Terms of Agreement – a step completed in December 2013 – the design of a monitoring programme for its implementation was initiated, as required by legislation. Members of our research group at the University of Campinas, who have carried out research and outreach work in the region, proposed to Tamoios Marine Reserve managers that the monitoring programme should be participatory, involving fishers, governments and other stakeholders, in order to make it feasible and legitimate. In Brazil, governments often lack resources (human and financial) to monitor small-­scale artisanal fisheries. Additionally, as fishers get involved in data collection and interpretation, they may legitimise the process and help propose management measures that are more adequate to the area. Other stakeholders such as academic groups may provide expertise on designing data collection and carrying on data analyses, for instance. Participatory monitoring is an approach used to collect information, encourage the exchange of local and scientific knowledge, stimulate reflections, mobilise the community, raise issues related to the community and natural resources, and plan joint management strategies (Drumond et al., 2009). Bringing together different stakeholders to discuss the progress of a management strategy and lessons learned is crucial to system management because it allows the experiences of users to be added into decision-­making (Graham et al., 2006). This form of monitoring social-­ ecological systems enables the integration of different sources of knowledge, increasing the chances of success for managers proposing strategies based on lessons learned collectively. Thus, science contributes to the systematic knowledge, often theoretical, about the system, and users contribute their experiential knowledge (Berkes et al., 1995). Our research group had a key role in the context of planning the monitoring of management actions proposed in the Terms of Agreement. In early 2013, we had meetings with the Reserve managers to discuss the development of a master’s project (A.C.E.D.) which aimed to carry out the design of a participatory monitoring programme. We also had meetings with Tarituba community members to discuss their interest in participating in the design of this monitoring programme. Invitations to participate in designing the programme were done through formal letters to government organisations, fishers’ organisations, and NGOs, and by both written invitation and word-of-mouth for fishers in the local community.

Navigating from government-centralised management   171

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

The design of the monitoring programme was based on the method developed by the Global Socioeconomic Monitoring Initiative for Coastal Management (SocMon) (Bunsen, 2000). SocMon uses a participatory approach and we focused efforts on the preparatory and planning activities only as the programme has not been implemented yet. We: 1 2 3

4

identify the study area and monitoring demand, as established by the Term of Agreement that requires fisheries monitoring; consult stakeholders. R.R.F. consulted the interest of key players in 2013, while carrying out his PhD research; access secondary data. A.C.E.D. carried out a literature review of Ilha Grande Bay environment regarding ecological and socio-­economic data, and presented and discussed with stakeholders during workshops. Additionally, the researcher carried out participatory mapping with four knowledgeable fishers and semi-­ structured interviews with 22 local fishers and five Marine Reserve Staff to complement information regarding the fisheries and management system; and set monitoring goals and identify parameters and indicators. These were set during discussion with stakeholders at workshops (for more detail see Dias, 2015).

Two workshops were held in Tarituba to design the monitoring programme in April and August 2014. A total of 27 out of about 65 fishers living in Tarituba attended the workshops, as well as the head of the fishers’ organisation, and 15 other people including managers, technicians and researchers. At these workshops, discussions were held on the meaning of monitoring, the potential benefits for the community and for the management of the Marine Reserve, and the main variables to be monitored. Four goals were established for the monitoring programme. For each goal, one or two indicators were established that could be collected by the fishers themselves, with the support of the Reserve managers. In addition, the City Department of Fisheries and Agriculture of Paraty also committed to providing the fishing statistical data collected in the community. The chosen goals are related to: 1 2 3 4

catch data, which was then being collected daily by the Department of Fisheries and Agriculture of Paraty; conflicts between fishers and managers especially in regard to the disrespectful approach by surveillance agents; compliance with current legislation with regard to closed seasons and minimum landing size, contributing to the conservation of target species; and fisher mobilisation and their capacity for self-­organisation.

Thus, the monitoring programme aims to generate data related to the sustainability of traditional fisheries, the importance of fisheries within the Marine Reserve for

172   C.S. Seixas et al.

Tarituba fishers, and fisher-­to-fisher and fisher-­to-manager relations. In this sense, our research group was able to provide support for fishers and managers to meet their obligations and recognise their responsibilities according to the Terms of Agreement.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Opportunities and challenges for scaling up For artisanal fishers, Terms of Agreement or a Behaviour Adjustment Term represent an opportunity to legally pursue, at least temporarily, their professional activity within areas of traditional use and to scale up this process across Ilha Grande Bay and its surroundings, where there are several marine and terrestrial protected areas. In fact, there are multiple institutional arenas, from local to regional scale, where the issue of artisanal fisheries and no-­take MPA have been addressed at Ilha Grande Bay (Araújo et al., 2014); however, no solution has yet been established. In Brazil, coastal zone monitoring is still in its infancy and is restricted to variables related to resource catch, as at the Environmental Protected Area of Costa dos Coral (Ferreira and Maida, 2007) and the Extractive Reserve of Corumbau (Moura et al., 2007). The proposal for an inexpensive monitoring programme, geared for both ecological and socio-­economic variables, designed and implemented collectively with the community and in partnership with the governing body and researchers is promising. Participatory monitoring proposed for Tamoios Marine Reserve is pioneering work in Brazil and has been regarded as a pilot study of the SocMon Brazil initiative, along with Guaraqueçaba and Anhatomirim Protected Areas, both on the south coast of Brazil. SocMon (The Global Socioeconomic Monitoring Initiative for Coastal Management) is a global, voluntary initiative aimed at enhancing managers’ decision-­making incorporating the socio-­economic context in coastal management programmes (Bunsen et al., 2000). Participatory monitoring is most effective when users gain access to decision-­ making processes and Western science creates productive partnerships with local forms of knowledge (Fox et al., 2012). The agreed rules should be periodically reviewed with this information on hand and, if necessary, modified in accordance with the information obtained from the intersection between scientific knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge (Berkes, 2012). Thus, participatory monitoring allows fishers to critically evaluate the scientific predictions on their own terms and to test sustainability using their own forms of adaptive management (Moller et al., 2004). If the Behaviour Adjustment Term is approved and successfully implemented, it is possible to restart the discussion about establishing other agreements between the Tamoios Marine Reserve and other fishing communities in the region. One factor that motivates the participation of fishers is the ability to hold exclusive use rights, even if temporary, in their territories, which could contribute to surveillance of large fishing boats near the coast, such as big trawlers, tuna vessels and purse-­seiners (De Freitas, 2014).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating from government-centralised management   173

Furthermore, a major challenge in establishing a Behaviour Adjustment Term instead of Terms of Agreement regards the recognition of ‘temporary use rights’ as permanent traditional/customary rights. The Behaviour Adjustment Term does not necessarily recognise Tarituba artisanal fishers as traditional people (according to Federal Decree 6040/2007 and Municipal Law 1835/12). This could restrict the rights related to the protection of activities and traditional ways of life, a necessary condition for the creation of an extractive reserve (a category of sustainable use MPA), for example. In addition, the fact that fishers are not recognised as traditional people by the government agency could be a potential source of conflict with implications for governance of the fishing system. Another challenge is related to the legal security of the established agreements. Although there was an effort to draw upon the legislations by the Federal Conservation Agency, there is still resistance to the proposal of the Terms of Agreement by the Ministry of Environment, the Federal Conservation Agency itself, and other sectors of society. In 2013, there was a legal precedent for invalidation of the Terms of Agreement co-­signed between the Federal Conservation Agency and Maroons (Quilombolas) in Aparados da Serra National Park (Carta Aberta, 2013). In this sense, there are barriers to participation of fishers related to ideological disputes (strict preservation vs sustainable use) between officials of the same government agency (preservationist vs socio-­environmentalist), indicating the existence of different political agendas in competition. As noted above, this was demonstrated in the development of the two technical information notes (IT 21/2013 and IT 24/2013) related to the Terms of Agreement produced in Tamoios Marine Reserve in 2013. The ideological disputes reflect differences in values, images and principles related to governance (Song et al., 2013). Those holding preservationist values are concerned with avoiding legal precedents, which may undermine the overall system of no-­take protected areas in Brazil – as most, if not all, of them were established in a top-­down manner without consultation with populations living inside or on their borders. Those holding socio-­environmentalist values are concerned with conserving the environment while maintaining traditional people’s livelihoods (Seixas and Vieira, 2014). Based on the Tragedy of the Commons view, preservationists (the group in power over the past few years) understand that biodiversity conservation is only achievable by restricting access rights and strengthening the state surveillance system. On the other hand, socio-­environmentalists understand that the government has insufficient resources for enforcement of protected areas, and that small-­ scale resource users, such as artisanal fishers, are the best allies to surveille the area and to use it in a sustainable way – as their cultural survival depends on maintaining their livelihoods, which, in turn, depends on maintaining the local environment. In other words, some socio-­environmentalists have pointed out that the best way to achieve biodiversity conservation in Brazil is by sharing rights and duties between state and civil society while promoting co-­management. Following Song et al., (2013: 173): ‘Incommensurable values, or conflicting and incompatible images and principles not only would make wickedness of fisheries governance to persist but

174   C.S. Seixas et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

also contribute to lower governability.’ In this sense, reflection of these disputes is expressed in the delay in signing the Terms of Agreement/Behaviour Adjustment Term. Almost four years have passed since its announcement in response to the conflict that triggered the process. These factors discourage future participatory processes in Tamoios Marine Reserve and other protected areas in the region, and may hinder the implementation of the already designed monitoring.

Navigating institutional turbulence and ‘winds’ of opportunities Brazil has experienced change in the environmental political agendas over the past years. Regarding protected areas, the values and images of socio-­environmentalists, which predominated during the 2000s, have lost strength in the first half of the 2010s, and the preservationists’ views, predominant in the 1980s and early 1990s, seem to have gained power again within the Ministry of Environment. This institutional turbulence on environmental policies in Brazil poses challenges for harmonising and synchronising government and civil society timing regarding the  opportunities for more participatory management of MPAs, and ultimately undermines progress towards a lasting transformation in MPA governance (De Freitas et al., 2015; Trimble et al., 2014). Such turbulence not only affects protected areas, but also the Fisheries and Forest sector in Brazil. The Ministry of Fisheries, established in 2009, was dismantled in 2015. The Forest Code was reformulated in 2012 due to pressure from the agribusiness sector, with several environmental setbacks. In the case analysed, favourable winds have facilitated an adaptive co-­management process for artisanal fisheries at Tamoios Marine Reserve area, with the enactment of new legislation in 2012, and the possibility to create a participatory monitoring programme with university support. However, changes in government agendas are directly affecting attempts to design and implement management agreements in a participatory way at the local level. Such change in agenda may not be explicit though. Despite the new 2012 legislation, no new Term of Agreement has been signed by the Federal Conservation Agency since mid-­2013. This fact is not unique to Brazil, as changes to government agendas occur in several countries, such as in Chile (Gelcich et al., 2010) and Mexico (Espinoza-­Tenorio et al., 2011), with repercussions in the management of natural resources. Far from the headquarters of the Ministry of Environment and the Federal Conservation Agency, staff on the ground are dealing with day-­to-day conflicts, and their strategies depend more on their values than on the agency agenda. The ideological basis under which the various managers of the same protected area act (simultaneously or not), directly affects trust building, participation and engagement of users in management processes (Seixas and Vieira, 2014). In this sense, as a strategy to promote a long-­term adaptive co-­management process, the Tamoios Marine Reserve could strengthen trust relationships with fishers while seeking to reduce its internal ideological contradictions. This, however, will only be possible if all the effort expended by fishers to build the Terms of Agreement and the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating from government-centralised management   175

participatory monitoring programme has not been in vain. In other words, the agreement needs to be signed and implemented. Whether the ‘favourable winds’ will continue blowing, even occasionally or not, remains unknown. In terms of adaptive co-­management of natural resources, the Terms of Agreement brought an important innovation for the Brazilian institutional arrangement of protected areas. This instrument allows agreements to be established in a participatory manner between protected area managers and users, since it is monitored, reviewed and adapted in a predetermined period. Developing a Term of Agreement may allow for a higher level of social participation than that of consultation and information that occurs on the consultative management council of no-­take protection areas – a possibility until recently non-­existent on the national scene. A Behaviour Adjustment Term, on the other hand, can be established by federal prosecutors by imposition without the participation of users in a no-­take protected area, who in this case are considered lawbreakers. Transforming a Term of Agreement into a Behaviour Adjustment Term may have several implications for the artisanal fishers in Tarituba. Fishers were induced to believe that they should accept the Behaviour Adjustment Term in order to avoid slowing down the process of temporarily legalising their activity. Nevertheless, once they have signed it, the preservationists may use the law against them, as they confess they were practising an illegal activity. In this sense, it is important that local fishers and other stakeholders involved in the process, including research groups, keep an eye open and push for traditional fisheries’ rights in order to avoid unjust solutions. We have not assessed the effects of the technical reports written by academics and sent to key decision makers at higher government institutions, but we have sent the message that we are keeping ‘an eye open’ on hidden agendas. Additionally, the role played by the university in the process of drafting the monitoring programme encouraged dialogue between different stakeholders, especially in Paraty, where there are few active NGOs. In fact, the university has been recognised for its role in mediating between the government and communities in natural resource management processes. In order words, research groups have played a role as broker in building relations between resource users and protected areas managers in Paraty.

Conclusion The process of drafting, although not yet approving, the Terms of Agreement (now, the Behaviour Adjustment Term) between Tamoios Marine Reserve and Tarituba community showed that ‘winds of opportunity’ have blown along the Brazilian coast to transform centralised and state-­driven, no-­take protected area management towards a more participatory approach. These ‘winds of opportunity’ (such as the 2012 legislation regulating the Terms of Agreement, and the support from the university to design a participatory monitoring programme), have helped managers and fishers to sail the Brazilian ‘institutional sea’ (i.e. legislations, policies and multiple decision-­making arenas), although they have experienced some

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

176   C.S. Seixas et al.

turbulence. Contributions to such turbulence are some local sea currents (such as the lack of ideological alignment between members of the same Tamoios Marine Reserve management team) and other regional and continental currents (such as the change in the political agenda of the Ministry of Environment). There are still numerous challenges to navigate this uncertain ‘institutional sea’, which first modify a Term of Agreement into a Behaviour Adjustment Term, and subsequently changes what was agreed between fishers and Tamoios Marine Reserve managers into a document reformulated by the Federal Conservation Agency headquartered in Brasilia – far away from the local reality. However, the opportunities generated by the process so far have led to a greater awareness among the various stakeholders on the role of fishers in governance, environmental conservation and community stewardship. It is noteworthy that, for the first time in their lives, Tarituba fishers participated in a process to build a management arrangement (i.e. the Terms of Agreement). However, the slow pace of the process leading to the signing of the agreement has caused stress among local stakeholders that hampers good governance of MPAs. In addition, fishers can only participate in MPA management when they are recognised or given legitimacy to do so. When they are clandestine (as reflected in the Behaviour Adjustment Term), there are impediments to good governance. In order for the challenges identified in the Terms of Agreement process to be overcome, and to scale up this tool at the Ilha Grande Bay region or even the Brazilian coast, it is necessary to overcome the ideological disputes among government decision makers – that is, to reduce the turbulence of the Brazilian institutional sea that constrains progress towards a transformation.

Acknowledgements We acknowledge the support from the TransFormar Network through the MCT/ CAPES Ciências do Mar 09/2009 funding, and the Community Conservation Research Network (CCNR) through SSHRC funding. A.C.E. Dias thanks the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of Brazil for her Masters scholarship, and R.R. de Freitas thanks the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (CAPES) for his PhD scholarship. We are also grateful to Francisco Araos, Paula Chamy, Sylvia Chada and Erika Bockstael for their contribution to the manuscript.

References Almudi, T. and Kalikoski, D. (2009). Homem e ‘natureza’ em um parque nacional do sul do Brasil: meios de vida e conflitos nos arredores da Lagoa do Peixe. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 20: 1–24. Araújo, L.G. (2014). A Pesca Costeira Artesanal de Paraty, RJ: Uma Análise Multiescalar sob o Enfoque da Cogestão de Recursos Comuns. Tese de doutorado. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating from government-centralised management   177

Araújo, L.G., Vieira, M.A.R.M., Seixas, C.S. and Castro, F. (2014). A gestão da pesca em Paraty: legislação, arenas e processos. In: A. Begossi and P.F.M. Lopes (eds) Comunidades Pesqueiras de Paraty: sugestões para o manejo. São Carlos: Ed. RIMA, pp. 189–219. Armitage, D.R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R.I., Charles, A.T., Davidson-­Hunt, I.J., Diduck, A.P., Doubleday, N.C., Johnson, D.S., Marschke, M., McConney, P., Pinkerton, E.W. and Wollenberg, E.K. (2009). Adaptive co-­management for social-­ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(2): 95–105. Washington DC: ESA. Bahia, N.C.F., Seixas, C.S., Araújo, L.G., Farinaci, J.S. and Chamy, P. (2013). Implementation of a National Park over the traditional land of the Trindade community in Paraty, Brazil. In: T.C. Magro, L.M. Rodrigues, D.F. Silva Filho, J.L. Polizel and J. Leahy (eds) Proceedings from the Protected Areas and Place Making Conference Held April 21–26, 2013 in Foz do Iguaçú, Brazil. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, pp. 46–51. [Online] URL: https://issuu.com/kozmopolitron/docs/papm_proceedings_ web. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Begossi, A., Lopes, P.F.M., Oliveira, L.E.C. and Nakano, H. (2010). Ecologia de pescadores da baia de Ilha Grande. São Carlo: Rima. Begossi A., May, P.H., Lopes, P.F., Oliveira, L.E.C., Vinha, V. and Silvano, R.A.M. (2011). Compensation for environmental services from artisanal fisheries in SE Brazil: policy and technical strategies. Ecological Economics, 71: 25–32. Begossi, A., Salyvonchyk, S., Nora, V., Lopes, P.F. and Silvano, R.A.M. (2012). The Paraty artisanal fishery (southeastern Brazilian coast): ethnoecology and management of a social­ecological system (SES). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8: 22 (no page numbers). [Online] URL: https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1746-42698-22. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology. 3rd edn. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis. Berkes, F., Folke, C. and Gadgil, M. (1995). Traditional ecological knowledge, biodiversity, resilience and sustainability. In: C.A. Perrings, K.G. Mäler, C. Folke, B.O. Jansson and C.S. Holling (eds) Biodiversity Conservation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 281–299. Brasil (1980). Decreto federal 84.973, de 29 de julho de 1980. Dispõe sobre a co-­localização de Estações Ecológicas e Usinas Nucleares. Brasil (1985). Lei 7.347, de 24 de julho de 1985. Disciplina a ação civil pública de responsabilidade por danos causados ao meio-­ambiente, ao consumidor, a bens e direitos de valor artístico, estético, histórico, turístico e paisagístico (VETADO) e dá outras providências. Brasil (1990). Decreto n° 98.864, de 23 de janeiro de 1990. Cria a – Estação Ecológica de Tamoios, e dá outras providências. Brasil (2000). Lei 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação (SNUC). Brasil (2003). Lei 10.650, de 16 de abril de 2003. Dispõe sobre o acesso público aos dados e informações existentes nos órgãos e entidades integrantes do Sisnama. Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R. and Pollnac, R. (2000). Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management. Townsville, Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science. Carta Aberta. (2013). Comunidade dos remanescentes do Quilombo São Roque e o racismo ambiental do ICMBio. MNU. [Online] URL: www.socioambiental.org/sites/blog. socioambiental.org/files/blog/pdfs/caso_sao_roque_racismo_ambiental_icmbio.pdf. [Accessed 11 September 2013]. Castro, F., Siqueira, A.D., Brondízio, E.S. and Ferreira, L.C. (2006). Use and misuse of the concepts of tradition and property rights in the conservation of natural resources in the Atlantic Forest (Brazil). Ambiente e Sociedade, 9(1): 23–39.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

178   C.S. Seixas et al.

De Freitas, R.R. (2014). Implicações de políticas de conservação e desenvolvimento na pesca artesanal costeira em uma área marinha protegida da Baía da Ilha Grande. Tese de doutorado. Campinas: Universidade Estadual de Campinas. De Freitas, R.R. and Seixas, C.S. (2013). Sustainable territorial development in a Brazilian marine reserve: is it feasible? In: T.C. Magro, L.M. Rodrigues, D.F. Silva Filho, J.L. Polizel and J. Leahy (eds) Proceedings of Protected Areas and Place Making Conference Foz do Iguaçú, 2013. [Online] URL: http://emporioproducoes.com.br/PAPM2013/wp-­ content/uploads/2013/12/Anais.pdf. [Accessed 11 March 2014]. De Freitas, R.R., Gerhardinger, L.C., Chamy, P. and Seixas, C.S. (2015). Governança dos oceanos na Rio+20: o debate sobre áreas marinhas protegidas na perspectiva da gestão compartilhada. In: F. Castro and C. Futemma (eds) Governança Ambiental no Brasil. São Paulo: Editorial Paco pp. 137–168. Dias, A.C.E. (2015). Fisheries participatory monitoring at Tarituba community, Paraty (Brazil): reconciling conservation and small-­scale fisheries. Master’s thesis. Campinas, Brazil: State University of Campinas. Diegues, A.C. (1998) (2001). The Myth of Untamed Nature in the Brazilian Rainforest. 3rd edn. São Paulo: NUPAUB, USP. Diegues, A.C.S. (2008). Marine protected areas and artisanal fisheries in Brazil. SAMUDRA Monograph. Chennai: International Collective in Support of Fishworkers. Diegues, A.C., Arruda, R.S.V., Silva, V.C.F., Figols, F.A.B. and Andrade, D. (1999). Os Os Saberes Tradicionais e a Biodiversidade no Brasil. 1st edn. São Paulo: Ministério do Meio Ambiente – COBIO/NUPAUB. Drumond, M.A., Giovanetti, L. and Guimarães, A. (2009). Técnicas e Ferramentas Participativas para a Gestão de Unidades de Conservação. Programa Áreas Protegidas da AmazôniaARPA e Cooperação Técnica Alemã-GTZ. Brasilia: MMA. Espinoza-­Tenorio, A., Espejel, I., Wolff, M. and Zepeda-­Domínguez, J.A. (2011). Contextual factors influencing sustainable fisheries in Mexico. Marine Policy, 35: 343–350. Ferreira, B.P. and Maida, M. (2007). Características e Perspectivas para o Manejo da Pesca na Área de Proteção Ambiental Marinha Costa dos Corais. In: A.P.L. Prates and D. Blanc (eds) Áreas aquáticas protegidas como instrumento de gestão pesqueira. Brasilia: MMA, SBF, Série Áreas Protegidas do Brasil, pp. 41–51. Ferreira, L.C. (2004). Dimensões humanas da biodiversidade: mudanças sociais e conflitos em torno de área protegidas no Vale do Ribeira, SP. Ambiente e Sociedade, 7(1): 47–66. Fox, H.E., Mascia, M.B., Basurto, X., Costa, A., Glew, L., Heinemann, D., Karrer, L.B., Lester, S.E., Lombana, A.V., Pomeroy, R.S., Recchia, C.A., Roberts, C.M., Sanchirico, J.N., Pet-­Soede, L. and White, A.T. (2012). Reexamining the science of marine protected areas: linking knowledge to action. Conservation Letters, 5: 1–10. Gaines, S.D., Leste, S.E., Grorud-­Colvert, K., Costello, C. and Pollnac, R. (2010). Evolving science of marine reserves: new developments and emerging research frontiers. PNAS, 107(43): 18251–18255. Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernández, M., Foale, S., Gunderson, L.H., Rodríguez-Sickert, C., Scheffer, M., Steneck, R.S. and Castilla, J.C. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. PNAS, 109(39): 16794–16799. Graham, J., Charles, A. and Bull, A. (2006). Community Fisheries Management Handbook. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Gorsebrook Research Institute, Saint Mary’s University. Gujit, I. (1999). Monitoramento Participativo: Conceitos e Ferramentas Práticas para a Agricultura Sustentável. Translation by Annemarie Höhn. Rio de Janeiro: ASPTA. Hanazaki, N., Berkes, F., Seixas, C.S. and Peroni, N. (2013). Livelihood diversity, food security and resilience among the caiçara of coastal Brazil. Human Ecology, 41(1): 153–164.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Navigating from government-centralised management   179

Idrobo, C.J.M. (2014). Ponta Negra ethnoecology of practice: intergenerational knowledge continuity in the Atlantic Forest Coast of Brazil. Thesis. Winnipeg: Natural Resource Institute, University of Manitoba. [Online]. URL: http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/ handle/1993/23528. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio). (2012). Instrução Normativa do no 26 de 4 de julho de 2012. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 4 jul 2012. Seção 1, p. 84. IUCN. (2012). International Union for Conservation of Nature. [Online] URL: www.iucn.org/ theme/marine-­and-polar/our-­work/marine-­protected-areas. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Kalikoski, D. (2007). Áreas Marinhas Protegidas, Conservação e Justiça Social: Considerações à luz da Teoria dos Comuns. In: A.P.L Prates and D. Blanc (eds) Áreas aquáticas protegidas como instrumento de gestão pesqueira. Brasilia: MMA, SBF. Série Áreas Protegidas do Brasil, pp. 67–79. Kalikoski, D. and Vasconcellos, M. (2011). Brazil. In: J.S. Sanders, D. Gréboval and A. Hjort (eds) Marine Protected Areas: Country Case Studies on Policy, Governance and Institutional Issues. Rome: FAO Technical Paper 556/1, pp. 5–31. Kearney, R., Buxton, C.D. and Farebrother, G. (2012). Australia’s no-­take marine protected areas: appropriate conservation or inappropriate management of fishing? Marine Policy, 36: 1064–1071. Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-­Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines, S.D., Airamé, S. and Warner, R.R. (2009). Biological effects within no-­take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384: 33–46. Lopes, P.F.M., Rosa, E.M., Salyvonchyk, S., Nora, V. and Begossi, A. (2013). Suggestions for fixing top-­down coastal fisheries management through participatory approaches. Marine Policy, 40: 100–110. McCook, L., Ayling, T., Cappo, M., Choat, J.H., Evans, R.D., De Freitas, D.M., Heupel, M., Hughes, T.P., Jones, G.P., Mapstone, B., Marsh, H., Mills, M., Molloy, F.J., Pitcher, C.R., Pressey, R.L., Russ, G.R., Sutton, S., Sweatman, H., Tobin, R., Wachenfeld, D.R. and Williamson, D.H. (2010). Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: a globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. PNAS, 107(43): 18278–18285. Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P.O’B. and Kislalioglu, M. (2004). Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-­management. Ecology and Society, 9(3): 2 (não paginado). Moura, R.L., Dutra, G.F., Francini-­Filho, R.B., Minte-­Vera, C.V., Curado, I.B., Guimarães, F.J., Oliveira, R.F. and Alves, D.C. (2007). Gestão do Uso de Recursos Pesqueiros na Reserva Extrativista Marinha do Corumbau, Bahia. In: A.P.L Prates and D. Blanc (eds) Áreas aquáticas protegidas como instrumento de gestão pesqueira. Brasilia: MMA, SBF. Série Áreas Protegidas do Brasil, pp. 181–193. Nora, V. (2013). Ecologia e etnoecologia de robalos (Centropomus undecimalis, Bloch, 1792 e Centropomus parallelus, Poey, 1860) na Baía de Paraty, RJ, Brasil. Master’s dissertation. Santos, Brazil: University of Santa Cecília. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ribeiro, B.G. and Drumond, M.A. (2013). O Termo de Compromisso como ferramenta para a gestão de conflitos em Unidades de Conservação. In: VI Seminário Brasileiro sobre Áreas Protegidas e Inclusão Social (SAPIS) e I Encontro Latino-­americano sobre Áreas Protegidas e Inclusão Social (ELAPSIS).. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Federal University of Minas Gerais,

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

180   C.S. Seixas et al.

pp. 467–477. [Online] URL: www.academia.edu/4853021/ANAIS_PROTEGIDAS_E_ INCLUSAO_SOCIAL_-_VI_SAPIS. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Sanders, J.S., Gréboval, D. and Hjort, A. (eds). (2011). Marine Protected Areas: Country Case Studies on Policy, Governance and Institutional Issues. Rome: FAO Technical Paper 556/1. Seixas, C.S. and Vieira, M.A.R.M. (2014). Fisher’s knowledge and the ecosystem approach to fisheries: legal instruments and lessons from five case studies in coastal Brazil. In: J. Fischer, J. Jorgensen, H. Josupeit, D. Kalikoski and C.M. Lucas (eds) Fishers’ Knowledge and the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: Applications, Experiences and Lessons in Latin America. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 591. Rome, FAO pp. 231–246. Song, A.M., Chuenpagdee, R. and Jentoft, S. (2013). Values, images, and principles: what they represent and how they may improve fisheries governance. Marine Policy, 40: 167–175. Trimble, M., Araújo, L.G. and Seixas, C.S. (2014). One party does not tango! Fishers’ non­participation as a barrier to co-­management in Paraty, Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management, 92: 9–18. UFRJ/FIPERJ/MPA. (2012). Diretrizes para um Programa de Políticas Públicas para a Gestão Compartilhada dos Recursos Pesqueiros e Aquícolas na Baía da Ilha Grande. Documento Final do Projeto Gestão Participativa dos Recursos Naturais. [Online] URL: www.fiperj.rj.gov.br/index.php/arquivo/download/10. [Accessed 8 January 2017].

10 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Koh Pitak A community-­based environment and tourism initiative in Thailand Philip Dearden, Dachanee Emphandhu, Supawinee Songpornwanich and Amnat Ruksapol

I want it to be like it was 30 years ago, with the seas full of fish. (The village Headman when asked his aspiration for the village in ten years’ time)

Introduction Global biodiversity is in precipitous decline (Butchart et al., 2010; WWF, 2014) and viewed as the most stressed of all major planetary life-­support systems (Rockström et al., 2009). It is this biodiversity that provides the essential building blocks for ecosystem functioning and associated ecosystem services on which we all depend (Cardinale et al., 2012). Realisation of this crisis has prompted major international conventions, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, and identified many potential solutions. One of the main tools is the establishment of protected areas which seek to set aside tracts of land and ocean from human exploitation, the main cause of the decline (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). A target of 17 per cent of the global terrestrial area and 10 per cent of the oceans designated by 2020, the so-­called Aichi Target (Woodley et al., 2012), has been agreed under the terms of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010). The current terrestrial area set aside is approximately 15.4 per cent; the oceans are far behind at 3.4 per cent (Juffe-­Bignoli et al., 2014). Unfortunately many of the key biodiversity areas of the world are not protected under any formal arrangement (Cantú-Salazar et al., 2013) and many probably will not be, even when the current global targets are achieved (Butchart et al., 2015). This gap between conservation needs and achievements will need to be bridged by means other than the formal protected area systems that have been relied upon in the past (Dearden, 2002; Rands et al., 2010; Mora and Sale, 2011; Jonas et al., 2014). This is recognised in the wording of Target 11 of the Aichi Targets outlined above that recognises ‘other effective means of conservation’ as contributing to the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

182   P. Dearden et al.

percentage targets (CBD, 2010). Many of these will be community-­based initiatives and Koh Pitak, the case study presented here, provides an example of how communities can contribute effectively towards biodiversity conservation. There is also another closely related crisis. Many of the poorest people in the world rely directly on natural resources for their livelihoods (Shoaf Kozak et al., 2012). In many areas the sustainability of this use is highly questionable (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Areas set aside as protected areas also support the livelihoods of adjacent communities. Reconciliation of these demands has to be seen as a complementary challenge to be solved rather than a direct conflict (Adams et al., 2004). Solutions to this challenge require place-­based conservation initiatives that also provide livelihood opportunities (Baird and Dearden, 2003). Ideally the two will be related and livelihoods provide an incentive for conservation (Brockelman and Dearden, 1990; Butcher, 2011). The initiative will be even stronger if it is generated by the community and for the community. The case study presented in this chapter describes such a situation in a coastal community in Thailand. Declining fisheries led to a locally initiated solution that now provides a working model for other coastal communities and has helped lead to new national governance approaches for coastal fisheries in Thailand. Thailand historically has a very centralised governance system with virtually all decisions made in the national capital, Bangkok. However, over the last 20 years, there has been increasing recognition of the need to decentralise power structures and devolve the ability to make more decisions at the local level (Wittayapak and Dearden, 1999). This need was formally recognised in the 1997 Constitution. However, change has taken a long time to penetrate the centralised bureaucracy of the country. This is a result not only of the cultural context, political history and challenges to the status quo but also of the very real challenge of the frequent lack of capacity available in many areas. The Koh Pitak case study is a valuable illustration of how indigenous capacity can grow and develop through local leadership, adopting common goals and understanding, and the ability to develop partnerships and network among many different kinds of resource providers as well as other communities.

The Koh Pitak case study Historical context Koh Pitak is a fishing community situated on a small island (113.92 ha) of the same name approximately 1 km off the coast of Chumporn Province in the Gulf of Thailand in Bang Num Jeud Sub-­District, Luang Suan District. Most of the information presented in this chapter is based on interviews with the Headman in January 2015. Interviews were also conducted with other key informants and opportunistically with a range of villagers. However, various co-­authors have been involved with the community in different roles, from planning and capacity raising through to environmental assessment and carrying capacity determinations that stretch back over seven years.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community-based tourism   183

There are currently 45 households and most of the Koh Pitak villagers are Buddhist. The community was first established by fishers taking shelter off its coast over 100 years ago. The village flourished based on the abundant fishery resources in the area. However, in the late 1980s and 1990s, there started to be increasing fishing pressure, especially from commercial trawlers from elsewhere coming close to the island, and fishing became increasingly uncertain. Fishing catches fell and the fishers could not catch enough to pay back the loans they had taken out to undertake the fishing. By 1990, the accumulated debt in the community was estimated at 29 million Thai baht (THB) by the Headman and the village was in crisis. It should be pointed out that this situation was by no means unique to Koh Pitak. Small fishery­dependent communities all around Thailand were feeling similar pressures for similar reasons at this time (World Bank, 2006). Repeated requests for help from government agencies received little or no response. The Headman realised that the situation had to be improved from within the community itself and began to hold community meetings to discuss their options. Although the main trigger for this response was an economic one, and specifically the readily apparent declining catches and income from fisheries, the community readily identified links to overfishing and their own role in that, as well as very visible signs of environmental deterioration in and around the village, such as rubbish accumulation. The interrelated nature of the villagers facilitated the buy-­in of the vast majority of villagers and solidified the implicit tendency towards consensus. As a result of these community meetings several groups were formed to try to develop new initiatives, including food processing based on marine resources, fishery and giant clam conservation groups and a tourism group. The food processing initiative subsequently failed due to poor management, but the tourism and conservation initiatives started to gather impetus and the villagers began to appreciate the link between the two. Their conservation initiatives were becoming known more widely and the village was awarded a prize by the national government, ‘Best Practice of Coastal Conservation’, in 1992. Visitors started to arrive to learn about the conservation initiatives and witness the fishers’ way of life, as well as enjoy fresh seafood. A tourism industry started that supports the village to this day and provides an excellent example of the synergies possible between conservation, tourism and the social-­ecological system of the community.

Community-­based tourism at Koh Pitak Leadership was instrumental in developing the Koh Pitak tourism initiative. A village leader, Amporn Thaneekrut, stimulated community tourism in 1996 through organisation of a study tour for the village members to visit community projects in Chiang Mai in northern Thailand and also in Khiriwong, in southern Thailand. Initially, the villagers were not interested in tourism and were not confident that they could manage tourism. However, these visits to other communities convinced the villagers that they too could successfully develop tourism. Starting initially

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

184   P. Dearden et al.

through word-of-mouth among friends and relatives, the community tourism soon gained wide recognition through media reports on television and radio and in national newspapers. Tourism started with a total service charge of 100 THB (about $4 CAD) per night, including boat transport, accommodation and food. That amount was increased incrementally over the years to 550 THB ($22 CAD) and the more than 10,000 tourists per year that visit the village provide an approximate income of nine million THB ($360,000 CAD) (Benjamas and Ruksapol, 2008). This may seem like a modest amount, but there is very little leakage involved with this income; most of it stays in the village, an important characteristic of this kind of tourism (Sandbrook, 2010). The great majority of tourists are from Thailand, and the daily visitation average is around 40 visitors. However, on special occasions, such as holidays, that number may swell to over 200. In terms of sleeping space, the number of tourists that can be accommodated is estimated at almost double that number. From the outset the management of tourism, as with other activities at Koh Pitak, has been community-­based and cooperative or ‘participatory governance’ (Berdej et al., 2015). The villagers have formed several groups, such as seafood processing, making and selling clothes, homestay, providing boat services, and seafood provision. Each cooperative group determines its own rules and group members purchase shares in the group, with a par value of 100 THB. The Cooperative Committee standardises each homestay and rotates guests equally. The price is determined cooperatively. Car and boat services from the mainland railway station and the pier to the village, and activities for tourists, are also determined cooperatively and standardised. The house owner must return 40 per cent of their net profit from homestay to the cooperative for funding public activities, and each group contributes 3 per cent of the group income to the community for social and environmental activities such as cleaning and maintaining the artificial coral reef just offshore from the community. The Cooperative Committee also ensures transparency of management and finances. The leaders at Koh Pitak also organise adult meetings twice a month and a youth meeting once a week. These meetings undertake group planning and management, such as establishing and regulating the homestays and developing beneficial activities for the community, such as managing the local squid market, recording household income and expense to assist in household planning, guarding natural resources, maintaining the environment, and monitoring the livelihood of youth and adult villagers. A village leader insists that ‘there is no separated family in this village because of employment, household accounting, and none of drug abuse. This is a way of sufficiency economy.’ The ‘sufficiency economy’ is a philosophy associated most strongly with the highly revered past King of Thailand based on the fundamental principle of Thai culture. It is a method of development based on moderation, prudence and social immunity, one that uses knowledge and virtue as guidelines in living. Importantly, there must be intelligence and perseverance, life without greed or overexploitation of, for example, natural resources (The Chaipattana Foundation, 2015).

Community-based tourism   185

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Tourism facilities and activities Many visitors hear about Koh Pitak through word-of-mouth, although there are now large signs on the highway, and come to visit to see the homestays, the community-­based tourism and the beauty of the island itself. However, this is not the tropical island paradise which most people associate with Thailand. There are few beaches and the shore is generally rocky. Many activities of the area are discussed below. 1

2

3 4

Homestays provide accommodation inside the households of villagers and include participating in activities with the villagers. The homestays are extended houses built out over the sea that provide a large communal sleeping area where visitors are provided with mats, sheets and a mosquito net (Figure 10.1). The host family sleeps in a different room. There are currently 16 homestays. The service charge is 550 THB per night, with three meals. Each house owner prides themselves on being the ‘best cook’ and provides outstanding home cooking with fresh seafood. Many visitors are attracted to the fresh seafood cooking. The price of seafood is included in the homestay charge which is very cheap compared to seafood restaurants. Private houses are houses developed by the villagers that provide accommodation for the sole use of visitors. There are nine private houses and the service charge is 750 THB per night, including travel cost and three meals. Visitors can join in many community livelihood activities such as the local fishery, coconut farming, simmering coconut oil and making souvenirs. Many visitors now visit on study tours so that they can learn about tourism management, natural resource conservation and household accounting.

FiGURE 10.1 

A homestay over the sea in Koh Pitak

186   P. Dearden et al.

5

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

6 7 8

The Chumporn Provincial Office under the auspices of the Governor has helped develop facilities such as nature trails and rest huts on the island. Many visitors walk or ride a bicycle along the 1.9 km trail around the island, enjoying close-­up views of the thick forest, monkeys, steep cliffs, coconut plantation and spectacular sea views. There are kayaks for rent, 50 THB ($2 CAD) each, which tourists can paddle around the island. Tourists can also rent boats at 700 THB per day, and rent tackle for fishing as well as diving and snorkelling equipment for the same charge. There are three souvenir shops providing gifts such as homemade clothes, pictures, shell products and processed seafood.

Environmental management The tourism initiative that now forms important supplementary economic support for the village was really an outgrowth from the efforts to improve environmental management in the village in general, and specifically regarding enhancement and protection of fishery resources and development of more effective waste management systems. However, environmental improvements did not stop with these initiatives but have continued to expand. Efforts to protect and enhance fisheries have led to several new initiatives. 1

2

3

4

Artificial reef: An artificial reef was constructed off the island as part of the Corporate Social Responsibility of the Petroleum Authority of Thailand. The concrete block reef has proved to be an effective colonising surface for many marine organisms and provides fish habitat. Not only has this enhanced local marine biodiversity but it has also helped supplement the fisheries income of the village. Situated just offshore from Koh Pitak is another small island, Koh Kram, known for its abundance of marine life. Part of this island has been designated as a ‘no-­take’ zone (up to 500 metres from the shore) by the villagers. In this zone giant clams have been seeded by the Fisheries Department and Koh Pitak villagers (started 2011 and seeded yearly since then) which are protected by the villagers. The clams also provide a focus for snorkel and dive tourism. Koh Kram is officially part of Mu Koh Chumporn National Marine Park. However, the island is at the extremity of the park and far from park headquarters. The park management recognises the village as being the local protectors of the island. In Thailand this kind of recognition and cooperation between formal protected areas such as national parks and local communities is quite rare, although it has long been recognised as a need (Dearden et al., 1996; Lunn and Dearden, 2006). Fisheries enhancement and the ability to manage local fisheries have always been at the heart of the Koh Pitak initiative. Instigating protective measures such as seasonal closures, zoning and enhancement through grow nets has

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community-based tourism   187

5 6

­provided impetus for the Department of Fisheries to devolve increasing responsibility to the community for fisheries management. New national legislation has now been promulgated allowing increased community control and banning large trawlers from coming within 5400 metres of the shore. Recovery of the local fishery with the return of some species not seen for many years was reported by community fishers and attributed to their local conservation initiatives. An emphasis on site rehabilitation has resulted in the villagers replanting mangrove trees along the shoreline (Figure 10.2). More effective waste disposal has also been an ongoing thread through the Koh Pitak initiative. Originally, the villagers started to clean up their village and develop more effective waste disposal for their own benefit, but the development of tourism helped spur ongoing innovations. One of these was the development of the EM (Environmental Management) waste ball. These balls are composed of microorganisms that rapidly digest organic waste. Waste water and sewage from each house is led to a tank where the EM balls are added. Some households now use the treated waste water to develop and water home gardens on this water-­scarce island. A video, made as supporting material for this research paper, showing this process and the resulting garden can be seen on the website of the Community Conservation Research Network (URL: www.communityconservation.net). The home gardens form an important part of the self-­sufficiency philosophy adopted by the villagers and derived from His Majesty King Bhumibol’s leadership in this area. The gardens have also become part of the tourism attraction on the island and attract visitors who come specifically on study tours to learn how to create such gardens.

FiGURE 10.2 

Replanted mangrove trees along the shoreline for site rehabilitation

188   P. Dearden et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

7

A tourism carrying capacity study was initiated by the Koh Pitak local community. Local leaders wanted to know how many visitors the local community could accommodate, what were the main issues related to tourism management, and how they could be solved. The research process, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), ensured that local people had full participation, and were able to identify the impacts, monitor them and define the limits for tourism development with guidance from outside researchers (Benjamas and Ruksapol, 2008; Benjamas, 2013). The main impacts that the villagers monitor regularly are water quality and rubbish amount, as well as the quality of visitor experience.

Discussion Why has Koh Pitak been successful? There are many interrelated threads that have led to the success of the Koh Pitak community initiative. Leadership: Leadership has long been recognised as a key ingredient in successful community ventures, both internationally and in Thailand. In Koh Pitak the village leader is a dynamic, determined and far-­seeing individual who not only recognised the challenges facing the village at an early stage but also encouraged the villagers to create a community vision of how to solve these problems. The same Headman has led the village from the outset, established democratic and transparent governance processes, such as the group cooperatives, but retains a firm leadership role in guiding the community. Community social capital: Social capital refers to the amount of trust and interactive social support among the villagers and is widely recognised as a key factor in community development (Pretty and Smith, 2004; Dale and Newman, 2010) and successful community-­based tourism (Jones, 2005). Villages with high levels of social capital tend to be more effective in group cooperation, planning and implementation (Floress et al., 2011). The relatively small size of the Koh Pitak community (45 households, almost all of which are interrelated) is very conducive to social capital accumulation. The community has a sense of common purpose that is reinforced by family ties and sharing a common history. Distributional equity: Even in alternative tourism developments focusing on the community level, there are often challenges related to the distribution of income (Jones, 2009; Sandbrook and Adams, 2012). Benefits are often channelled to the Headman and his relatives (Dearden, 1991). However, at Koh Pitak a highly equitable and transparent system has been devised where homestays are occupied on a rotational basis and a significant part of the income returned to the village treasury for the good of all. Tourism attractions: Thailand has an international image as a tropical paradise, with azure blue waters and long, white sandy beaches. Koh Pitak does not meet this image. If it had, by now it would probably have been swallowed by a much more

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community-based tourism   189

commercial kind of tourism, the kind that dominates elsewhere in Thailand. When the Headman first discussed the potential development of tourism with the community members, there was some resistance as many villagers equated tourism development with the kind of upmarket and often socially destructive tourism found not too far away in the well-­known holiday island of Koh Samui. It was only after seeing community tourism initiatives elsewhere that the villagers came round to fully supporting the tourism initiative. It is likely that the more modest nature of the tourism resources available on the island saved Koh Pitak from commercial development before the villagers were even aware of it, and also encouraged the development of a different tourism niche that was more appropriate to the village culture. Media interest: Development of this different kind of tourism in an island community attracted the attention of the tourism authorities in Thailand and the media, and free marketing often resulted from the numerous newspaper articles published on the initiative. Media interest was also spurred by the government awards won by the community both for its environmental management as well as the tourism initiative. Village culture: Not all people and not all communities are naturally inclined towards the hospitality required for community-­based tourism initiatives (e.g. Waylen et al., 2010) and conflicts can develop between tourists and villagers and even among villagers themselves (Yang et al., 2013). The people of Koh Pitak are very welcoming and at ease inviting strangers into their houses. They enjoy conversing with guests, and they provide outstanding hospitality, especially in terms of the quality of food provided, a very important component for most Thai visitors. As a result, visitors appear to leave with high levels of satisfaction and word-­ofmouth recommendations have become an effective way of ensuring an ongoing supply of guests. Support of external agencies: Koh Pitak has benefited from an extensive support mechanism ranging from local NGOs to national agencies. Some of the most important include the following: •

•

•

•

The Network of Poo Pa to Maha Na Thee (‘From Mountain to Sea’) is a cooperative network between environmental organisations and local communities to promote sufficiency economy and tourism in Chumporn Province. This network organises meetings and discussions, provides knowledge and experience, and encourages participatory action. The Community Tourism Network of Chumporn Province facilitates cooperation among local community tourism initiatives, promotes sharing activities, and encourages tourists to help one another. The royal initiative project, Nong Yai District, Chumporn Province, functions as the centre of the tourism network; it arranges for tourists from Koh Pitak to visit other local communities and vice versa. The Chumporn Provincial Office, authorised by the provincial governor, encourages infrastructure development, such as construction of the trail system and the provision of electricity and fresh water.

190   P. Dearden et al.

•

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

•

The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives has helped build capacity in household accounting, producing environmentally friendly dishwashing solutions and fermenting effective microorganisms for use in the EM balls discussed earlier. Maejo-­University at Lamae Campus, Chumporn, provides knowledge and technology for developing community tourism.

Timing: Few of the ideas that have been used in Koh Pitak are new. What is different about Koh Pitak is its success in synthesising these ideas together, such as the interrelationship between improved environmental management and community-­based tourism, the unity of their strength in implementing these ideas and the increased receptivity of government agencies in allowing and even supporting initiatives that were too revolutionary to be accepted some time ago. ‘Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come’ intoned the French poet Victor Hugo in 1885, and Koh Pitak came along as the right type of development at the right time to find a receptive government and market environment.

Challenges Notwithstanding the success that this community-­based environmental/tourism initiative has enjoyed, there are still challenges to be faced. Some of those mentioned by villagers include the following: •

• •

•

• •

Tourists sometimes cancel their reservation suddenly which leads villagers to incur the cost of food supplies brought in for the visitors. A deposit system should be developed to discourage late cancellations. The monsoon season prohibits year-­round access and so the income is seasonal. There are still challenges related to effective disposal of tourism-­derived rubbish. The villagers usually burn or bury the rubbish. Burning sometimes creates air quality problems. In addition, the natural flow of currents through the Gulf of Thailand means that the island is often a receptor for rubbish that comes down rivers that may be located a long way from the island. This gives the impression of a high rubbish environment on Koh Pitak, even though the rubbish has not been created locally. The villagers have an ongoing programme of rubbish collection along the beach to deal with this constant challenge. Water scarcity is also a concern for the villagers due to declining rainfall and sometimes ineffective maintenance of the pipeline that brings water from the mainland. Service quality can be inconsistent among homestays; some tourists are not impressed with the service of some house owners. Service provision in other areas can also be inconsistent and there is a need to develop more ‘best practice’ guidebooks to help build capacity.

Community-based tourism   191

•

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

•

•

There has been an escalation of costs as some homestay owners have started to expand and improve their facilities. The local authority does not always support community initiatives for improved tourist facility development on the island. For example, the community requested support from the municipal administrative organisation (Ao Bo Tor) for an interpretive programme and interpretive sign development on the island, but was unsuccessful. Better practices are needed in the provision of some tourism services, and improvement of language and guiding capabilities would help maintain sustainability and competitiveness. The community strongly recognises the need to increase its capacity in these areas.

In addition to these villager-­generated challenges, there are also other broader factors that will need to be addressed. One of these is the role of the village Headman, who has been central to the entire initiative. Should he no longer be available to play this role, only time will tell whether the community consensus will hold and the community groups and governance structure continue to function in his absence. There may also be significant changes in market clientele in the future. The visitors are now dominantly domestic tourists; however, a few international tourists are now finding their way to the island. If this proportion continues to grow, then the community may be faced with different challenges related to tourism impacts and potential availability of outside capital that may fundamentally change the nature of the tourism product. One example of this that has arisen in response to the current market is how to deal with late-­night karaoke. Some of the homestays now have karaoke facilities, much beloved by many Thai guests. However, for others this significantly disturbs the peace of the island. A compromise has been reached that now restricts the time periods when karaoke is allowed.

Lessons learned Some of the lessons learned from the transformation of Koh Pitak, from a failing community fishery with reduced fish stocks and increasing community debt, to a successful community-­based tourism operation, are the following: •

Context-­based governance: Although scholars have documented and analysed the factors that may lead to more effective governance in community-­based approaches (e.g. Ostrom, 1990; Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2009), the Koh Pitak case illustrates the importance of recognising local cultures, customs and norms in determining what might be the most effective approaches in a given situation. Adhering to a rigid checklist of good governance attributes may not produce optimal results in any given location, and a more pluralistic approach is required (Agyare et al., 2015). For example, in Koh Pitak, the Headman is a very charismatic and visionary individual who established community committees to design and implement various aspects of the initiative. However,

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

192   P. Dearden et al.

•

•

•

interviews suggest that this ostensibly democratic approach was very dependent on, and subservient to, achieving the vision of the Headman. The villagers did not seem in any way to be resentful of this approach as it is consistent with their culture, and indeed the hierarchical approach of Thai culture overall. Achieving effective transformation in this case may involve subservience of a key generic governance principle – democracy – to the cultural norm of hierarchy. The combination of factors leading to the success of the Koh Pitak transformation outlined in the above section and the balance among them may not be duplicated, nor be essential, elsewhere. The challenge is to identify in a specific geographical context those factors that can help to achieve more successful community-­based conservation approaches (e.g. Hauzer et al., 2013). Linked livelihoods: The development of tourism in Koh Pitak evolved out of concern with environmental and livelihood degradation in the community. There was no plan to replace the resource-­based economy of the island with a service-­based economy. However, as environmental improvements were made, tourism became increasingly possible and a valuable supplementary income source. The transformation should be seen mainly as one of livelihood diversification, from a totally resource-­based economy with failing subsistence and commercial fisheries, to one with smaller but more sustainable fisheries (both subsistence and small-­scale commercial), and a significant and linked tertiary economy in resource and culture-­based tourism. Such partial transformations with positive linkages among different elements of the economy are likely to prove more resilient to future shocks than ones where economies are totally transformed and largely dependent on just one form of income. Push and pull factors: The transformation of the Koh Pitak economy was aided by the presence of both need and opportunity. The decline of the fishery placed the entire community under stress. A strong need to change – a push factor – was an indisputable commonality within the community; however, not all such push factors lead to community transformation (Bennett et al., 2014). The key factors at Koh Pitak, as outlined above, were the vision and energy of the Headman, the strong social capital in the community, but also recognition of a viable alternative – a pull factor – within the community. Interviews suggest that there was considerable scepticism among the villagers about the feasibility of such a transformation to tourism until they were exposed to similar transformations that had occurred elsewhere in Thailand. The existence of both strong push and pull factors was an important lesson learned from Koh Pitak. It is also important to recognise that it was mainly the Headman who was able to link the declining economy of the village to environmental degradation and subsequently link tourism growth to environmental improvements. Effective conservation: There is no doubt that environmental conditions have improved considerably in and around Koh Pitak due to the efforts of the community and those working with the community. However, there is little formal data on biodiversity monitoring. There is data on the giant clam seeding initiative and there is data on the colonisation of the artificial reef, but there is no

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community-based tourism   193

comprehensive biodiversity monitoring programme to assess the effectiveness of the initiative in this regard. There is a community-­recognised no-­take area at nearby Koh Kram that is enforced by the community through social sanctions, but tourist fishing parties were observed fishing very close to this zone. To gain greater acceptance among government officials and conservation scientists and NGOs, it would be valuable to establish more formal, yet simple, biodiversity monitoring protocols that could be implemented as joint community science initiatives. Although very few formal MPAs in Thailand actually have such programmes in place, there is a greater level of mistrust regarding community initiatives, and developing monitoring programmes can help allay this fear.

Conclusions In their analysis of the social adaptive capacity of seven fishing villages on the Andaman coast of Thailand, Bennett et al. (2014) concluded that all the villages were still in the ‘coping’ stage. Coping is when there is passive acceptance of the changing conditions with little effort to do anything about it. The next stage is ‘reacting’, where communities react to changing conditions but in an unplanned fashion. ‘Adapting’ involves proactive planning at the individual and/or community level to improve conditions in the future. In contrast to the Andaman example, there is clear evidence of Koh Pitak moving swiftly through these stages with an advanced and visionary indigenous planning process resulting in successful outcomes for the community. The reasons behind the success of the initiative have been described above, but in terms of the inception of this adaptive change it seems that leadership was key, in tandem with the high social capital extant in the community, making collective decision-­making possible. One major challenge that will be faced by the community in the future is the heavy dependence on the specific leadership that has brought them so far so quickly and the governance challenges that may arise in the absence of such a charismatic leader. Tungittiplakorn and Dearden (2002), for example, describe a case study in Thailand where a charismatic leader was able to exert strong conservation enforcement in the area surrounding his community. On his passing, however, his successor, in an effort to distinguish himself from his predecessor, allowed hunting that led to the extirpation of a deer species. Community-­based conservation initiatives based solely on the efforts of charismatic leaders may be effective over the short term but, in the longer term, leave themselves open to such consequences. One response to  such a situation is to enhance community institutions that can build broader governance mechanisms. Another is to start the leadership change dialogue sooner rather than later, when the charismatic leader still wields some power and authority, rather than leaving a sudden leadership vacuum. A further response is to engage the entire community in scenario planning (Bennett et al., 2015) such that they develop a broad ownership of the future plan that would be difficult for a subsequent leader to change.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

194   P. Dearden et al.

The Koh Pitak initiative gained strong support from a wide range of actors. The very active local community support networks described above have obviously been an important support, but senior levels of government, such as the provincial governor’s office, also played a key role, as did the capacity-building efforts of local educational institutions. Although Koh Pitak should be celebrated as a community success story, it is also worth remembering that it was receipt of a national government award that really fostered the interest that led to increasing tourist numbers. This would have represented a very minor ‘investment’ from the government, but may have played a pivotal role in garnering media and public attention. In addition, Koh Pitak benefited from learning from other community-­based tourism initiatives in Thailand and, in turn, now provides a learning model for other communities not only related to tourism but also to the power of collective decision-­making and the power that environmental gains have made. Koh Pitak also provides one of the very best examples of the strong link between improved environmental management and the development of community-­based tourism. Coastal communities the world over are facing increasing threats to their livelihoods as a result of a host of very real changes ranging from decreased fish supply to more storms. There is much concern and research now being paid to current and future climate change impacts. Bennett et al. (2014), in their survey of the Andaman coast villages, found that climate change was a significant concern of the villagers, but not their pre-­eminent concern, which was mainly related to economic stressors. A similar situation was noted in Koh Pitak. The villagers have direct experience of rising sea levels and are building new houses with higher stilts as a response, but their main concerns are more immediate and economic in nature, suggesting the need for researchers to appreciate the wide range of stressors that impact communities. In response, resilient communities such as Koh Pitak must continue to maintain diverse livelihood opportunities rather than becoming focused on just one economic driver. Although tourism is a very welcome form of income in Koh Pitak, rebuilding the fishery, developing home gardens and maintaining the coconut plantation are also seen as very necessary components of a sustainable future. Koh Pitak is by no means the only successful community-­based tourism venture in Thailand, nor even in coastal Thailand (e.g. Andaman Discoveries, 2017), but it is certainly among the most successful in terms of the outcomes for the community itself, and as an example widely used to support changes in national policies and approaches towards community initiatives. The positive relationship developed with the national park is one example of this, as are the changes that have very recently been made in Thai national fisheries law to give more responsibility to local communities in fisheries management. Not all communities are ready or able to take on such responsibility, but Koh Pitak provides a good example for those that do. In many ways Koh Pitak exemplifies the transformative characteristics upon which this volume focuses: multi-­level collaboration and co-­management, shared learning processes, innovative policies and institutional arrangements, methodol­ ogies that engage with local and indigenous cultural practice, and entrepreneurial

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community-based tourism   195

activities that augment livelihoods. These facets came together in a unique place and at a unique time and spawned a successful community-­based initiative from which others can learn. However, Koh Pitak is very much the exception rather than the rule among Thai coastal communities and it is unlikely that the key elements of resource crisis, high social capital, visionary leadership, mutually enforcing environmental and entrepreneurial activities, high indigenous capacity, links to outside learning sources and support from higher levels of government would come together in such a configuration elsewhere. The essential message to carry forward is the ability of some communities to vision and implement such a transformation in less welcoming circumstances and yet achieve positive change that benefits both communities and conservation. Partial transformations are welcome.

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the assistance of our respondents on Koh Pitak and others who added to our understanding of the initiative, as well as funding from the Center for Advanced Studies in Tropical Natural Resources, Kasetsart University and the Community Conservation Research Network funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References Adams, W.M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B. and Wolmer, W. (2004). Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science, 306: 1146–1149. Agyare, A., Dearden, P., Murray, G. and Rollins, R. (2015). Conservation in context: variability in desired and perceived outcomes of community based natural resources governance in Ghana. Society and Natural Resources, 28: 975–994. Andaman Discoveries. (2017). Ban Lion village: community based tourism in Thailand. [Online] URL: www.andamandiscoveries.com/beach-­village-thailand/. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Baird, I. and Dearden, P. (2003). Biodiversity conservation and resource tenure regimes: a case study from NE Cambodia. Environmental Management, 35(5): 541–550. Benjamas, N.T. (2013). Final report. Carrying Capacity for Community-­based Tourism at Koh Phithak, Chumporn Province, Thailand: Phase II. Bangkok, Thailand: National Research Council of Thailand and the Thailand Research Fund (in Thai language). Benjamas, N.T. and Ruksapol, A. (2008). Carrying Capacity for Community-­based Tourism at Koh Phithak, Chumphon Province, Thailand: Phase I. Bangkok, Thailand: National Research Council of Thailand and the Thailand Research Fund. Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P. and Kadfak, A. (2015). Community-­based scenario planning: a process for vulnerability analysis and adaptation planning to social-­ecological change in  coastal communities. Environment, Development and Sustainability. doi:10.1007/ s10668–015–9707–1. Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., Murray, G. and Kadfak, A. (2014). The capacity to adapt? Coastal communities in a changing climate, environment, and economy on the Andaman coast of Thailand. Ecology and Society. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol19/iss2/art5/. [Accessed 8 January 2017].

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

196   P. Dearden et al.

Berdej, S., Armitage, D. and Charles, A. (2015). Governance and Community Conservation. CCRN, Community Conservation Research Network. Working Paper No. 2. Halifax, Nova Scotia: CCRN. Brockelman, W.Y. and Dearden, P. (1990). The role of nature trekking in conservation: a case study in Thailand. Environmental Conservation, 17(2): 141–148. Butchart, S.H.M., Clarke, M., Smith, R.J., Sykes, R.E., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Harfoot, M., Buchanan, G.M. et al. (2015). Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/conl.12158. Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M. et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science, 328: 1164–1168. Butcher, J. (2011). Can ecotourism contribute to tackling poverty? The importance of ‘symbiosis’. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(3): 295–307. Cantú-Salazar, L., Orme, C.D.L., Rasmussen, P.C., Blackburn, T.M. and Gaston, K.J. (2013). The performance of the global protected area system in capturing vertebrate geographic ranges. Biodiversity Conservation, 22: 1033–1047. Cardinale, B.J., Duffy J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S. and Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401): 59–67. Chuenpagdee, R. and Jentoft, S. (2009). Governability assessment of fisheries and coastal systems: a reality check. Human Ecology, 37: 109–120. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Aichi biodiversity targets. [Online] URL: www.cbd.int/sp/targets. [Accessed 23 March 2013]. Dale, A. and Newman, L. (2010). Social capital: a necessary and sufficient condition for sustainable community development? Community Development Journal, 45(1): 5–21. Dearden, P. (1991). Tourism and sustainable development in Northern Thailand. Geographical Review, 81: 400–413. Dearden, P. (2002). ‘Dern Sai Klang’: walking the middle path to biodiversity conservation in Thailand. In: P. Dearden (ed.) Environmental Protection and Rural Development in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press, pp. 377–400. Dearden, P., Chettamart, S., Emphandu, D. and Tanakanjana, N. (1996). National parks and hilltribes in Northern Thailand: a case study of Doi Inthanon. Society and Natural Resources, 9: 125–141. Floress, K., Prokopy, L.S. and Allred, S. (2011). It’s who you know: social capital, social networks, and watershed groups. Society and Natural Resources, 24(9): 871–886. Hauzer, M., Dearden, P. and Murray, G. (2013). The effectiveness of community-­based governance of small-­scale fisheries, Ngazidja Island, Comoros. Marine Policy, 38: 346–354. Jonas, H.D., Barbuto, V., Jonas, H.C., Kothari, A. and Nelson, F. (2014). New steps of change: looking beyond protected areas to consider other effective area-­based conservation measures. Parks, 20: 111–128. Jones, H. (2009). Equity in Development: Why It Is Important and How to Achieve. London: Overseas Development Institute. Jones, S. (2005). Community-­based ecotourism: the significance of social capital. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2): 303–324. Juffe-­Bignoli, D., Burgess, N.D., Bingham, H., Belle, E.M.S., de Lima, M.G., Deguignet, M., Bertzky, B. et al. (2014). Protected Planet Report 2014. Cambridge: UNEP-­WCMC. [Online] URL: www.unep-­wcmc.org/systemdataset_file_fields/files/000/000/289/­ original/Protected_Planet_Report_2014_01122014_EN_web.pdf?1420549522. [Accessed 8 January 2017].

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Community-based tourism   197

Lunn, K.E. and Dearden, P. (2006). Fishers’ needs in marine protected area zoning. Coastal Management, 34 (2): 183–198. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-­Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press. Mora, C. and Sale, P.F. (2011). Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 434: 251–266. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pretty, J. and Smith, D. (2004). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation Biology, 18(3): 631–638. Rands, M., Adams, W., Bennun, L., Butchart, S., Clements, A., Coomes, D., Entwistle, A., Hodge, I., Kapos, V., Scharlemann, J.P., Sutherland, W.J. and Vira, B. (2010). Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329: 1298–1303. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M. et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2): 32. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/ art32/. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Sandbrook, C.G. (2010). Putting leakage in its place: the significance of retained tourism revenue in the local context in rural Uganda. Journal of International Development, 22: 124–136. Sandbrook, C.G. and Adams, W.M. (2012). Accessing the impenetrable: the nature and distribution of tourism benefits at a Ugandan National Park. Society and Natural Resources, 25(9): 915–932. Shoaf Kozak, R., Lombe, M. and Miller, K. (2012). Global poverty and hunger: an assessment of Millennium Development Goal #1. Journal of Poverty, 16(4): 469–485. The Chaipattana Foundation. (2015). Philosophy of sufficient economy. Bangkok, Thailand: The Chaipattana Foundation. [Online] URL: www.chaipat.or.th/chaipat_english/index. php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4103%3Aphilosophy-of-­sufficiency-econo my&catid=739%3Aconcepts&Itemid=293&lang=en. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Tungittiplakorn, W. and Dearden, P. (2002). Hunting and wildlife use in some Hmong communities in northern Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society, 50: 57–73. Waylen, K.A., Fischer, A., Mcgowan, P.J.K., Thirgood, S.J. and Milner-­Gulland, E.J. (2010). Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-­based conservation interventions. Conservation Biology, 24(4): 1119–1129. Wittayapak, C. and Dearden, P. (1999). Decision-­making arrangements in community-­ based watershed management in Northern Thailand. Society and Natural Resources, 12: 673–691. Woodley, S., Bertzky, B., Crawhall, N., Dudley, N., Londoño, J.M., MacKinnon, K., Redford, L. and Sandwith, T. (2012). Meeting Aichi Target 11: what does success look like for protected area systems? Parks, 18: 23–35. World Bank. (2006). Thailand environment monitor 2006. Marine and Coastal Resources. Washington DC: World Bank. WWF. (2014). Living Planet Report 2014. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. Yang, J., Ryan, C. and Zhang, L. (2013). Social conflict in communities impacted by tourism. Tourism Management, 35: 82–93.

11 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

SASI LAUT IN MALUKU Transformation and sustainability of traditional governance in the face of globalisation Ahmad Mony, Arif Satria and Rilus A. Kinseng

Introduction Many contemporary studies have shown that sasi laut, a form of community-­based coastal resource management in Indonesia, is getting weaker and in many cases has even disappeared. A number of internal and external factors are contributing to this change. These include pressures from modernisation, political dynamics and social change, the availability of human resources and institutional capacity, as well as conflict and contestation among diverse actors. Nevertheless, some sasi laut systems have been able to transform to confront these and other threats. Thus, an important issue underlying analysis of the sustainability of the sasi laut system is the conditions in which it might change or adapt from its original form to address contemporary problems and changing values. This study of a successful transformation in the village of Haruku shows how sasi laut can respond to changing conservation values by broadening the scope of its application, supporting a greater role for women, and building conservation networks to solicit support and increase the likelihood of long-­term sustainability. However, none of this would have been possible without the participation of local people who have recognised this new scope of sasi laut and actively contributed to a number of related projects including the rehabilitation of mangroves. As developing countries have increasingly recognised the rights of communities to manage and conserve coastal resources, an interesting discourse has emerged regarding the ability of traditional systems to transform to face contemporary social and ecological problems (Satria et al., 2006a). In Indonesia, the return towards community-­based approaches emerged from a number of factors including: (1)  global conservation trends encouraging democratisation, public participation and political decentralisation (Kartodihardjo, 2013); (2) increased legitimacy for the role and value of local knowledge in governance and resource management (Afif

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of traditional governance   199

and Lowe, 2007); (3) increasing conflicts between the government and resource users in conservation areas (Satria et al., 2006a, 2006b); and (4) critiques of conservation models based exclusively upon modern scientific methods and government control (Satria, 2009). Ecologists and social scientists have come to recognise that communities often possess traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) that can play a valuable role in the effective and sustainable management of resources (Berkes, 1999). Historically, such knowledge was marginalised by discourses on conservation that emphasised modern science as a general solution for coastal resources management. However, some studies have proven the effectiveness of TEK in the management of coastal resources (Satria, 2007). For instance, Afif and Lowe (2007) with their indigeneity approach, argue that local knowledge and traditional wisdom are consistent with scientific principles of environmental conservation and could be the basis for new models of conservation-­based participation of indigenous peoples. Similarly, Ruddle and Satria (2010) have shown that coastal resource management requires that local communities hold rights in relation to coastal resources, including the right to create and enforce rules for the use of those resources. Sasi laut is one such example of a rediscovered approach to coastal resource management practised in each customary village in Maluku Tengah, Indonesia. Sasi laut is based upon local knowledge and protects coastal resources using periodic closures and other rules. Harkes and Novaczek (2000) found that in general sasi laut ‘prohibits the use of destructive gear’ (poisonous plants and chemicals, explosives, small mesh lift-­nets) but also defines seasonal rules of entry and harvest and activities allowed in specific parts of the sea. The regulations are guarded and enforced by an institution known as the kewang, which functions as a local police force. Its legitimacy, as well as that of the sasi institution itself, is based on adat or customary law. The opening of democratic spaces is not, however, necessarily associated with improved implementation of community-­based conservation and has, in fact, tended to weaken the sasi laut system. Studies have linked the weakening of the sasi laut system to modernisation pressures in traditional societies (Ruddle, 1993), state dominance and authoritarianism (Sangaji, 2008; Pical, 2008), and social change (Harkes and Novaczek, 2000; Salampessy, 2007). Furthermore, Mony et al. (2014) emphasise, conflicts between communities and the state, and conflict among local elites and limited human resources in responding to environmental changes are key factors affecting the sustainability of sasi laut. The sasi laut system is further threatened by questions about whether local actors are adequately equipped to assert their rights to use and manage coastal resources among the diverse actors involved at various levels of governance in the management of coastal resources. Political ecology which analyses the role of power, knowledge and social transformation in resource management (Bryant and Bailey, 1997; Bryant, 1998) therefore provides a valuable lens for this study. More specifically, political ecology argues that local systems of management are often undermined by factors such as a lack of power, the scale and levels of organisation at

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

200   A. Mony et al.

which decisions are made, the valuation of knowledge systems, the positioning of social actors and social constructions of nature. Also addressed are the policy narratives that shape governance and the dialectic relationship among ecological systems and social change (Armitage, 2008). In the case of coastal resources management using the sasi laut system, power relations between the actors at different levels appears to be one of the key factors driving the weakening of the sasi laut system (Mony et al., 2014). This study therefore investigates whether sasi laut is still effective and able to adapt to contemporary trends in coastal resources management. This chapter is based on research which was conducted in Haruku and Rohomoni villages of Haruku Island, Maluku. Data collection methods included: (1) in-­depth interviews with key informants; and (2) secondary data collection. In this study, secondary data was used to support the analysis and interpretation of the data. Key informants were selected using purposive sampling, that is the respondents were chosen in consideration of their knowledge and relevance to the research.

Historical development of sasi laut Sasi laut, as a social institution, is dynamic and evolves alongside other forms of social change in communities, such as shifting norms about gender roles. The sasi laut system in Maluku has experienced several distinct phases or periods (Figure 11.1). In each period a different model of authority and system of power relations developed. Prior to the arrival of Islam and Christianity in Maluku, sasi laut was

Precolonialism era

The sasi laut system developed and was implemented by customary authority using local knowledge with limited external pressures until the arrival of Christianity and Islam.

Colonialism era (1700s–1945)

Sasi laut was adopted by the East Indies government by issuing the Regulation of East Indies Government of 1921 Series R No. 44 on Het recht van Sasi in de Molukken. In some cases, sasi laut was taken over by the church.

Postcolonialism era: New Order era (1967–1998)

Sasi laut was marginalised by policies promoting uniformity in village governance through Act No. 5 of 1979, as well as political, economic and social conflicts.

Postcolonialism era: Local autonomy era (1999–present)

The Indonesian government shifted from a centralised to decentralised model of governance. Some authority for managing natural resources is transferred to regional/local governments. In terms of coastal resources management, the sasi laut system was formally recognised by the government through the issuance of Act No. 27 of 2007 as amended by Act No. 1 of 2014 on the management of coastal areas and small islands.

FIGURE 11.1 

Periods of the sasi laut system

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of traditional governance   201

developed and implemented endogenously based upon the traditional beliefs of local communities. However, with the arrival of the two major religions sasi laut has transformed to include their values which took root in the social system, culture, politics and society. The most notable of these – ‘church sasi’ – took place in the Christian villages in Maluku and specified that the church has authority to implement sasi to replace kewang when institutional vacuum of kewang happens. By contrast, during the colonial era, the sasi laut system was strengthened when it was adopted by the colonial administration. Sasi laut was formalised by the Dutch colonial government by the proclamation of the Regulation of the Dutch East Indies Series R No. 44 of 1921 on Het recht van Sasi in de Molukken. During the postcolonial New Order (1967–1999) era, however, the sasi laut system was once again threatened by external pressure as a result of state intervention in local affairs. During this period the administration promoted uniformity in village administration systems which resulted in the marginalisation of local institutions, such as the sasi laut system (Pical, 2008; Sangadji, 2010; Nendissa, 2010). Nonetheless, the current practice of sasi laut has also been strengthened in several areas including the village of Haruku with the support of universities and local NGOs (Nikijuluw, 1995; Xiuping et al., 2010: Mony, 2014). Since 1999, all local institutions in Indonesia have been formally revitalised through a series of decentralisation policies and initiatives that provide more space for the improvement of village-­level government. Act 32 of 2004 provides broader authority to local government units for a variety of activities including natural resources management. Act 6 of 2014 further enhanced the power of local governments by allowing them to organise their own administration. Thus, the formal institutional arrangements clearly indicate a general support by the government for coastal resources management that is based on local knowledge. The Coastal Management Act No. 27 of 2007, amended by Act No. 1 2014, grants full recognition and broad authority to local systems of governance sasi for coastal resources management. Local governments have also developed initiatives to strengthen local  governance practices and local institutional arrangements (Sangadji, 2010; Mony, 2014). In general, however, the sasi laut system has struggled to adapt in this new democratic era. The external pressure by the government through investment policies in coastal areas, as well as economic and political conflicts at the local level, has weakened the practice of sasi laut. According to Mony et al. (2014), sasi laut practices were inactive in 15 of 19 villages in two subdistricts (Haruku and Salahutu) due to conflict as a result of the local election of the king, as well as economic competition among local village elites. Furthermore, aside from the proclamation of supportive laws and policies on paper, the local government has not given great attention to the development of sasi laut institutions. Today, most initiatives aiming to empower sasi laut are carried out by donors, universities and NGOs.

202   A. Mony et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Sasi laut management in the new coastal governance system There are three kinds of sasi systems: (1) sasi laut, used to protect the coastal and marine resources; (2) sasi darat, aimed at protecting the forest and estate resources; and (3) sasi kali, which is aimed at protecting rivers and related resources. Our focus here is the sasi laut system, and it remains an important discourse in Indonesia as the political system continues to evolve from a centralised to decentralised model (Figure 11.2). The shift of responsibility to the village level and, in particular, the management of natural resources in rural areas, has been formalised by the issuance of Law No. 06 Year 2014 on Village Government which provides a wider political space for villages to organise themselves for resource management. Community-­ based conservation of coastal areas was considered particularly important and received special government recognition through Act No.  27 of 2007 and Act No. 1 of 2014 on the Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands. One positive element of this act is that it provides arenas for public participation in the management of coastal areas, including planning and implementation, as well as monitoring and control (Satria, 2009; Satria and Matsuda, 2004a, 2004b). This means local and traditional knowledge has received formal recognition within the national legal and political systems for coastal and marine resources management. Central government

Decentralisation

Act No. 23 of 2014

The delivery of authority on fisheries and marine areas

Act No. 06 of 2014

Recognition of local government based on the origin of the village

Regency goverment

Regional Regulation No. 01 of 2006 Regional Regulation No. 03 of 2006 Regional Regulation No. 04 of 2006 Regional Regulation No. 06 of 2006 Regional Regulation No. 12 of 2006 Local autonomy

Village government Regulation of village on sasi laut

Devolution FIGURE 11.2 

Recognition of local government and local wisdom in natural resource management

Devolution of sasi laut systembased resource management

Sasi laut system

 overnmental and coastal resources management as the devolution basis G of coastal resources management

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of traditional governance   203

As explained earlier, the package of laws and policies established by governments of various levels have provided a very wide space for the devolution of management for coastal resources in the sasi laut of Maluku (Xiuping et al., 2010). Devolution refers to the process by which responsibilities for natural resource management are transferred to resource users who should be actively involved in coastal resources management. The sasi laut system as characterised by the system of values and knowledge of local communities enjoys robust scientific support for resource management based upon findings of experts from diverse fields including ecology and anthropology. Berkes (1999) argued that the rules, beliefs and habits practised by traditional communities often encode unique and valuable knowledge about the natural world around them, using the label ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ (or TEK). Xiuping et al. (2010) later found in their systematic review of TEK that this knowledge of the local context can be an invaluable source for the design and implementation of effective and sustainable management of natural resources. Further studies such as Afif and Lowe (2007) emphasise the relationship between local knowledge in resource management and principles of scientific conservation, while Ruddle and Satria (2010) note that local systems and scientific conservation tend to emphasise similar types of problems such as rule-­making, monitoring and sanctioning, as well as the delegation of authority for these tasks. This, in turn, suggests that local knowledge and scientific knowledge are closely related and can each play an important role in community-­based conservation and integrated management. In practice, however, approaches adopted by scientific conservation and community-­based conservation are different and can, at times, pose challenges for integration and affect the sustainability of conservation efforts. The devolution of responsibility for coastal resource management is not based solely upon the knowledge, values and the existence of local institutions in the form of the sasi laut system itself. Indeed, this devolution coincides with changes in the global discourse on conservation wherein community-­based approaches began to enjoy considerable support. Therefore, it is important to examine in greater depth and objectivity the process by which power is devolved and used in local contexts. Some recent studies, such as Harkes and Novaczek (2000), Salampessy (2007) and Pical (2008), show that the sasi laut system in Maluku system has weakened considerably even after powers were devolved, and has almost disappeared (Table 11.1). Nonetheless, aspects of the historical sasi system remain vibrant in some communities or for some resources. During the last two decades since Ruddle (1993) completed his research on threats to community-­based resource management, the same general types of problems appear to affect the sasi laut system. Table 11.2 summarises the results of two studies exploring the factors threatening the viability of the sasi laut system. Contemporary applications of sasi laut also face a number of additional challenges as it tries to adapt to changing social and ecological conditions. First, emphasis on the economic and cultural benefits of conservation has undermined the basic spirit of conservation oriented towards ecology, the protection of biota and its

204   A. Mony et al. TABLE 11.1  The development of sasi laut implementation in Maluku

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Source

Location

Mapping results of the sasi existing

Harkes and Study was conducted in 63 villages Novaczek in Ambon, Seram Selatan and Lease (2000) Islands

Of the 63 villages, there were 19 villages without sasi. Most of them were in Ambon and Saparua Islands in 1990. In Haruku Island, some forms of sasi were present in each village. Of the 63 villages, there were 35 villages with sasi laut institutions

Salampessy (2007)

There were ten villages with land sasi, and six villages with sasi laut. There was only one without any sasi. Activities in support of sasi were limited in Rohomoni village

Study was conducted in 11 villages in the District of Haruku Island, Maluku Tengah

Pical (2008) The study was conducted in Maluku where 61 villages were studied, consisting of: 22 villages in Ambon city, 37 villages in Maluku Tengah and 2 villages in Seram Bagian Barat

There were 54 implementing sasi; 16 villages only implemented sasi laut and 29 villages implemented sasi darat. There were only 16 villages implementing both sasi

habitat as a basic foundation for the preservation and sustainability of resources. Second, the location and implementation of protected areas are heavily influenced by local factors, neglecting their natural connection to other coastal areas and the marine ecosystem. Third, local conservation efforts have been slow to adapt to the dynamics of social movements, and lack of human capital needed to respond to the global discourse on the environment. Fourth, and finally, local conservation efforts have not yet clearly articulated their vision for conservation, nor recognised the linkages between coastal resource management, local livelihoods and the wider social and ecological environment in which they are found. Based on these findings it is important to evaluate the implementation of the sasi laut system to develop an understanding of its effectiveness and prospects to contribute to sustainable coastal and marine resources management.

Transformation of sasi laut in Haruku, Maluku Tengah The ecological and cultural aspects of sasi laut continue to be practised in the village of Haruku in an attempt to preserve traditions and promote ecological sustainability. The successful transformation in Haruku appears to be the result of a shift in authority for sasi laut from the church which, along with the government, undermined some practices of the indigenous kewang. In this transformation, traditional and indigenous rites, such as the opening of sasi on lompa fish (Thrissima baelama), were restored. As one respondent said about the implementation of sasi by the church: ‘The time sasi was taken over by the church, all indigenous rituals were

Transformation of traditional governance   205

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

TABLE 11.2  Factors affecting the viability of the sasi laut system

Factor

Harkes and Novaczek (2000)

Mony et al. (2014)

Transformation of kewang

Kewang are increasingly influenced Institutional conflicts emerged as or controlled by the church formal authority for the kewang was transferred to the village government, resulting in competing influences on the kewang

Local conflicts

Conflicts between the indigenous leadership and formal government and between the church and indigenous institutions, as well as between different churches, pose challenges for governance

Local political conflict regarding the selection of the head of village resulted in social disharmony and disobedience towards traditional authorities such as the kewang

Coastal and marine resources degradation

Urbanisation and resource degradation increase the magnitude of challenges for coastal resource management

Resource degradation reduces the economic value of coastal resources, weakening the sustainability of the sasi laut system

Local economy

The falling price of cloves and competitive commodity markets increase pressure on resources including fishing

Coastal resources (i.e. fish) are a less important source of income for local communities, threatening the sustainability of sasi laut. Attempts to increase catches have resulted in the adoption of destructive fishing practices

Leadership

The absence of leadership in coastal resource management led to decreases in enforcement and compliance

The centralisation of authority for the kewang resulted in conflict among leaders of the kewang

eliminated. Both opening and closing of lompa fish sasi was conducted using the church way.’ This transformation was facilitated by a number of community initiatives along with changes in the local institutional system. First, the role of women in sasi laut was acknowledged and supported. Second, local norms and unwritten regulations were formalised and given legal standing through the issuance of the written Village Regulation on Sasi Laut of Haruku. Third, indigenous rituals related to sasi laut were organised and promoted as a form of cultural and marine tourism, with a sasi laut festival taking place in Haruku village during the opening of lompa fish. Fourth, sasi areas were expanded to revitalise the protection of coastal areas and biota such as mangroves, sea turtles and maleo birds, as well as other coastal vegetation. Fifth, and finally, the long-­term sustainability of sasi laut was fostered through the establishment of marine tourism. In addition to local efforts, a number of external factors played an important role in the transformation of the Haruku sasi laut system. First of all, the kewang leaders

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

206   A. Mony et al.

at Haruku made networking a large priority and built relationships with several NGOs, universities and even international donors. Second, they have gained support for their efforts through various national and global forums. For instance, since they received a Kalpataru award from the Indonesian government, the sasi laut of Haruku has helped to inform discourses on community-­based conservation (the Kalpataru Award is a prestigious national award given to an actor that has contributed to environmental protection efforts). Third, links between the sasi laut of villages on Haruku Island have been established through the creation of the Haru-­ Ukui Kalesang foundation which aims to actively protect the coastal areas and prevent destructive fishing practices.

Broadening the scope of sasi laut As opposed to Rohomoni, the kewang of Haruku was more moderate and open to adapt practices for coastal resource management. The historical practice of sasi laut in this village placed protections on the area of water facing the village as well as the aquatic habitat area of lompa fish, starting at the sea to the river mouth. However, when external parties made them aware of the potential benefits of extending the sasi laut to protect certain types of habitats as well as species, such as maleo birds, gosong birds (Eulipoa wallacei), turtles and mangrove forests, the community supported these changes. Local people actively participated in a number of initiatives including the planting of mangrove nurseries and rehabilitation of the estuary of the Learisa Kayeli River, an important habitat for lompa fish. Mangrove rehabilitation was seen as particularly important as coastal erosion had begun to threaten settlements and other public infrastructure in recent years. The goals or purpose of sasi laut in Haruku were expanded from resource management to include species conservation, habitat protection, and commercialisation. For instance, the kewang of this village collaborated with the University of Pattimura Ambon in protecting maleo birds. The partnership was carried out using scientific studies on maleo birds, as well as the captive breeding and release of maleo birds into their natural habitats. Mangrove conservation activities were initiated by the kewang along with members of the local community. The cultivated seeds of mangrove were used to rehabilitate mangrove habitats in the estuary and coastal areas of Haruku village, while also providing economic support to fund the kewang itself.

Gender representation Sasi laut, as part of the broader system of sasi in Haruku, recognises the role of women in managing resources, a view which is strongly supported by the leaders of the kewang. The leader of sasi darat, for example, adopted a strategy of modernising the kewang and promoted cooperation with all parties to develop a common vision in maintaining and preserving the tradition of sasi. The participation of women was acknowledged as something new for the kewang:

Transformation of traditional governance   207

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

There were no female members of kewang institution. All the members were male. I decided to recruit the female members into kewang corps as the representation of gender. This decision was due to the offense of sasi were not only done by male, women did the same. Therefore, the female representation was to prosecute the female offenders of sasi in kewang tribunal. (Interview with Elly Kissya, the leader of sasi darat, 2015) The dominance of men in the kewang was noted earlier by Harkes and Novaczek (2000) who found that women were never involved in the decision-­making process. The main consideration of the kewang leader and the king of Haruku village about women’s representation in the kewang was the fact that both males and females breached the sasi laut. Therefore, women should be represented in the kewang, particularly for determining the sanctions for female offenders. Currently, of the 40 members of the kewang institution, four are women who are actively involved in kewang activities such as weekly meetings.

Building partnerships and networks In order to maintain the sasi laut management system in Haruku village in the absence of adequate government support, the kewang of Haruku village undertook other initiatives. They actively developed partnerships with international donors through the support of universities and NGOs to strengthen the kewang institution and support capacity-building projects for the kewang and the community of Haruku Village. One such partnership was with the NFP-­PAO (National Forest Programme – Food and Agriculture Organization) through the Capacity Building and Environmental Education for People of Haruku, which included a number of interrelated projects. This partnership project aimed to rehabilitate the habitat for maleo birds, rehabilitate water resources, provide an environmental library for the local community, and conduct environmental training and awareness activities. This programme paired social and ecological goals, hoping to generate win–win outcomes for the local community and conservation of biodiversity. This ultimately collaborative, respectful and mutually beneficial relationship involved the kewang, NGOs and universities. Relationships were developed by first collaborating to identify the goals and interests of each party. Common goals and interests were identified and used as a starting point for discussions on the development of sasi laut. This collaboration was conducted only for sasi laut, especially the sasi of lompa fish in the village of Haruku. Sasi laut became the focus of one of the NGOs, while the university targeted the revitalisation of local traditions. The parties began with the goal of reviving and developing local institutions. In contrast, such fruitful collaborations are not found in the village of Rohomoni.

208   A. Mony et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Adaptation to climate change In recent years, villagers in Haruku have begun to experience the effects of climate change which have had an impact on the practice of sasi laut. More specifically, climate change requires local communities including Haruku to adapt sasi laut to changes in the natural world. These include changes in migration patterns of lompa fish over the last five years that affect the times at which lompa fish sasi is opened or closed. Second, large floods struck the village of Haruku in 2009 and 2011, resulting in damage to the estuary region, an important habitat of lompa fish. Third, coastal erosion, especially in the river estuary, has caused periodic flooding and damage during high tide. Many of the activities undertaken in Haruku village are explicitly or implicitly linked to adaptation to climate change. Planting of mangroves in the estuary and watershed provide some measure of flood control. This has been complemented by the construction of dykes (breakwaters) along the coasts by the local government to limit coastal erosion and limit threats from sea-­level rise. Finally, the community has begun to enforce sasi aimed at limiting damage to the coastal areas and estuaries.

Conclusion The preceding analysis reveals that although sasi laut is in general decline and faces a number of different threats, there are reasons to be optimistic about its potential to be revitalised, and its potential in transforming conservation efforts. The community of Haruku provides one such example and highlights several factors that appear to increase the likelihood of a successful transformation. First of all, it is worth noting that although the sasi laut system enjoys a rich history, it is not inflexible to changing conditions. Specific changes in Haruku include its extension to other resource conservation issues, such as mangroves, turtles and the gosong bird (Eulipoa wallacei), and recognition of the role of women. The dynamic transformation of the sasi laut system in Haruku was facilitated by the active participation of diverse stakeholders including local leaders, members of the community, and external stakeholders such as donors, NGOs, universities and the government. The transformation of the kewang and revitalisation of sasi laut was the result of cooperation between the community and the local university. Meanwhile, sasi laut was further strengthened by support from international donors, NGOs and both local and international researchers. Building upon these findings, several strategies might be considered to further promote the revitalisation and transformation of sasi laut in Maluku. First, efforts to integrate outside values into the sasi laut system should recognise the potential value of local knowledge in order to avoid undermining existing sasi laut practices that might contribute to successful resource management. Second, empowerment efforts conducted by outside parties should consider the socio-­cultural conditions as well as local power dynamics to prevent conflict and contestation among village

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of traditional governance   209

elites. Third, the regional government should encourage the institutionalisation of sasi laut through empowerment programmes and other facilitating policies and initiatives. The involvement of a wide range of parties such as donors, NGOs and universities in the transformation of the sasi laut system should be seen as part of a global effort to strengthen global conservation. This new sasi laut system involves multiple parties and is consistent with trends towards multi-­level governance (Armitage, 2008), and adaptive co-­management (Ruitenbeek and Cartier, 2001; Olsson et al., 2004) of natural resources. These approaches, at least in theory, appear to hold considerable promise for further development of sasi laut governance.

References Afif, S. and Lowe, C. (2007). Claiming indigenous community: political discourse and natural resource rights in Indonesia. Alternatives, 44(6): 73. Armitage, D. (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-­level world. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1): 7–32. Berkes, F. (1999). Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Bryant, R.L. (1998). Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography, 22(1): 79–94. Bryant, R.L. and Bailey, S. (1997). Third World Political Ecology. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Harkes, I. and Novaczek, I. (2000). Institutional resilience of sasi laut, a fisheries management system in Indonesia. Paper presented at the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. Kartodihardjo, H. (ed.) (2013). Kembali Ke Jalan Lurus: Kritik Penggjnaan Ilmu dan Praktek Kehutanan Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia: FORCI Development dan Tanah Air Beta.  Mony, A. (2014). Ekologi Politik Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir: Studi Kasus Pengelolaan Sasi laut di Maluku. Bogor, Indonesia: IPB. Mony, A., Satria, A., Kinseng, A. and Rilus, A. (2014). Makalah Seminar Hasil Penelitian: Ekologi Politik Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Pesisir. Bogor, Indonesia: FEMA IPB. Nendissa, R.H. (2010). The existence of traditional institutions in implementing the Law of the Sea Sasi in the central Moluccas. Jurnal Sasi, 16(4): 1–6. Nikijuluw, V.P.H. (1995). Community-­based fishery management (Sasi) in Central Maluku. Indonesian Agricultural Research and Development Journal, 17(2): 33–39. Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive co-­management for building resilience in socio-­ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34: 75–90. Pical, V.J. (2008). Pengaruh Perubahan Sistim Pemerintahan Desa Terhadap Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Perikanan Berbasis Masyarakat Di Pedesaan Maluku. Journal Ichthyos, 7(2): 71–78. Ruddle, K. (1993). External forces and change in traditional community-­based fishery management systems in the Asia-­Pacific region. Maritime Anthropological Studies (MAST), 6(1–2): 1–37. Ruddle, K. and Satria, A. (eds). (2010). Managing Coastal and Inland Water. London: Springer.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

210   A. Mony et al.

Ruitenbeek, J. and Cartier, C. (2001). The Invisible Wand: Adaptive Co-­management as an Emergent Strategy in Complex Bio-­economic Systems. Occasional Paper No. 34. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research. Salampessy, J. (2007). Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Alam di Pulau Kecil Dalam Perspektif Budaya Masyarakat Maluku. Disertasi. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: UGM. Sangadji, M. (2010). Penguatan Eksistensi Budaya Sasi Sebagai Upaya Menjaga Keberlanjutan Ekonomi (Tinjauan Perspektif Modal Sosial). Dissertation. Malang, Indonesia: Universitas Brawijay. Sangaji, A. (2008). Aparat keamanan dan kekerasan regional Poso. Politik lokal di Indonesia. Satria, A. (2007). Sawen: institution, local knowledge and myths in fisheries management in North Lombok, Indonesia. In: N. Haggan, B. Neis and I.G. Baird (eds) Fishers’ Knowledge in Fisheries Science and Fisheries Management. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 199–220. Satria, A. (2009). Pesisir dan Laut untuk Rakyat. Bogor, Indonesia: IPB Press. Satria, A. and Matsuda, Y. (2004a). Decentralization of fisheries management in Indonesia. Marine Policy, 28: 361–450. Satria, A. and Matsuda, Y. (2004b). Decentralization policy: an opportunity for strengthening fisheries management system? Journal of Environment and Development, 13(2): 179–196. Satria, A., Masaaki, S. and Hidenori, S. (2006a). Politics of marine conservation area in Indonesia: from a centralized to a decentralized system. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 5(3): 240–261. Satria, A., Matsuda, Y. and Sano, M. (2006b). Questioning community-­based coral reef management systems: case study of Awig-­Awig in Gili Indah, Indonesia. Journal of Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 8(1): 99–118. Xiuping, H.H.M., Kissya, E. with Yanes. (2010). Indigenous Knowledge and Customary Law in Natural Resource Management: Experiences in Yunnan, China and Haruku, Indonesia. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP) Foundation.

12 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

The Messy Intertidal Zone Transformation of governance thinking for coastal Nova Scotia Jennifer Graham and Anthony Charles

Introduction Nova Scotia, a Canadian province bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, is a juris­ diction very much defined by its coast, with no place in the Province lying further than 60 kilometres from the sea (NSDFA, 2009a). Its coast encompasses marine and terrestrial systems that are biologically highly productive, with harvests of these living resources reflecting the importance of the coast in shaping the Province’s economy, culture, livelihoods, recreation and identity for millennia. Nova Scotia’s coastal communities have a long tradition of mobilising to conserve and maintain access to the coast and its resources. This chapter describes and analyses a significant and relatively rapid transformation – over roughly a decade (2004–2014) – in how the Province’s coastal conservation organisations conceptualised and worked towards coastal governance. The chapter begins with an overview of governance arrangements related to coastal resources in Nova Scotia, and then explains the transformation of govern­ ance thinking among civil society organisations dealing with coastal issues. This is explored in two ways. First, we examine the formation of a broad provincial network of non-­governmental organisations, the Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia (CCNS), as a response to a ‘broken’ system of coastal governance, and explore its  role in providing a mechanism to influence provincial coastal strategy development. Second, the evolution in thinking on coastal governance is further addressed through three case studies. These reflect the transformation of civil society’s attention to coastal governance from (1) local groups working alone to stop undesired development in their own community (the case of Louis Head Beach); to (2) larger-­scale mobilisation to ensure that new development is in keeping with community values and maintains and/or protects coastal functions and uses (Digby

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

212   J. Graham and A. Charles

Neck Quarry); to (3) emergence of community groups with integrated approaches to tackling governance challenges, which create and begin to implement new insti­ tutions (St. Margaret’s Bay Stewardship Association). The chapter closes with an assessment of lessons for transformations in coastal governance more broadly. This chapter was developed through dialogue with key actors involved in the work described within the chapter, who provided email and telephone comments and feedback on earlier versions of the chapter. The authors also drew on a review of documents, websites and media reports from the period. The analysis draws on recent literature on community governance of natural resources as well as social-­ ecological systems approaches.

Nova Scotia’s coastal communities Nova Scotia is historically part of Mi’kma’ki, the traditional territory of the Mi’kmaq indigenous people for over 16,000 years (Sable and Francis, 2013). Settlement pat­ terns of those of European descent arriving subsequently reflect the importance of the sea for livelihood, commerce, trade and transportation. Although up-­to-date statistics on the fishing industry are scarce, Nova Scotia’s Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture identified 247 small craft harbours in Nova Scotia, associated with 93 distinct fishing communities (NSDFA, 2009b). There has been considerable change over time, as reported by the Nova Scotia government (Fisheries and Aqua­ culture) in an examination of working waterfronts and coastal communities in Nova Scotia (NSDFA, 2009b). Using the terms ‘healthy’ and ‘in decline’ from that report, while there was an increase between 1991 and 2006 in the number of healthy fishing communities, from 26 to 31, for the same period, the number of coastal fishing communities in decline increased from 39 to 61 (NSDFA, 2009b). While the number of fish harvesters and active fishing licences is also in decline, the value of the fishery, particularly for lobster, remains high – $601 million in landed value in Nova Scotia in 2009 according to the Canadian Council of Profes­ sional Fish Harvesters (Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, 2015). The fishery remains an important economic and social component of coastal com­ munities. Many of Nova Scotia’s rural communities are characterised by an aging population that is putting homes and land up for sale. In coastal communities, ocean front property, in particular, is often purchased from outside the community. As for new construction, although the trend has slowed in recent years due to a slow economy, between 1960 and 2008 almost 70 per cent of new building lots in Nova Scotia were in coastal areas (NSDFA, 2009c). Yet despite these demographic changes, Nova Scotia remains deeply attached to the coast. A telephone survey commissioned by the provincial government in 2010 showed that 88 per cent of the Province’s population placed a very high value on the protection of coastal areas, including sensitive coastal ecosystems and habitat (NSDFA, 2010). There has been a long-­standing mismatch between how people actually use the  coast in Nova Scotia and the formal (governmental) regulatory regime for

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of governance thinking   213

managing coastal (and marine) activities. While coastal communities rely on both the land and the sea together, governmental institutions are sharply divided between terrestrial and marine domains. The divide among coastal-­related governance insti­ tutions is most striking in looking at national versus provincial mandates. In Canada, the ocean, which includes coastal waters, falls under federal jurisdiction, while pro­ vincial governments, including that of Nova Scotia, have jurisdiction over the ter­ restrial side of the coastal zone. Despite its strong coastal identity, Nova Scotia does not have overarching coastal legislation or policies; instead, 14 provincial government departments have some regulatory responsibility for the coast, most notably Environment, Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs, and Fisheries and Aquaculture. Citizens and com­ munity groups often find it exceedingly difficult to navigate the jurisdictional maze and figure out which department is responsible for a particular issue (Kraft, 2012). Furthermore, without a clear overarching coastal policy or framework, there is no clear direction or priority for balancing competing interests and uses of the coast (Mercer-­Clarke, 2010). Municipalities offer another layer of coastal governance. Through the Municipal Government Act (MGA), municipalities have the capability to create planning strategies and bylaws, including those to protect the environment and citizens from hazards. This can include the establishment of development setbacks in coastal areas, or other tools to protect ecologically sensitive areas. However, the MGA does not actually require municipalities to create land use plans or bylaws, so while most municipalities have some form of planning, it is difficult to ensure any special protection for the coast and those who live in coastal areas. Nevertheless, some advances have been made in recent years, with the develop­ ment of Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (ICSP) and Climate Change Action Plans (MCCAPs) in all Nova Scotia municipalities, as required by the Prov­ ince in order for the municipalities to receive a federal gas tax rebate. Many of these plans recognise the impact that climate change will have on coastal communities and include action items around the development of flood risk and coastal hazard maps, providing education materials to citizens about climate change, and discour­ aging new development in areas at risk from storm surges and floods. Turning to civil society and the local community level in Nova Scotia, there is a long history of community organisations working to retain access to natural resources (Leeming, 2013). In particular, fishing organisations have struggled for a role in formal fishery management, seeking the mandate to set local rules over fishery practices, and greater integration of fishing and community governance (Graham et al., 2006). A key motivation for such innovations was the widespread collapse and closure in the early 1990s of fisheries for cod and other groundfish – a devastating economic and social blow to coastal communities throughout the Atlantic Canada region (Charles, 1995). Another driver was the Supreme Court of Canada’s Marshall Decision in 1997, which recognised the traditional rights of Mi’kmaq people to commercial use of fish and other coastal resources (Charles et al., 2007; Charles, 2008).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

214   J. Graham and A. Charles

In part driven by pressure from local environmental and community organisa­ tions for more community involvement in coastal governance, the Province of Nova Scotia released, in the mid-­1990s, a draft governance framework, known as Coastal 2000, which included recommendations for an increased decision-­making role for local communities. However, there were no mechanisms for community involvement or watershed-­level management in either the existing policies or the proposed Coastal 2000 framework (Mercer-­Clarke, 2010). Ultimately the Coastal 2000 strategy was never implemented by the provincial government. By the early 2000s, as development pressures on Nova Scotia’s coast continued to increase, environment and community groups were increasingly frustrated with having no voice in coastal management decisions. This frustration eventually coalesced into a change in tactics and approach in how these groups worked with each other and with the provincial government, as well as a shift in the kind of work they were doing. These changes are described in the next two sections.

Transformation of governance thinking: the coastal coalition of Nova Scotia In a relatively short time period (2004–2014), a new provincial network, the Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia (CCNS), changed how community groups concerned with Nova Scotia’s coast worked together, and what they were working towards. In the early days of the modern environmental movement (late 1950s to late 1980s), most community struggles to protect the environment from threats (such as spruce budworm spraying programmes or uranium mining) had explicitly linked environ­ mental concerns and social justice issues (Leeming, 2013). However, by the mid-­ 1990s, much of the discourse on environmental management had shifted towards discussions framed as technical questions about how to manage resources so as to balance competing interests (Leeming, 2013). In this context, the groups concerned about the health of Nova Scotia’s coast in the late 1990s and early 2000s saw them­ selves, and were seen by government, as environmental or conservation organisa­ tions. In the years 2004–2014, CCNS helped transform the concept of the coast from a purely environmental issue to a wider discussion of communities and coastal governance. CCNS helped create and disseminate a storyline around the theme that people living in coastal communities needed to fix the broken system of coastal governance in order to achieve long-­lasting protection for Nova Scotia’s coast.

Initial stages The lack of coastal legislation, policy or strategy in Nova Scotia had been a concern for civil society and a key driving force in the formation of the Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia (CCNS) in 2004. CCNS’s mission was to achieve official recognition of Nova Scotia’s coast as its greatest environmental, economic and cultural asset, and the preservation, restoration and sustainable use of Nova Scotia’s coastal ecosystems.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of governance thinking   215

Between 2004 and 2012, CCNS’s active membership included naturalist groups, provincial and local conservation organisations, watershed organisations, and local groups interested in specific issues like surfing access, aquaculture, tourism, tidal power or community development. At its peak, CCNS had 55 member groups from across Nova Scotia, each with its own mission and mandate, but sharing a common interest in the health of Nova Scotia’s coasts and in achieving a greater role for community in coastal governance. The member groups also shared a strong belief that the existing management system – with its overlapping juris­dictional responsibilities and lack of coherent focus or strategy – was fundamentally broken and needed to be reformed. These themes were prominent from the outset of the CCNS. Its initial event, in 2004, brought together almost 100 representatives – local conservation groups, municipal and provincial governments, students and aca­ demics – to focus on how to improve coastal management in Nova Scotia. After learning about and analysing the role of federal, provincial and municipal levels of government in coastal governance, those present at the inaugural meeting decided to form a coalition to leverage their separate efforts into a much stronger collective voice through the formation of CCNS. In terms of strategy, the founding group decided that although all levels of gov­ ernment needed to work together to improve coastal management, it made more sense strategically at that time to work towards a provincial coastal strategy. Among other considerations, it was thought that a provincial strategy might be achieved more quickly than coaxing individual municipalities to adopt coastal land use plan­ ning bylaws and standards. This strategic decision was a first transformation from conservation groups working separately on distinct coastal issues towards a broader and more unified approach. It also indicated that CCNS saw the issues that indi­ vidual groups brought to the table – ranging from unwanted coastal development to beach closures to water quality issues – as symptoms of a much larger problem with coastal governance. The decision to concentrate primarily on the provincial level, rather than on federal or municipal governments, initially achieved good results. By 2007, the Province of Nova Scotia had started to take note of public and media interest about the coast. In early 2007, the provincial government began work on a coastal man­ agement framework, and established the Provincial Ocean Network as a mech­ anism to facilitate interdepartmental collaboration on coastal issues within the government. In the 2008 Throne Speech, the Nova Scotia government announced it would create a provincial coastal strategy by 2010.

CCNS and the Nova Scotia coastal strategy The initial announcement of the provincial government’s moves to create a coastal strategy was seen very positively by CCNS, as a provincial commitment to tackle coastal issues in a meaningful and definitive manner. However, from the beginning, CCNS was concerned about the narrow scope of the proposed coastal strategy, which focused on just six issues: coastal development, coastal ecosystems and

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

216   J. Graham and A. Charles

habitat, sea-­level rise and climate change, working waterfronts, water quality, and coastal access. Notably absent were issues relating to currently controversial coastal uses (e.g. tidal power, aquaculture), to reforming coastal governance and building community involvement, or to any provisions for addressing new and emerging issues. Given the combination of its desire for a coastal strategy, and its concerns over the scope of the process, CCNS strategically played a dual role, managing to shift relatively fluidly between the two essential and complementary roles. On the one hand, the coalition crafted a counter-­message about the value and significance of Nova Scotia’s coast and the need for a coherent, inclusive coastal strategy that addressed and fixed real coastal issues, including the well-­understood governance challenges. On the other hand, CCNS also saw its role as keeping the coastal strategy in the public eye and participating in the consultations, in order to show broad public support for coastal management, so the government would release a bold strategy. In balancing these two roles, CCNS remained remarkably cohesive and very active over the four-­year period immediately following the 2008 announcement of the government’s intent to create a provincial coastal strategy. This period repres­ ents the second significant transition in how community conservation groups saw coastal governance. Local groups continued to oppose specific unwelcome propos­ als in their own communities (e.g. aquaculture in Port Mouton, clear-­cutting leading to sedimentation in Antigonish) but they did so while referring to their local issues as a symptom of a larger issue. The discussions with government officials were not only about the types of development the community groups did not want, but about the kind of governance system they did want. Development of the strategy proved to be a lengthy process, during which CCNS actively participated in the coastal strategy process. A State of the Coast report and a number of fact sheets were released in 2009, followed by a round of public consultations, ‘What We Heard’ report (2010), a public opinion poll, and a set of expert panels on pri­ ority issues (2011). Eventually, a draft strategy was released in October 2011, with a further round of public consultations following in 2012. Despite these advances, and even though production of a final version of the Province’s coastal strategy seemed well in hand, several factors arose that kept this from happening. First, a new provincial government had come to power, for which the coastal strategy was not a priority. Second, many provincial staff who had been working on the strategy had shifted to other employment. Third, the controversy over finfish aquaculture (mainly salmon farming – see Chapter 3, this volume) exploded into the forefront of public attention, and in the face of community rallies and press conferences opposing aquaculture, and widespread attention to the issue, it was likely seen as counterproductive by government to release a coastal strategy that did not include aquaculture. Fourth, in a similar manner, extensive and dam­ aging flooding in one part of Nova Scotia (Truro) brought attention to the risks associated with coastal flooding – which was also virtually ignored in the coastal strategy. The Province quickly released a framework for flood risk assessment and

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of governance thinking   217

management, and a corresponding infrastructure programme. The coastal strategy, despite years of effort, failed in the case of flooding, as with aquaculture, to address the topical challenges the Province and municipalities were facing. The third shift in how coastal conservation groups thought about coastal gov­ ernance started to occur between 2011 and 2014 when it became clear that the provincial strategy would not deliver on community expectations around govern­ ance, community involvement and critical issues like aquaculture. This latest shift led community conservation organisations away from demanding that the Province implement a new system for coastal governance around the Province towards working at the local (municipal) level to create and implement new institutions. This shift will be discussed in more detail in the section entitled ‘Discussions and conclusions’. One final push towards implementing a coastal strategy came in late 2013 when the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities passed a resolution to request the Prov­ ince to proceed with the development of a coastal strategy focused on land use planning in vulnerable coastal areas. This was a solid signal that municipalities hoped the Province would keep moving forward with some kind of coastal strategy or policy. However, around the same time, a new provincial government came to power, and the political landscape changed yet again. The new government was silent on the coastal file until, in late 2014, it quietly removed documents relating to the coastal strategy from its website, sending a clear message that this was not a priority. While some municipalities, and conservation organisations like the Ecology Action Centre, have continued to push the Province publicly to take action on the coast, at the time of writing, a Nova Scotia coastal strategy seems unlikely to be announced anytime soon.

CCNS’s role in transforming coastal governance thinking CCNS played a crucial role in the coastal strategy process. It brought groups together from across the Province to put forward a coherent story with shared understanding, and thereby was able to act as a single voice in pressuring the pro­ vincial government to commit to a strategy. It then worked to influence the strategy, seeking to make it more integrated, broader in scope, with more of a community basis. This led to some gains. Most remarkably, the draft coastal strategy went beyond the declared six priority areas to include a seventh, on governance, which had been a key CCNS demand. However, despite the welcome inclusion of governance as a priority coastal issue, many local groups around the Province did not see the issues they faced reflected in the strategy. Nor did they see a shift to integrated approaches; the broader provincial policy context continued in a ‘business as usual’ manner, with a ‘silo’ approach to issues such as aquaculture and marine energy. For example, even as one part of Nova Scotia’s Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture was leading the cross-­government Coastal Strategy initiative, another part of the same

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

218   J. Graham and A. Charles

department was directly promoting the development of aquaculture, which had been omitted from the coastal strategy process. This included release of a proposed aquaculture investment approach (NSDFA, 2009d) in December 2009, and a sub­ sequent Aquaculture Strategy in May 2012. Organisations across Nova Scotia had learned the importance of integrated approaches, rather than simply fighting issues one by one; they sought real govern­ ance reform. CCNS proved essential to this transformation of thinking about coastal governance. From the onset, the network went beyond individual coastal issues to cover capacity building, planning, conservation, protection and governance to support economic development. But it opposed the kind of development that caused unnecessary damage to coastal areas and diminished the many values of the coast while bringing few real benefits to local communities. All of this broadened support for the idea of a provincial coastal strategy to address widespread and recur­ ring governance problems. However, when this coastal strategy process slowed and stalled, member groups of CCNS started to become frustrated and developed their own creative solutions that attempted to bring together different levels of govern­ ment. The action in terms of coastal governance builds on understanding integrated coastal governance, but has shifted to alternative community-­based mechanisms to achieve suitable planning and management of the provincial coastline. In the fol­ lowing section, we describe that shift with three examples.

Transformation of governance thinking: three coastal community stories The story of CCNS illustrates how the decade of the 2000s saw a shifting emphasis towards the need for a provincial coastal policy. This reflected a transformation in how civil society transformed its thinking on coastal governance. In this section, we present cases of coastal conservation in the Province to illustrate how that transformation took place. The key features of the cases are summarised here.

Louis Head Louis Head is a community in the Municipality of the District of Shelburne, in the southern part of Nova Scotia, known for its 1 kilometre white sand beach. Louis Head Beach is highly valued by the community, and concerns were raised in the early 2000s when a local seller was able to subdivide a large lot adjacent to the beach (once a family-­owned camp) into 13 coastal waterfront lots, which were then mar­ keted for cottage development. Since several of these lots were located near endan­ gered piping plover nesting sites, news of this development proposal led to concern from the Piping Plover Guardian programme, run by the environmental non-­ governmental organisation Bird Studies Canada (BSC), and focusing on the main­ tenance and recovery of piping plovers. At the time, piping plover populations on Nova Scotia’s South Shore beaches were dropping (though they have since stabil­ ised at roughly 100 breeding pairs) (C. Curry, personal communication, October

Transformation of governance thinking   219

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

TaBle 12.1  Key features of three coastal governance case studies

Name

Louis Head

Digby Neck

St. Margaret’s Bay

Site features

Long sandy beach; habitat for endangered piping plover

Rugged peninsula; fishing communities engaged in fishing and ecotourism

Large bay near major city; both traditional rural and suburban

Geographic scope

Local: tiny settlement within a rural municipality

Medium: four or five small communities, including a First Nations community, within a rural municipality

Large: Bay encompasses many small communities and towns; extends into two municipalities

The threat

Traditional access and wildlife habitat threatened by land subdivision for cottage development

Traditional livelihoods and nature-based tourism threatened by industrial quarry development

Unplanned development affecting health and productivity of coast and watersheds, and changing nature of the communities

Mobilisation Mainly local residents and regional conservation groups; provincial conservation groups

Local through to national tourism, fishery, conservation groups; municipal council; economic development bodies; scientists/academics; First Nations organisations (local and regional); media

Local/provincial/regional conservation, economic development and tourism groups; municipal planners; elected officials; scientists/academics; media; all levels of government

Target to influence

Municipal government Municipal government; and provincial agencies provincial agencies; ultimately independent Joint Federal-Provincial environmental assessment panel

Municipal staff and elected government; provincial staff and elected officials; federal staff and elected officials

2015). Along with predation and flood washouts, human impacts such as nest dis­ turbance and habitat loss are key factors associated with nesting failure for piping plovers. The Guardians drew on widespread local agreement that the development pro­ posed for Louis Head was not desirable. This was driven by two major concerns. The first related to the well-­being of coastal wildlife, and fear that ecologically significant coastal habitat would be fragmented and destroyed by roads, new build­ ings and on-­site septic systems. The second involved a fear of displacement, of lack of access to the beach and its traditional recreational and livelihood uses. This

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

220   J. Graham and A. Charles

specifically revolved around the risk that the proposed cottage development could lead to loss of access to activities like beach walking, clam harvesting, dog walking and freedom to use Off Highway Vehicles (OHV) on local provincial beaches. OHV use was officially illegal on the Province’s beaches; however, this was not a widely respected regulation. The combination of local citizens and external pressure groups in Louis Head lobbied regulators in multiple provincial departments and at multiple levels of gov­ ernment: municipal (building permits) and provincial (septic, watercourse setbacks and alterations, species at risk, wildlife protection). However, despite this consider­ able expansion in opposition to the development, and despite widespread agree­ ment that the proposal was potentially harmful, no government department or municipality would acknowledge that it had the regulatory authority to prevent it. The lack of clear accountability within the existing coastal governance system meant that, ultimately, the residents were not able to stop the development. Nevertheless, this struggle produced both local and provincial benefits. Shel­ burne became, to our knowledge, the only municipality in Nova Scotia with a municipal coastal strategy. It is also the only municipality providing information about the importance of protecting piping plover habitat on its municipal website. Furthermore, those involved built an understanding of the interlocking and mutu­ ally reinforcing problems of coastal governance. The Guardians and their allies across the Province began to see a pattern in the way the existing policy regime permitted destructive development that coastal communities could not prevent. This was the beginning of an evolution in thinking – seeing coastal governance as a provincial issue rather than a series of local struggles – that drove the formation of the Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia. This transformation to a ‘bigger picture’ per­ spective also arose in subsequent coastal battles, such as that of the Digby Neck Quarry.

Digby Neck Digby Neck is a long and narrow band of land extending into the Bay of Fundy, leading to two small islands at its southern end (Brier Island and Long Island) (Figure 12.1). Fisheries are a key economic activity for Digby Neck and the Islands, which remains one of the last strongholds of Nova Scotia’s traditional inshore fisheries, despite declines in groundfish species like cod. Tourism, and especially ecotourism based around whale-­watching and birdwatching, has been the focus of newer eco­ nomic development. It is widely understood in the area that a healthy environ­ ment, on land and at sea, is essential for both of these major economic activities – fishing and ecotourism. There is a significant history of strong community organising in Digby Neck and neighbouring areas. In the 1990s and into the 2000s, this was a centre of the movement for community involvement in fishery management, as well as resist­ ance to privatisation of the fishery. That effort was strongly supported by (1) a key local organisation, the Bay of Fundy Marine Resource Centre (MRC, based in the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of governance thinking   221

FIGURE 12.1 

 he wharf in Westport, a community on Brier Island at the end of T Digby Neck

nearby community of Cornwallis); and (2) a new community group, Partnership for a Sustainable Digby Neck and the Islands (hereafter ‘Partnership’), which took up the challenge of community economic development in the wake of the cod fishery collapse of the 1990s. The strength of this social capital underlay the opposition to a proposal by the American company, Bilcom, to expand an existing quarry on Digby Neck. The proposal involved removing materials from a 120 hectare site located within 5 kilo­ metres of the Bay of Fundy, and construction of a 200 metre pier for the crushed stone to be transferred to vessels, for shipping to New Jersey in the United States. This combination of quarry and pier was seen as a clear threat to the area, both on land and at sea. Concerns arose about the operation of the quarry, generating noise, light and dust, and impacting local quality of life and ecotourism. The health of the ocean environment and resources was also of concern. Community and external mobilisation in the face of the proposal was swift. The Partnership started mobilising locally, leading to the emergence of a network of strong voices within the area, including fishing organisations, tourism operators, the MRC and the Mi’kmaq community of Bear River First Nations. The Partner­ ship connected with the regional environmental NGO Sierra Club Atlantic, which was already working in the area on an ongoing campaign to protect the Bay of Fundy whale population. A range of outside organisations, including the Ecology

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

222   J. Graham and A. Charles

Action Centre, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Association, and the Tourism Industry Association of Nova Scotia, soon joined the campaign. This assemblage of allies had several attributes in its favour. First, there was a strong relationship already built between First Nations and other communities, enabling all to work together on a common issue. Second, the MRC was already well established as a safe, trusted space for bringing people together. Third, through extensive local efforts combined with external pressure, the coalition was able to make a case for a relatively rare process, a Joint Federal-­Provincial review (‘Joint Panel’) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as a means to present evidence about the potential negative impacts of the quarry. The latter review, established in November 2004, was a significant accomplishment, since under Canadian law the Joint Panel is the highest level of environmental review for a proposed project. The quarry became a poster child for opposition to destructive, unwanted and unplanned coastal development in Nova Scotia. A representative of the Partnership attended an early meeting of what would eventually become CCNS, and for the latter, the quarry came to represent all the systematic flaws that allowed unwanted development in sensitive coastal areas, without a clear policy or regulatory framework and against the will of local communities. In October 2007, the Joint Panel released a groundbreaking report recommend­ ing that the quarry proposal be rejected, based largely on (1) community values (e.g. in a local planning and visioning document that the Partnership had initiated as part of their own community efforts); and (2) a failure to make a compelling business or technical case for the project. The Joint Panel also called on the Prov­ ince to develop a comprehensive framework for land and marine planning in Nova Scotia’s coastal areas (CBCNS, 2007). In November 2007, the provincial Minister of Environment accepted the recommendation that the quarry be rejected. This unprecedented result gave a jolt of energy to community and environmental organisations around the Province. In particular, the victory galvanised CCNS, which could use the Joint Panel’s recom­ mendations as a call to action for a coastal policy. The manner in which the Partnership and their allies framed the fight against the quarry as a call for coastal governance reform across the Province illustrates the profound transformation that took place in thinking about the coast. The Digby Neck Quarry struggle was made more prominent through its linkage to a broader campaign for Nova Scotia’s coast, and at the same time, the broader campaign was amplified by the local struggle and the subsequent Joint Panel recommendations.

St. Margaret’s Bay After the Digby Neck Quarry experience, local groups continued to evolve and transform ideas of coastal governance. Here is the story of another strong community­based organisation, the St. Margaret’s Bay Stewardship Association (SMBSA). Founded in 2002, the SMBSA concerns itself with St. Margaret’s Bay, which is both a body of coastal water just south of Halifax, and the collective name of a series

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Transformation of governance thinking   223

of small communities or settlements along the coast between Halifax and Mahone Bay (Figure 12.2). The SMBSA also focuses on the watershed area largely defined by the Ingram, the Northeast and the Indian rivers. Indeed, the foundation of the SMBSA approach is watershed-­based land use planning. The group developed watershed maps and a watershed map-­based ‘planning entity’ approach, with plan­ ning entities corresponding to each of the Bay’s major watersheds plus the Bay itself. The SMBSA takes an approach of sustainable development built on shared values, and strategically aligns itself with diverse stakeholders, from the local Chamber of Commerce to wilderness conservation groups. It has generally avoided segmenting concerns into narrow silos. From its inception, the organisation sought a community vision and plan that incorporated environmental, community and economic sustainability. In a 2004 series of Asset Mapping Workshops, residents identified unregulated and unplanned development, pollution and strain on natural resources, loss of access to the coast, and community conflicts as among the greatest threats to the area (SMBSA, 2004). The SMBSA has, at one time or another, delved into many of these issues, as well as urban sprawl, traffic, tax reform, climate change, traditional livelihoods, landscape architecture, forest management, aqua­ culture and sustainable transportation. The SMBSA has had some local success stories, which built momentum and credibility with key government and external partners. An example of this emerged during a project to ‘twin’ (widen) a major Nova Scotia highway. There were many environmental and community issues to negotiate, especially to protect potential wilderness areas and habitat, and the integrity of local watersheds. Frustrated by

FIGUre 12.2 

A view of St. Margaret’s Bay

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

224   J. Graham and A. Charles

differing responses from different government agencies that seemed not to com­ municate with one another, SMBSA initiated monthly Watershed and Environ­ ment Team meetings to bring together municipal, provincial and federal departments that had some regulatory responsibility for the twinning, as well as elected officials and concerned local organisations (Baccardax, 2010). In this, SMBSA acted as a bridging organisation, bringing different interests together to share information and  coordinate action. The process led to improved relationships between local organisations and government agencies, as well as greater coordination across government units. The SMBSA became an active member of CCNS beginning around 2009. SMBSA could see the opportunities a provincial coastal strategy could offer their area, given recurring coastal issues related to the lack of integration between gov­ ernment departments. However, like other CCNS member groups, the slow, frus­ trating process and lacklustre results of the coastal strategy were diluting the SMBSA’s interest and energy. Meanwhile, in St. Margaret’s Bay and elsewhere, other processes and opportunities seemed to offer a greater chance of making pro­ gress on local issues. For example, facing a slow municipal planning process, and a much faster-­paced commercial development in an urban part of their region, the SMBSA partnered with the Chamber of Commerce and the tourism association to host a community forum in 2009, inviting a number of local stakeholders including municipal plan­ ners and councillors. The resulting community recommendations included (1) making the area a priority for development of a community plan; (2) forming a coastal development advisory board to provide advice on proposed developments; and (3) instituting a community process to negotiate development agreements for large developments, to ensure that heritage and aesthetic values and environmental concerns were incorporated. The SMBSA’s events were remarkably successful, and ultimately led to all of these recommendations being implemented. The SMBSA’s accomplishments were essentially manifestations of the evolving thinking on coastal governance in Nova Scotia – not merely accepting the provincial or municipal process, but rather becoming involved in connecting at different scales and devel­ oping new creative ways to ‘fix the system’.

Discussion and conclusions As the title of this chapter suggests, issues around the coast in Nova Scotia involve a messy process, with local and provincial actors constantly reassessing and rene­ gotiating their response in the face of a changing and volatile landscape. In exam­ ining the period 2004–2014, we have seen that the history of the Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia and the differing approaches used in three case studies of community-­based coastal conservation illustrate a transformation in coastal gov­ ernance thinking in Nova Scotia over a relatively short time frame. Table 12.2 summarises the essential elements of this transformation, and forms the basis for discussion.

Transformation of governance thinking   225 TaBle 12.2  Evolution of governance thinking in the three case studies

Louis Head

Digby Neck

St. Margaret’s Bay

Municipal government and provincial agencies

Municipal government; provincial agencies; ultimately independent Joint Federal-Provincial environmental assessment panel

Municipal staff and elected government; provincial staff and elected officials; federal staff and elected officials

Governance ask Do not build cottages in unsuitable location

Develop a provincial framework for coastal governance. Integrate community and environmental values

Reform coastal governance in Nova Scotia. Enable communities to create new local governance institutions

Results

Development not stopped; local groups mobilised to create the Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia

Joint FederalProvincial Review Panel recommended quarry be rejected, and that Province develop a coastal policy to guide development

Purchased Micou’s Island for conservation; developed educational materials; watershed maps and planning process; community visioning and planning sessions

Transformation

Localised conflicts about coastal development begin to be seen as a wider pattern, revealing systematic problems with coastal governance

Desirability of provincial coastal policy and coastal governance reform gains wider acceptance; provincial government begins to work on coastal strategy

Local coastal and watershed association creates its own management plan; relevant municipal government accepts creation of a local coastal development advisory board

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Target to influence

It is relevant to compare Nova Scotia’s coastal governance experience with what has been the major governance ‘ask’ of the coastal fishing sector over several decades, not only in Nova Scotia but throughout much of the world. Analysis has focused on a desire of fishers to achieve two major goals: (1) greater participation in fishery decision-­making (Graham et al., 2006; Charles, 2008); and (2) over­ coming a mismatch between community perspectives on the access to, use of and thinking about ocean and coastal resources, on the one hand, and government pri­ orities for economic development, often more aligned with industrial develop­ ment, on the other hand (Chapter 3, this volume; Jentoft, 2000; Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997; St. Martin, 2001).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

226   J. Graham and A. Charles

These two goals are certainly shared among those concerned about Nova Sco­ tia’s coast. For example, community values and participation are seen as paramount to success in integrated coastal management (Charles et al., 2010) and thereby in decisions about the right mix of economic activity on the coast. However, in con­ sidering coastal governance, there is another, arguably more fundamental ‘ask’, namely to create governance mechanisms where currently there are none. This is not typically an issue in fisheries, at least in northern countries, with extensive top­down governance mechanisms having been commonplace for many decades (Garcia et al., 2014). However, for the coast of Nova Scotia, the most notable transformation lay in the emergence, in part through the efforts of CCNS, of a broad-­based recognition of the need for a provincial framework for coastal governance, and specifically a coastal policy. This is reflected in moving from left to right in the ‘Transformation’ row of Table 12.2, with each of the three case study experiences leading to an increasing appreciation of an overall policy imperative, culminating in local empow­ erment and capacity to initiate the needed planning processes, as in St. Margaret’s Bay. This rapid transformation of thinking around coastal governance might be credited to four key ingredients: 1

2

Building on a strong foundation of care for the coast: The transformation (and indeed the effectiveness of CCNS) drew on strong social and cultural traditions around the value and significance of the coast to Nova Scotia. As development pressures have increased on that coast, local skirmishes, analogous to that aiming to prevent land subdivision and cottage development at Louis Head Beach, have occurred in other areas of the Province. CCNS was able to draw on the reality of people’s concern about the coast as a foundation for a shift in thinking about how it is managed and governed. Strengthening horizontal linkages while tackling vertical governance issues: For about a decade, CCNS worked to strengthen the linkages between geo­ graphically scattered conservation groups, so it could effectively pressure the provincial government. It also helped fill in the gaps between the formal gov­ ernance structure and the on-­the-ground experiences of local organisations. CCNS thus demonstrates the attributes of a multi-­level connector – as raised in analyses of adaptive co-­management and environmental governance (Armit­ age et al., 2011; Ostrom, 2010). A coalition working to strengthen horizontal connections between communities, in order to apply upward pressure for policy change at a higher level, can work effectively when it is genuinely viewed as an extension of local issues and concerns. This was certainly the case in the initial days of CCNS when its focus was on connecting local organisa­ tions so they could exchange information and develop a shared understanding of the issues. The initial emphasis on building a strong coalition with horizon­ tal linkages around the Province drove the transformation of thinking from separate local environmental issues towards a broader and more systematic approach.

Transformation of governance thinking   227

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

3

4

Avoiding the imposition of a preferred model of coastal governance: CCNS has always been able to leverage committed and knowledgeable volunteers. These volunteers, many from local community groups, devoted extensive time to researching aspects of coastal governance and sharing this information through a website, research papers and brochures. This represented a learning process in which knowledge was held and shared outside of formal governance arrangements (Armitage et al., 2011). At its core, CCNS acted as a bridging organisation that built capacity in its membership and helped weave a coherent storyline. CCNS did not impose a generic prescription for fixing coastal gov­ ernance in Nova Scotia, but over time, ideas emerged that were transposed to different situations in different parts of the Province. Coalitions are connectors vital in shaping evolution in thinking; these link small groups into a ‘bigger story’, and help to develop a consistent storyline to forge strong horizontal linkages across Nova Scotia. This was the second shift in thinking towards being able to articulate a unified vision for what was wrong with coastal gov­ ernance in Nova Scotia and how it might be addressed by greater community involvement. Focusing on communities, rather than on solely environmental issues: A fourth factor underlying the transformation of thinking around coastal governance in Nova Scotia comes from an historical look at the broader, longer-­term evolu­ tion of the environmental movement in the Province. For much of its history, that movement was almost entirely grass roots (Leeming, 2013), characterised by placed-­based community groups focused on local issues, such as opposition to pesticide spraying in forests or to uranium mining. Notably, between the 1960s and late 1980s, these local grass-­roots groups had the most success when joining with other groups (including those not necessarily solely focused on the environment, such as peace or social justice organisations) to form larger-­ scale coalitions (Leeming, 2013). While CCNS is not an environmental organ­ isation as such, its experience reflects many of the characteristics associated with successful environmental campaigns in Nova Scotia’s history, notably the successful strategy of coalition-­building for multi-­level action. This seems to provide insight into why the largely volunteer-­based organisation was able to affect such a fundamental shift in coastal governance thinking over a relatively short time period.

Indeed, we have seen from the stories in this chapter how local groups working together can evolve into a much stronger voice that can help achieve some success in environmental and community struggles at the local level, as well as exerting some influence on public opinion and policy discourse at a larger scale. CCNS, like many similar coalitions, bridged gaps in geography, capacity and access for local organisations, and had a mutually beneficial (synergistic) relationship with its member organisations. The evolution from local struggles to a provincial coalition was relatively organic, and brought credibility and capacity on a range of issues. We have also seen how the policy work of CCNS helped transform the campaign from

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

228   J. Graham and A. Charles

being mostly about the environment to being more broadly about governance and communities – an evolution of thinking that had significant effects on the coastal strategy. Remarkably, however, the focus of the transformation, from local battles to a provincial coalition and larger-­scale governance, ultimately shifted back to local-­ level initiatives, albeit ones emphasising governance. This is reflected in the work of groups like the St. Margaret’s Bay Stewardship Association, and others around the Province, to propose and implement new governance institutions that over­ come the constraints of the existing coastal governance system as well as the inertia of the provincial coastal strategy process. This latter transformation shifts these groups from viewing governance as something to be expected from a central gov­ ernment, towards an evolving, creative process in which local groups and existing institutions (such as municipalities) are key players. This major transformation in governance thinking indicates the relative strength and sophistication of such organisations in Nova Scotia, and reflects a wealth of studies around the world documenting the important role that grass-­roots groups can and do play in devel­ oping and implementing new local governance institutions (e.g. Berkes, 2007; Christie and White, 2007; Ostrom, 1990). It must be noted, as well, that underlying this most recent component of the transformation in Nova Scotia civil society’s coastal governance thinking is a cau­ tionary note about expecting too much from processes like the coastal strategy. While government-driven policy processes or reviews may seem like a clear and rational path to better environmental protection, such official processes are often an illusion (Leeming, 2013). They can divide potential allies whose issues are within the scope of the process from those whose issues are not included. Ultimately the failure of the most recent quest for a Nova Scotia coastal policy may represent an example of the false promise of a government strategy process leading to concrete gains. In conclusion, this chapter has discussed the transformation in coastal govern­ ance thinking in Nova Scotia within the context of long-­term community struggles related to resource management. We have seen how local groups cannot always win these battles working alone. This is where networking and coalition-­building can contribute to multi-­level governance (Armitage et al., 2007; Ostrom and Janssen, 2004) that connects local ideas to each other and to something bigger, reflecting the reality that both local successes and the broader context matter. It helps when there is clear high-­level support for such initiatives, as, for example, in the push for a coastal policy or strategy from the panel reviewing the Digby Neck issue, and from the provincial government. While the coastal strategy process ulti­ mately failed to produce a concrete result, local groups were empowered to further transform their thinking, so that many became actively engaged in processes and initiatives for coastal governance at the local level. This evolution is a positive dem­ onstration of how community conservation organisations are continuously redefin­ ing their approach to take advantage of emerging opportunities in an evolving landscape.

Transformation of governance thinking   229

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Acknowledgements We thank Heather White and Jill Comolli, Alexi Baccardax, Chris Curry, Geoff LeBoutillier, Karen Traversy and Sadie Beaton for helpful comments on this chapter, and for all the work they do for better protection of Nova Scotia’s beauti­ ful coast. We acknowledge funding support from the Social Sciences and Humani­ ties Research Council of Canada through the Community Conservation Research Network.

References Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-­Schellenberg, E. and Patton, E. (2011). Co-­ management and the co-­production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21: 995–1004. Armitage, D., Berkes, F. and Doubleday, N. (eds). (2007). Adaptive Co-­management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-­level Governance. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Baccardax, A. (2010). Incorporating concerns of coastal stakeholders in planning and man­ agement; the case of Saint Margaret’s Bay. Unpublished Masters thesis. School of Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dal­ housie University Press. Berkes, F. (2007). Community-­based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 15188–15193. Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters. (2014). The fishing industry – economics. [Online] URL: www.fishharvesterspecheurs.ca/fishing-­industry/economics. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. CBCNS. (2007). Digby quarry rejection on environmental ground could set precedent: panel chair. Posted 17 December 2007. [Online] URL: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ digby-­q uarry-rejection-­o n-environmental-­g rounds-could-­s et-precedent-­p anelchair-­1.636818. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Charles, A. (1995). The Atlantic Canadian groundfishery: roots of a collapse. Dalhousie Law Journal, 18: 65–83. Charles, A. (2008). Turning the tide: toward community-­based fishery management in Can­ ada’s maritimes. In: American Fisheries Society Symposium 49 (Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress). Bethesda, USA: American Fisheries Society, pp. 569–573. Charles, A., Bull, A., Kearney, J. and Milley, C. (2007). Community-­based fisheries in the Canadian maritimes. In: T. McClanahan and J.C. Castilla (eds) Fisheries Management: Progress toward Sustainability. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 274–301. Charles, A., Wiber, M., Bigney, K., Curtis, D., Wilson, L., Angus, R., Kearney, J., Landry, M., Recchia, M., Saulnier, H. and White, C. (2010). Integrated management: a coastal community perspective. Horizons, 10: 26–34. Christie, P. and White, A. (2007). Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas. Coral Reefs, 26: 1047–1056. Garcia, S.M., Rice, J. and Charles, A. (2014). Governance of marine fisheries and biodiver­ sity conservation: a history. In: S.M. Garcia, J. Rice and A. Charles (eds) Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution. Oxford: Wiley-­ Blackwell. Graham, J., Charles, A. and Bull, A. (2006). Community Fisheries Management Handbook. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Gorsebrook Research Institute Press, Saint Mary’s University.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

230   J. Graham and A. Charles

Jentoft, S. (2000). The community: a missing link of fisheries management. Marine Policy, 24: 53–60. Kraft, J.-L. (2012). Provincial coastal management in Nova Scotia; a legislative review. East Coast Environmental Law Occasional Paper No.  1. [Online] URL: www.ecelaw.ca/ index.php?option=com_k2&Itemid=289&id=22_fd8f992e12977aacbbbb220f5269f69e &lang=en&task=download&view=item. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Leeming, M. (2013). In defense of home places: a history of the environmental movement in Nova Scotia. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Department of History, Dalhousie Univer­ sity. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University Press. Mercer-­Clarke, C. (2010). Rethinking the responses to coastal problems: an analysis of the opportunities and constraints for Canada. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Interdisciplinary PhD programme, Dalhousie University. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University. NSDFA. (2009a). The 2009 state of the coast report. Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. [Online] URL: www.novascotia.ca/coast/state-­of-the-­coast.asp. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. NSDFA. (2009b). Working waterfronts, the 2009 state of the coast report. Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. [Online] URL: www.novascotia.ca/coast/ documents/state-­of-the-­coast/WEB_WW.pdf. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. NSDFA. (2009c). Coastal development, the 2009 state of the coast report. Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. [Online] URL: www.novascotia.ca/coast/ documents/state-­of-the-­coast/WEB_CD.pdf. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. NSDFA. (2009d). Road map for aquaculture investment in Nova Scotia. Stantec and Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. [Online] URL: www.novascotia.ca/ fish/documents/roadmapforaquaculture-­rpt2010.pdf. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. NSDFA. (2010). Telephone survey of Nova Scotians on value of the coast. Government of Nova Scotia. [Online] URL: http://novascotia.ca/coast/documents/Phone-­SurveyReport.pdf. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environ­ mental change. Global Environmental Change, 20: 550–557. Ostrom, E. and Janssen, M.A. (2004). Multi-­level governance and resilience of social-­ ecological systems. In: M. Spoor (ed.) Globalisation, Poverty and Conflict: A Critical ‘Development’ Reader. Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 239–259. Pomeroy, R.S. and Berkes, F. (1997). Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-­management. Marine Policy, 21: 465–480. Sable, T. and Francis, B. (2013). The language of this land: Mi’kma’ki. Sydney, Nova Scotia: Cape Breton University Press. St. Margaret’s Bay Stewardship Association. (2004). Summary of the 2004 asset management process. Unpublished manuscript. St. Martin, K. (2001). Making space for community resource management in fisheries. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91: 122–142.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

13 Communities, multi-­level networks and governance transformations in the coastal commons Derek Armitage, Steve Alexander, Mark Andrachuk, Samantha Berdej, Shandel Brown, Prateep Nayak, Jeremy Pittman and Kaitlyn Rathwell Introduction In this chapter we draw on seven international cases to examine how coastal communities are successfully leveraging and navigating the multi-­level governance networks in which they are embedded. We are especially interested in ways that individuals and groups within coastal communities may use networks to foster transformations to sustain coastal marine commons in the context of change and uncertainty (see Chapter 1, this volume). Most coastal communities are experiencing an array of social-­ecological challenges (Ellis, 2003; Barange et al., 2011). Some of these challenges include overfishing, uncertainties associated with climate change (e.g. sea-­level rise and coastal erosion, ocean acidification that affects shellfish resources, or sea ice loss), rapid developments in oil and natural gas exploration, impacts from terrestrial land use (e.g. run-­off from agriculture), and the hardening of shorelines through urbanisation and infrastructure development. The complexity and multi-­scale reality of most of these changes means that no one individual, organisation or actor (public or private) will have the resources or knowledge to respond effectively. Governing coastal commons under conditions of uncertainty, and helping communities adapt or transform through change, requires a significant shift in how we frame these challenges, and how we identify options to address them. Fostering a social-­ecological approach in the analysis of these challenges is one part of that shift (see Chapter 1, this volume). Adopting a multi-­level perspective is another part of that shift because it encourages us to reflect on the potential value of hybrid forms of governance that link – vertically and horizontally – governments, communities and the private sector in new ways. These shifts take us into the realm of networks, and more specifically, governance networks (Armitage, 2008; Newig and Fritsch, 2009; Alexander et al., 2016).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

232   D. Armitage et al.

We refer to governance in this chapter (see also Chapter 1, this volume) as the formal and informal rules, rule-­making systems and actor networks at all levels (local, regional, global) that influence how societies identify, design and implement initiatives to protect their coastal commons (adapted from Biermann et al., 2009; see also Lebel et al., 2006). In turn, governance networks reflect the vertical and horizontal social relationships and structural arrangements (e.g. co-­ management) that connect individuals (fishers, policymakers), agencies and organisations (fisheries departments, harvester cooperatives), and private sector interests in collaborative efforts to achieve a range of objectives (Alexander et al., 2016). These objectives may relate to restoration or protection of coastal commons, but they may also involve broader efforts to contest and transform the conditions (institutional, economic, biophysical) that undermine local livelihoods and ecosystems. There are no easy strategies for coastal communities seeking to navigate uncertainties associated with changing coastal commons. However, we are able to show how actors and actor groups in diverse locations are successfully producing, reworking and leveraging networks, although clearly not without difficulty. As such, the cases we draw on here reveal how communities are managing to foster more transformative change in their social-­ecological systems where needed, albeit at different scales and over different time frames. Whether these governance transformations – fundamental shifts to the processes and institutions through which societies make decisions about coastal commons – are durable and equitable is not easily measured. This chapter does not aim to offer a formulaic or comprehensive suite of prescriptions for effective governance of coastal commons. Governance arrangements inevitably vary depending on context. Rather, we are interested in identifying some of the main ‘ingredients’ (see also Chapter 1, this volume) that are helping communities to transform circumstances (ecological, socio-­economic) that may be untenable over the long term. The strategies we identify are informed by our collective experiences and empirical insights from research in diverse case study sites (see ‘Vignettes from the field’). The cases and the implications thus offer potentially useful insights for a broad range of coastal settings.

Social-­ecological insights from the field Coastal commons vary by place and with respect to key challenges, resulting in governance networks that are likewise varied. Indeed, the governance of social-­ ecological systems generates a wide range of challenges because coastal systems and human communities are tightly connected, and because those linked systems of people and nature are characterised by uncertainty, cross-­scale interactions and feedbacks (Berkes et al., 2003; Cash et al., 2006; see also Chapter 1, this volume). Our entrée into an exploration of diverse cases across multiple jurisdictions adopts this social-­ecological perspective.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Communities, multi-level networks   233

Table 13.1 provides an overview of the examples from which we draw, building on Ostrom’s (2009) systems approach (see Chapter 1, this volume). In this approach, the ‘resource system’ or ecological context determines the main ecosystem services upon which coastal communities depend. Similarly, the ‘governance system’ outlines the key features of the system in which individual actors (e.g. resource users and communities, governments) are embedded. There are crucial interactions between these ‘subsystems’ and the broader coastal social-­ecological system that must be identified, and which create both constraints and opportunities for communities seeking to protect, restore or transform their coastal marine commons. The biophysical contexts of the cases we explore are quite distinct, and include coral reef-dependent systems (e.g. Dominica, Indonesia and Jamaica), an Arctic case shaped by sea ice adapted ecosystems, brackish water lagoon systems (India and Vietnam), and a temperate coastal case which focuses on the lobster fishery in Nova Scotia, Canada. We draw a number of key insights from these cases, many of which will likely resonate with a wide range of coastal commons experiences, even if some of the specific details differ. First, despite the diverse biophysical contexts, each case reflects a relatively common suite of livelihood and institutional challenges. For example, in Atlantic Canada the collapse of groundfish stocks in the early 1990s caused fishers to switch to lobster and crab fisheries. In one region in particular, fishers now take a proactive approach to protecting lobster stocks in order to improve the likelihood that this fishery will remain sustainable. Although far from Atlantic Canada, experiences in Vietnam share some similar challenges stemming from fishing pressure that combines with other anthropogenic (e.g. household waste disposal, land use change) and natural forces (e.g. flooding). Fishers here have also been forced to adapt their livelihood strategies, although in this case they are mostly reactive as households are faced with severe poverty. A somewhat different challenge exists in the Arctic. Here, the decline in the quantity, depth and quality of sea ice (SWIPA, 2011) because of climate warming reflects a global driver of change. However, the degradation of the Arctic marine ecosystem is a significant challenge to coastal communities in terms of livelihoods, access to ‘country food’, and threats to the identity and culture of northern communities. Second, in most of these cases, challenges experienced by communities are exacerbated by processes of ‘enclosure’ of the coastal commons. A dual challenge results – communities must find ways to address the cross-­scale drivers of change that undermine ecosystem conditions and individual livelihoods, and also respond to institutional and policy conditions that result in the privatisation of commons resources or reduced access to ecosystems that were previously part of their social-­ ecological system. Some of the efforts to ‘enclose’ the commons are relatively small-­scale, as is the case with fish-aggregating devices (FAD) in Dominica where local fishers sometimes claim exclusive offshore fishing rights in areas surrounding privately owned and placed FADs. Other processes of enclosure, however, take place at broader scales and include the development of networks of protected areas that reduce access for certain coastal communities (as in the Jamaica and Indonesia

Ecological context

Coral reef systems and associated fisheries

Coral reef systems and associated fisheries

Coral reef systems and associated fisheries and aquaculture

Brackish water lagoon system

Case

Dominica

Jamaica

Bali (Indonesia)

Tam Giang Lagoon (Vietnam)

Overfishing, degradation of lagoon ecosystem; enclosure of lagoon via introduction of aquaculture and new fishing gear

Decline of coastal marine ecosystems; introduction of marine protected areas and provincial MPA network

Biodiversity loss and overfishing; introduction of Special Fishery Conservation Areas (i.e. no-take zones)

Coral reef degradation and increasing pressure on offshore fisheries; introduction of small-scale fish-aggregating devices (FADs)

Ecosystem services shifts

TA13.1  Key features from cases using a social-ecological system view

Fishers, fishers’ cooperatives, NGOs (national and international), national governments, regional organisations

Conflicts regarding the rights to use and own FADs; multilevel co-management arrangements

Failure of customary management institutions, conflicts among fishers and decline of fish/shrimp/crab populations; system of TURFs: territorial user rights for fishers; co-management agreements – formally between fisheries associations and local government

Conflicts from multiple users and interests plus lack of coordination and governance fragmentation; social networks supported via bridging organisations

Fishers’ associations, government agencies (multiple levels), university researchers (local and international)

Fishers’ and seaweed farmers’ associations, community groups, NGOs, governments, traditional authorities, tourism operators

State of fisheries, government Fishers’ cooperatives, local NGOs, governments, private of Jamaica signatory of Caribbean Challenge, pockets enterprises of community support; co-management agreements plus public-private partnerships

Users/communities

Key governance system issues

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Stretch of coastline with inshore and offshore fisheries

Large areas of sea ice habitat and marine ecosystems

Brackish water lagoon system

Nova Scotia (Canada)

Arctic (Canada)

Chilika Lagoon (India)

Inuit communities, youth and elders, local artists, local, regional and national/ international governments, private industry

Multi-level connection via bridging organisations (co-management boards) for marine resources and wildlife; increasing emphasis on oil and mineral exploration; unique land claims arrangements that emphasise Inuit knowledge and decision-making opportunities

Fishers (varied by caste), aquaculture groups, industry/ corporations, market agents, governments

Small-scale fishers, fishers’ associations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, scientists

Collapse of ground fishery, fear that lobster would meet the same fate; community lead; multi-level co-management

Enclosure of lagoon from tiger A need to redefine the shrimp aquaculture and higher meaning and the position of caste elites ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ plus lack of synergy between insider/outsider actions; fisher collective: Chilika Fisher Federation plus social movements

Disappearance of Arctic sea ice and degradation of marine ecosystems; encroachment by external drivers resulting in loss of sea ice and pollution of marine resources

Overfishing, decline of marine species, ocean warming; introduction of an individual transferable quota (ITQ) system

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

236   D. Armitage et al.

examples) (Table 13.1) (see also Bennett et al., 2015), the loss of access to capture fisheries because of large-­scale aquaculture developments (India and Vietnam), and the introduction of individual transferable quotas (ITQs) as a basis for management of the Atlantic groundfish stocks. Third, actors initiate change for a diverse set of reasons that emerge at multiple levels and themselves reflect the outcome of previous events and processes. In some cases outlined here, organisations and communities reacted to observed conflict over access and rights to resources, or the failure of customary management institutions and the resulting collapse of ecosystems. In contrast, some of the cases exhibit more proactive and deliberate actions, such as the government of Jamaica’s decision to ratify the Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI). The Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI) was launched in 2008 to address the potential impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and overfishing. While eight Caribbean nations initially committed to protecting approximately 20 per cent of their nearshore marine and coastal area by 2020, the CCI has since grown to a coalition of governments, companies and partners (e.g. NGOs). Of course, the CCI reflects an outcome of previous efforts. In addition, the impetus for change can be difficult to isolate, as is the case in the Chilika Lagoon. Here, a number of factors (e.g. tensions between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, broad support for halting environmental change and protecting livelihoods) cumulatively sparked the ongoing changes in governance (see ‘Vignette 1’). Finally, the cases examined in this chapter are socially and ecologically diverse. In particular, the governance setting in each is contextually distinct, as are the reasons communities are searching for new ways to transform untenable situations and protect coastal marine commons. As a result, there is no single strategy or pathway through which communities have or are leveraging governance networks. However, the cases do reveal that most communities are involved with a bundle of strategies targeted at different scales, and in doing so are able to leverage different strengths and overcome certain weaknesses at different points in time. We highlight these strategies below.

Leveraging multi-­level governance networks A ‘social relational’ network approach guides our assessment of how coastal communities leverage governance networks (Marin and Wellman, 2011; Alexander and Armitage, 2015). A social relational perspective emphasises the interdependencies of actors and their actions, and how collective action and governance of coastal commons emerges in part from the patterns of relations among actors. A relational perspective aims to take account of individual agency and social structure (Emirbayer, 1997; Mische, 2011), and make explicit the importance of understanding who is engaged in governance networks, how different actors participate or are excluded, and the manner in which social relations determine which actors have authority (formal or informal) and which are less powerful (i.e. they lack the capacity to easily catalyse change) (Brugnach et al., 2008).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Communities, multi-level networks   237

Our synthesis and reflection of cases highlighted four main ways that communities are leveraging and navigating multi-­level governance networks: (1) investing in local place and building networks from the bottom up; (2) creating innovative partnerships; (3) engaging with bridging organisations and shadow networks; and (4) mobilising knowledge in multi-­level networks to empower local voices and conserve ecosystems. Notably, each of these strategies has a strong relational component where networks of individuals and organisations coalesce across different levels.

Investing in local place and building networks from the bottom up A common challenge for communities across each of the cases we examined is a loss of local institutions and changes to sense of place. Common drivers of these changes include outmigration of young people, the emergence of new institutions (e.g. individual transferable quotas) that override local practices, and physical changes to coastal commons that can undermine how people relate to their community (e.g. loss of shoreline or shifts in location of key resources). However, efforts to strengthen local institutions (e.g. customary rules about access to resources, formal and informal sanctioning practices) and to build or rebuild a sense of place is an emerging strategy for coastal communities. A strong sense of place attachment and identity can (although not always – see Brown, 2015) motivate communities and foster a sense of ‘agency’ (i.e. the power and efficacy to take action). This includes strengthening local institutions that have been successful in helping coastal communities navigate change in the past and build social relational ties from the bottom up, such as local and traditional knowledge. As our cases illustrate, building the resilience of local place and local networks may provide the common ground around which individuals and groups in coastal communities coalesce to challenge dominant narratives and engage in governance networks from a position of strength. The experiences of coastal communities in Canada’s Atlantic and Arctic regions provide a case in point. For example, the fishery in Nova Scotia has been a mainstay of the local economy and culture since the arrival of the first European settlers on the east coast of Canada. In Cape Breton, a desire to allow future generations the option of pursuing this historic livelihood has motivated the implementation of a series of conservation measures to protect lobster stocks for generations to come. Opting to not fish on Sundays is an example of one such measure that benefits both lobsters and fishers. Rather than hauling their traps on Sunday, fishers leave them in the water. Although the traps contain more lobsters than normal when hauled Monday morning, the cumulative catch is sometimes less than what would be brought in if they were also hauled on Sundays, thus leaving more lobsters in the water to breed. Moreover, fishers get to spend Sundays at home with their families. Connection to family and recognition of the importance of maintaining a historic fishery provides at least partial motivation for fishers to voluntarily make this change.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

238   D. Armitage et al.

In Canada’s Arctic, maintaining traditional ecological knowledge by bridging elders and youth is one way communities are attempting to strengthen local institutions and culture. Many settings exist to bridge knowledge systems (see Rathwell et al., 2015, for typology). The emergence of hunting camps is one common strategy to connect elders and youth as they provide an opportunity for knowledge and skills to be shared among generations, and to strengthen the sense of identity and pride within communities (Pearce et al., 2011). Inuit artists also describe how art and artistic processes help to share traditional knowledge, practice and belief with younger generations (see Rathwell and Armitage, forthcoming). One outcome of the application of art in this way is an enhanced ability to help younger generations learn traditional ways. Strengthening bonds between elders and youth via art and art-making provides one way to empower individuals and foster learning, as is the case with a collaborative mural making initiative that connected youth and elders around the theme of Arctic sea ice change (see Rathwell and Armitage, 2016). Indeed, many Inuit have long used their art to nurture an understanding of culture and identity. Experiences from the Vietnam case are also instructive. Efforts to establish collectives for fishers in the Tam Giang-­Cau Hai Lagoon in the early 2000s were based around a model of worker cooperatives. These organisations were an offshoot of workers/farmers cooperatives that are a form of political organisation, rather than social organisation that mirrored traditional management regimes based on family ties (known as vans). The cooperatives ultimately failed to gain traction with fishers. More recent efforts to bring fishers together are based on fishers’ associations (FA) that are comprised of multiple subgroups of fishers organised on categories of types of gear that they use: mobile gear, fixed gear and aquaculture. These subgroups more closely resemble customary management units that were used historically in the lagoon and this familiarity led to high rates of fisher participation in the FAs. It is the social capital within the fishing communities, and specifically among families who use similar gear, that is the foundation of trust and participation within fishing associations. Closely knit communities within the larger governance network make it possible to implement co-­management and the territorial use rights for fishers needed to protect coastal commons. Key to this experience has been the focus on building networks from the bottom up (see ‘Vignette 2’).

Creation of innovative partnerships Building on a sense of place and identity, many coastal communities are engaging in innovative partnerships to protect their common resources and transform the conditions that undermine their sustainability. For example, in Jamaica, through Memorandums of Agreement, the government has established co-­management arrangements with local non-­governmental organisations and fisher cooperatives that devolve roles and responsibilities (e.g. monitoring) associated with the day-­today management of recently established Special Fishery Conservation Areas (i.e. no-­take marine reserves) (Alexander et al., 2015). Key relational ties and innovative

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Communities, multi-level networks   239

partnerships have emerged through this process (Alexander et al., 2015). For example, in the community of Bluefields Bay, the Bluefields Bay Fishermen’s Friendly Society has leveraged international university groups to help collect important data to assess the conditions of their marine reserve. Another example comes from across the island on the north coast in Oracabessa Bay. There, the Oracabessa Foundation – a private sector foundation funded in part by Chris Blackwell, founder and former owner of Island Records – has partnered closely with the St. Mary Fishermen’s Cooperative. In addition to co-­managing a Special Fishery Conservation Area, they have partnered with the private sector to establish and support a novel coral reef restoration programme. Similarly, in Dominica, fishers in the community of Massacre are partnering with the National Fisheries Division and the local primary school on an innovative project aimed at promoting resilient fisheries livelihoods and improved community well-­being. The Fisheries Division and the school have provided the Massacre fishers with the materials to build and place two fish-aggregating devices which will be co-­managed by the Fisheries Division and the local fishers. In return, the fishers agree to provide a portion of their catch to the school for school feeding programmes. The local-­caught fish provide a healthy alternative to imported food and strengthen the children’s connection to their community’s roots (i.e. Massacre is historically a fishing community). Additionally, the fishers are awarded valuable equipment that helps them catch fish and burn less fuel, significantly reducing their costs and the uncertainties associated with their livelihoods. Notably this case of innovative partnership is also situated within a multi-­level governance network, reflecting a need to recognise the nestedness of most networks engaging in transformative efforts (see ‘Vignette 3’). In Nova Scotia, Canada, one fishing association in Cape Breton has partnered with a local university by funding a scientific survey of the lobster population in order to determine its health (further details of this case are outlined in the section entitled ‘Mobilising knowledge in multi-­level networks’). This project engages science students and fishers in collaboratively collecting and analysing information on blood protein levels and other health indicators. The fishing association was able to leverage this information to attract buyers wanting more assurance about the quality of the product they buy. Furthermore, research included a study on survivability for shipping purposes. Lobster is shipped as a live product and as such must be delivered at the right temperature and within a specific number of hours. The research showed lobster from this area could be shipped further than buyers were indicating, opening up more markets for the Nova Scotia product. Both the fishers and the university researchers have reaped the benefits of this partnership. Each of the partnerships we mention are different in their scale and scope. However, they aim to connect actors across jurisdictional levels. Moreover, they each empower coastal communities using different incentives – markets in Nova Scotia, livelihoods and well-­being in Dominica, and knowledge in Jamaica.

240   D. Armitage et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Engagement with bridging organisations and shadow networks As key entities in social networks, bridging organisations play an important role in connecting actors vertically and horizontally in multi-­level governance networks (Olsson et al., 2007; Berkes, 2009; Crona and Parker, 2012). Bridging organisations are entities that connect diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process (Crona and Parker, 2012). Key functions of bridging organisations include connecting knowledge systems, creating conditions for mutual learning, and collaborative decision-­making in a multi-­level governance context. Yet bridging organisations don’t necessarily connect equally with all actors and this has implications for how actors can navigate multi-­level governance networks (Rathwell and Peterson, 2012; Weiss et al., 2012). In such cases, ‘shadow networks’ may emerge that connect individual actors in non-­formal ways, especially where formal linkages create barriers to change or where bridging organisations do not exist (Bullock et al., 2012). These shadow networks may lay dormant until required (Olsson et al., 2006). In the cases we consider here, individuals and community-­ based actors have played a role in developing or engaging with bridging organisations in different ways. In Canada’s Arctic, for instance, Inuit art has multiple roles, such as income generation, knowledge sharing and providing a source of cultural identity and renewal (Rathwell and Armitage, 2016). The global reputation of Inuit art stems, in large measure, from the bridging organisations that connect local artists with global markets. As one example, the Kinngait studio art co-­op and Dorset Fine Arts in Toronto continue to have an important economic role in the community. As a bridging organisation, Dorset Fine Arts links Inuit artists at the local scale, and art collectors, institutions, museums and galleries at the regional, national and global scales. The bridging organisation provides a platform to share Inuit experiences of environmental change via artworks with a broader audience. However, not all communities in the Arctic have art co-­ops or a culture of art-making, reflecting the bounded role of certain bridging organisations in helping only some communities support transformative change in this way. Experiences from the Indonesia case reflect a more conventional role for bridging organisations. Their involvement in the Nusa Penida Marine Protected Area in south Bali and the East Buleleng Conservation Zone in the north have facilitated new opportunities for interaction, knowledge exchange and resource sharing among diverse sets of actors, with implications for conservation practice. In Nusa Penida, over 60 multi-­stakeholder community meetings and working groups were facilitated by a locally based bridging organisation to incorporate community interests and synthesise knowledge. This led to the development of a more balanced MPA zoning plan reflective of biodiversity, livelihood (fishers, seaweed farmers, tourism operators) and cultural (‘local wisdom’) considerations. In East Buleleng, two different bridging organisations have played important roles in providing communities with technical expertise and knowledge via learning platforms such as skill-­based workshops and certification courses to inform and empower community

Communities, multi-level networks   241

efforts. Some of these key efforts include supporting local marine management areas, rehabilitating damaged coral reefs through artificial structures, and providing information to inform the pursuit of alternative livelihoods involving the marine aquarium trade and dive tourism.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Mobilising knowledge in multi-­level networks One of the more crucial strategies for coastal communities leveraging multi-­level governance networks is to foster the mobilisation of knowledge across scales. For coastal communities seeking to alter the processes and institutions through which decisions about coastal commons are made, efforts to draw on knowledge in its many different forms (local, indigenous and scientific) is recognised as crucial. Indeed, the knowledge required to deal with the complexity of coastal change is necessarily held, co-­produced and transmitted by a variety of actors. In Indonesia, for example, the creation of the Bali Marine Protected Area Network has connected people and their knowledge across organisational and geographic boundaries. Intended to link existing and priority water-­related conservation efforts across the island, the Network is a platform for practitioners, governments (local, provincial, central), scientists, NGOs and other stakeholders from local to international, to share knowledge, information and best practices, and to encourage coordinated solutions to common conservation challenges. It is guided by local wisdoms such as ‘Nyegara Gunung’ (literally can be translated as ‘Ridge to Reef ’) and ‘Tri Hita Karana’ (a traditional framework on sustainability that emphasises the interrelation and harmony between human, God and nature) that promote more balanced conservation solutions across the terrestrial-­marine divide. Chaired by the Ministry of Marine and Fisheries Bali, the network is comprised of governments – provincial and regency representatives from the Ministry of Marine Affairs, Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Tourism, Bali Nature and Conservation Agency – local, national and international NGOs, and others. Past meetings have also included additional attendees from other NGOs, universities, the private sector, community groups, traditional village groups and fisher groups; however, these are not explicit members of the governing task force. A similar arrangement that fosters knowledge exchange outcomes is also found in the Jamaican networks of Special Fishery Conservation Areas (Alexander et al., 2015; see also ‘Vignette 4’). The Arctic is another place where knowledge has played a crucial role in how communities navigate governance networks. Knowledge exchange or co-­ production is occurring through multiple settings, such as mapping, community-­ based monitoring, engagement in environmental assessment processes, or through co-­management processes (see Rathwell et al., 2015). What makes the Arctic unique is the regulatory requirement through the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, for example, to include Inuit knowledge in policy and decision-­making. The Arctic also provides an emblematic example that links knowledge and art to catalyse a governance shift at the global scale. Here, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and at that

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

242   D. Armitage et al.

time head of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Sheila Watt-­Cloutier, brought a local Inuit carving to the global meeting on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Watt-­ Cloutier has spoken about how this carving brought the human dimension of POPs impacts to the forefront of discussions and how it served as a crucial object of knowledge in the successful meeting outcomes (see also ‘Vignette 5’). The case from Atlantic Canada provides a further helpful example. As noted previously, the collapse of the groundfishery in Atlantic Canada has had profound impacts. However, as one Nova Scotia fisher stated:  after the collapse … we quickly realized … that we had to take very great care of what we had left because we didn’t want to see the same thing happen in the lobster … we decided very quickly that we as harvesters had to take the lead and not wait for government to do it for us. In response to the challenge, one lobster fishing association along the west coast of Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, has taken it upon themselves to set stricter conservation measures, improve the marketability of their product, and partner with scientists to have a better understanding of the state of their lobster stocks. This case reflects a positive collaboration between exogenous (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and endogenous (resource users) actors despite historic tensions between these two groups (see ‘Vignette 6’).

Scaling up and across networks for system changes Experiences with the four strategies considered here reveal a number of insights for scaling up and across governance networks in ways that may support major shifts in the processes and institutions through which societies make decisions about the coastal commons. We summarise some of these key lessons and insights (see Table 13.2), recognising the diversity of experience and the social complexity associated with each case (see ‘Vignettes from the field’). First, it is useful to consider the strategies noted above in terms of ‘bundles’ that can and likely should operate simultaneously and at multiple scales. However, these bundles require stewardship because they may have unintended effects. Efforts to engage in partnerships that connect actors at higher levels, for example, may undermine efforts to build a local sense of place and strengthen local institutions. What remains unanswered is how it may be possible to respond to more immediate and acute threats without causing new challenges that undermine other communities or create new challenges longer term. Second, each of the cases reflects how efforts to navigate and transform governance networks are dynamic through space and time. For instance, how governance processes are unfolding in the Chilika Lagoon are distinct from those unfolding in the Tam Giang Lagoon even though many of the same drivers and challenges are having an effect on these systems. Moreover, strategies to navigate governance networks inevitably must be produced and reproduced to account for the dynamism

Communities, multi-level networks   243

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

TA13.2  Selected strategies to build transformative potential

Case study

Summary of strategy bundling

Outcome towards transformation

Dominica

Establishing innovative partnerships to access resources and increase community wellbeing; effectively navigating multi-level networks for the benefit of communities and the country at large; strengthening relationships between local users and trust in local and national organisations

Attempts at creating fair, legitimate rules for FADs management involving democratic and participative principles. However, this process is currently in progress, so outcomes are difficult to judge

Jamaica

Leveraging vertical and horizontal ties; establishing public-private partnerships; mobilising knowledge across multi-level networks; supporting and encouraging local networks of resource users (e.g. fishers’ cooperatives)

Devolution of some power to community-based organisations (e.g. monitoring); stronger partnerships; negotiations concerning boundaries

Bali (Indonesia)

Engaging with bridging organisations to link actors, their knowledge and capacities across scales for collaboration, and information and resource sharing; escalating social connectivity via networks for information sharing and mutual learning (e.g. MPA networks)

Formalised multi-use zoning plan and representative governing body; community-based marine management areas; new opportunities for local inclusion

Tam Giang Lagoon (Vietnam)

Fostering new institutional networks for co-management; new pathways for sharing information and knowledge

Clarification of new property rights regime; arrangements for implementing area-based management plans with livelihood and conservation outcomes

Nova Scotia (Canada)

Creating and/or searching out Creation of fishery industry-led new markets; engaging in new management plan; fostering more community-science partnerships meaningful participation in decision-making; strengthening coastal communities

Arctic (Canada)

Embedding traditional ecological knowledge and adaptation practice into artworks; sharing artworks across generations and via moving art objects in social networks

Sharing knowledge in aesthetic form; maintaining continuity (in knowledge, identity) during ecological transformations

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

244   D. Armitage et al.

of the changes and the emergence of new threats as noted above. Clearly, there is no idealised pathway to follow. Third, in many situations there has been a clear effort to create bridges to reduce gaps in networks (e.g. the Nova Scotia fishing association that reached out to university researchers to get the lobster data they needed). Yet, this may not always be the crucial task. Existing links are often in place and the central challenge is to foster bonding ties in which those existing linkages can be strengthened where appropriate, or to better understand the ‘strength of weak ties’ (Granovetter, 1973). This can be an issue within and across social relational networks at local and global scales. The dynamism of governance networks also allows for change and transformation in the ‘positionality’ of actors and their connections to each other (including shadow networks). Fourth, using innovative partnerships and bridging organisations, the cases we examine here illustrate how communities are able to utilise relationships to access key resources, ideas and knowledge not otherwise available to local community-­ based organisations or individuals. As a result, ideas and information about strategies to leverage and navigate governance networks can move through social relational ties and help to influence decisions at multiple scales. Repeated interactions through multi-­stakeholder conferences and workshops, collaborative research initiatives, and meetings between government, industry and civil society organisations serve to close the gap between communities and decision makers. The importance of trust building and formation of social capital for collective action is well established (Pretty and Ward, 2001). However, leveraging and navigating multi-­level governance networks inevitably requires timely leadership and efforts to build trust across social relational networks. Across the different cases, diverse venues can become the spaces for productive conversation and deliberation. Fifth, the strategies we have documented indicate how community engagement in multi-­level networks involves a process of ‘translation’. For instance, certain ideas and innovation flow through multi-­level networks and may come from external actors. However, these ideas need to be translated into forms that are suitable for local communities (e.g. particular policies or models for local participation adopted from other contexts). Similarly, broader goals and agenda-­setting from senior levels of government for economic production (e.g. aquaculture in Atlantic Canada or Chilika Lagoon, India) or sustainability need to be effectively communicated or translated to local levels. Sometimes, that process of translation fails. Regardless, community-­level actors must go through a process of translation to ensure their priorities are reflected within a broader governance framework.

Conclusions Coastal communities are experiencing significant change. Some of the changes emerge from within, such as shifting demographics and outmigration. Some of the change is also a result of external drivers, like climate change or the imposition of new institutions that undermine local access to resources (e.g. ITQs or marine

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Communities, multi-level networks   245

protected areas). Inevitably, these drivers of change are linked across scales and self-­ organising (Nayak and Berkes, 2012), and the governance strategies that coastal communities engage with to transform untenable conditions must reflect that reality. As the cases in this chapter show, coastal communities are exploring different ways to leverage and navigate the multi-­level governance networks in which they are embedded. In doing so, they are seeking to alter their position and power (see Batterbury et al., 1997; Weiss et al., 2012). Better understanding of how individuals and groups in diverse coastal communities are exerting their agency in governance networks is instructive. As part of this agency, the coastal communities we examined here do recognise the intractable problems they face, and that often makes them willing to work with actors and key agents of change from outside their community. While there may not always be clarity on how to cope, adapt or transform in the context of change, there is a recognition of the need to leverage and navigate the governance networks they have. Indeed, the lessons from this chapter clearly illustrate the persistence of these communities in the face of multiple institutional, economic and biophysical adversities.

Acknowledgements We thank the many individuals and communities that have taken time to engage with us. Funding for our individual and collective research has been provided by multiple organisations and programmes, including the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the International Development Research Centre, ArcticNet and the Northern Studies Training Program. We acknowledge the numerous project contexts in which our research has been undertaken, including the Adaptive Governance and Marine Transformations project and the Community Conservation Research Network which catalysed this chapter, as well as the Partnership for Canada-­Caribbean Community Climate Change Adaptation, the Global Island Vulnerability Research Adaptation Policy and Development project, and the OceanCanada Partnership.

Vignettes from the field Vignette 1  Insiders, outsiders and social complexity in Chilika Lagoon, India In Chilika, the very definition of insiders and outsiders is shrouded by local and regional politics, links to the caste and class structures, and the narratives of change that ascribe blame to certain groups and not others. As per caste norms, a few decades ago the higher caste non-­fishers would be ostracised from their caste society if they engaged in fishing. It was the fishers (defined by their membership in certain caste groups) who used to engage in fishing activities. In that sense, the caste-­based fishers were insiders and the higher caste non-­fishers would be considered outsiders to the fishing society and economy. However, with the advent of shrimp

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

246   D. Armitage et al.

aquaculture, higher caste non-­fishers (i.e. once considered outsiders) have now claimed themselves to be insiders in the race to capture fishery commons in Chilika Lagoon. Paradoxically, the ‘customary insiders’ (the caste-­based fishers themselves) are undergoing an involuntary process of being ‘outsiders’ that amounts to an intense loss of their identity of being fishers for generations. Along with the non-­ fishers, a number of external actors (e.g. state bureaucracy/multiple departments, industries/corporations, market actors and agents from regional to global scale, other private interests) have staked their claims in the Chilika fishery commons and joined the race for being ‘insiders’. Therefore, the definitions of outsiders and insiders and the historical relations between them have undergone drastic social, commercial and political reorientations in the recent decades. These shifts in social identity and relations have profound implications for how different actors engage in governance networks. Chilika commons governance will require a process of redefining the meaning and the position of insiders and outsiders within the changed, but still highly dynamic, context and setting the collective protocols for renegotiation on the commons. There are potential factors that can bring the fishers and non-­fishers to work together: both are struggling with livelihood loss (one in fishery and the other in farming). A few of these factors include facilitated negotiations as a way to recraft the lagoon space so that it is beneficial to both groups; reviving the culture of strong relationships between the fishers and non-­fishers prior to the start of aquaculture; and creating policy space that not only recognises the loss of commons in Chilika but promises to protect it in future.

Vignette 2  Building networks from the bottom up in Tam Giang Lagoon, Vietnam The Tam Giang Lagoon was historically not heavily fished and was informally managed through customary family organisations known as vans. The open-­access regime became enclosed as in situ fishing gear and aquaculture gained in popularity and the population of fishing households increased by the early 2000s. Marginalisation of poor households using mobile fishing gear and severe ecological degradation prompted action to install a new management regime that would be inclusive of fishers. Networks played into this process in two important ways. Researchers based at Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry (HUAF ) worked with Canadian researchers and a provincial level FA in pilot communities to determine appropriate strategies for involving fishers in management. The combination of local expertise and knowledge of fisher livelihoods with novel approaches to coastal governance was instrumental in devising an approach to collective property rights that has shown potential to transform social-­ecological conditions in the lagoon and has been implemented widely across the lagoon. The second important way that networks have played a role is the importance of the sense of community and social capital among fishers. Shared appreciation of their mutual reliance on the lagoon has helped build trust in new management decisions that are aimed to decrease fishing effort in the short term (causing livelihood stress) but enable long-­term

Communities, multi-level networks   247

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

sustainability of the lagoon fishery. A prime example is the Loc Binh I FA, where a local leader has set up a form of micro-­finance to support local fishers in purchasing new equipment or setting up new livelihoods. The level of trust is extremely high since members know they have strong leadership and community that they can rely on.

Vignette 3  Multi-­level collaboration in Dominica Various cooperatives in fishing communities participate in the Caribbean Fisheries Co-­management (CARIFICO) project in partnership with the Fisheries Division of Dominica, the National Fisherfolk Organization of Dominica, the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA). This project provides funding to build and deploy fish-aggregating devices (FADs), training for fishers in FAD construction and maintenance, and development of rules for co-­managing the FADs. The current proposal is to have fishers who wish to engage in FAD fishing pay a licensing fee, which would go towards maintenance and replacement of FADs. Only licence holders would be allowed to fish on FADs, and licence holders could fish on any FAD in Dominica’s waters. The vessels of licence holders would be marked by an easily identifiable decal to enable community enforcement of fishing rules. All existing FADs, whether private or publicly owned, would be subsumed and managed under the new set of rules. This project is funded and driven largely by the international, regional and national levels; however, fishers have considerable opportunity to participate in rule-­making processes through various means. Generally, fishers who wish to engage in FAD fishing are supportive of the project and its proposed rules; however, there is some evidence of active non-­participation, especially by individuals who previously owned private FADs.

Vignette 4  Co-­management in Jamaica Through Memorandums of Agreement, the Jamaican government has established co-­management arrangements with local non-­governmental organisations and/or fisher cooperatives that devolve roles and responsibilities (e.g. monitoring) associated with the day-­to-day management of Special Fishery Conservation Areas. Key relational ties and innovative partnerships have emerged through this process (Alexander et al., 2015). In the community of Bluefields Bay, the Bluefields Bay Fishermen’s Friendly Society has leveraged university groups to help collect important data to assess the conditions of their marine reserve. More recently they have developed a strong partnership with the Marine Police and regularly go out on joint patrols. In Oracabessa Bay, the Oracabessa Foundation has partnered closely with the St. Mary’s Fisherman’s Cooperative. In addition to the marine reserve, they have partnered with the private sector to establish a coral reef restoration programme. In Whitehouse, the Sandals Foundation is partnering with the Gilling Gully Fisherman’s Cooperative to manage a newly established marine reserve in

248   D. Armitage et al.

front of the Sandals resort. In all of these cases, the relational ties have contributed to the building of social capital and trust through time. In addition, they have provided access to important resources and knowledge not otherwise available to many of the local community-­based organisations (Alexander et al., 2015).

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Vignette 5  Art and activism in Canada’s Arctic One interesting (and aesthetic) approach to understand how Inuit communities are navigating changes in the Arctic marine commons is to consider the role of art and artistic process (Rathwell and Armitage, 2016). For example, local Inuit artists are actively embedding traditional Inuit knowledge commons into artworks with foresight towards their use as guiding younger generations in traditional practice and well-­being. For example, one local Pangnirtung artist describes the role of art:  To keep it going, we can study more about art to pass on the traditional knowledge …. Our elder people are passing away. They drew most days and we want to keep the culture and make a print of something out of it to pass it on. This way young kids will learn more. New things are coming like watercolors, lots of new things. In Nunavut we want to keep Inuit things alive. (Personal communication, 2013) Local Inuit artists and Inuit activists are expressing their agency in what, and how, they communicate Inuit knowledge in artworks. Artists understand that these artworks cannot reverse climate change, but that they can put a human face on disappearing Arctic commons and help younger generations navigate the encroachment of the Arctic commons by sharing knowledge in aesthetic form (Rathwell and Armitage, 2016).

Vignette 6  Mobilising knowledge through partnerships in Atlantic Canada In response to ongoing challenges, one lobster fishing association has mobilised knowledge through new partnerships that span several levels and incorporate diverse actors to generate a new management plan. Specifically, the association created their own management plan focusing on economics, sustainability and reducing carbon emissions within the lobster industry. The plan included reducing the number of traps from 300 to 250 per fisher, obtaining funding to buy back nine licences from people seeking to get out of the industry, no longer fishing on Sundays, and increasing the legal carapace (body) size so that more juveniles were protected for breeding. The movement to implement this plan began under the leadership of a small group of dedicated fishers who were able to slowly convince the majority of fishers in their harbours of the long-­term benefits of the plan. The industry then approached the federal Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), asking

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Communities, multi-level networks   249

them to enforce the plan within the regional boundaries of the lobster association, which they eventually did. Additionally, the lobster association was able to get funding to partner with academic institutions to design a two-­year scientific study on their lobster stocks. The association then employed two university students to carry out the study, making observations and recording lobster sizes, protein counts, larvae release and moulting stages. The DFO, although originally resistant to fisher­initiated projects such as this one, have begun to work more in collaboration with this particular lobster association. Recently, when the association suggested adjusting the season start date by a few days to account for shifting moulting seasons, the DFO complied. Scientific studies were also used to encourage local lobster buyers to develop markets in China as a result of higher than expected survivability rates for shipping. Additionally, one of the fishers who initiated the management plan is increasingly being invited to join DFO and decision makers at the beginning stages of policy planning, in order to bring an industry perspective to the table.

References Alexander, S. and Armitage, D. (2015). A social relational network perspective for marine protected areas science. Conservation Letters, 8(1): 1–13. Alexander, S., Andrachuk, M. and Armitage, D. (2016). Navigating governance networks for community-­based conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, (14: 155–165). Alexander, S., Armitage, D. and Charles, T. (2015). Social networks and community-­based conservation: a comparative analysis of three co-­managed marine reserves in Jamaica. Global Environmental Change, 35: 213–225. Armitage, D. (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-­level world. International Journal of the Commons, 2(1): 7–32. Barange, M., Field, J., Harris, R., Hofmann, E., Perry, R.I. and Werner, F. (eds). (2011). Marine Ecosystems and Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Batterbury, S., Forsyth, T. and Thomson, K. (1997). Environmental transformations in developing countries: hybrid research and democratic policy. The Geographical Journal, 163(2): 126–132. Bennett, N., Govan, H. and Satterfield, T. (2015). Ocean grabbing. Marine Policy, 57: 61–68. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-­management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5): 1692–1702. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (2003). Navigating Social-­Ecological Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Biermann, F., Betsill, N., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H. and Siebenhüner, B. (2009). Earth System Governance: People, Places, and the Planet. The Earth System Governance Project, Report No. 1. Bonn: IHDP. Brown, S. (2015). ‘We have the best life there ever was’: linking sense of place and adaptive capacity in Nova Scotia’s coastal communities. MES thesis. Department of Environment and Resource Studies. Ontario, University of Waterloo.  Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-­Wostl, C. and Taillieu, T. (2008). Toward a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently and accepting

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

250   D. Armitage et al.

not to know. Ecology and Society, 13(2). [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol13/iss2/art30/. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Bullock, R., Armitage, D. and Mitchell, B. (2012). Shadow networks, social learning, and collaborating through crisis: building resilient forest-­based communities in Northern Ontario, Canada. In: B. Goldstein (ed.) Collaborative Resilience: Moving Through Crisis to Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Cash, D., Adger, N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-­scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 8. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/ iss2/art8/. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Crona, B.I. and Parker, J.N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1): 32. Ellis, R. (2003). The Empty Ocean: Plundering the World’s Marine Life. Washington DC: Island Press. Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2): 281–317. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 76(6): 1360–1380. Lebel, L., Anderies, J.M., Campbell, B. and Folke, C. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 19. Marin, A. and Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: an introduction. In: J. Scott, and P. Carrington (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc., pp. 11–25. Mische, A. (2011). Relational sociology, culture, and agency. In: J. Scott and P. Carrington (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc., pp. 80–98. Nayak, P.K. and Berkes, F. (2012). Linking global drivers with local and regional change: a social-­ecological system approach in Chilika Lagoon, Bay of Bengal. Regional Environmental Change Online First. doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-0369-3. Newig, J. and Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: participatory, multi-­level – and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3): 197–214. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T. and Schultz, L. (2007). Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-­management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society, 12(1): 28. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C. and Holling, C.S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social­ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1): 18. [Online] URL: www.ecologyand society.org/vol11/iss1/art18/. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-­ecological systems. Science, 325: 419–422. Pearce, T., Wright, H., Notaina, R., Kudlak, A., Smit, B., Ford, J. and Furgal, C. (2011). Transmission of environmental knowledge and land skills among Inuit men in Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories, Canada. Human Ecology, 39: 271–288. Pretty, J. and Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29: 209–227. Rathwell, K. and Armitage, D. 2016. Art and artistic processes bridge knowledge systems about social-ecological change: An empirical examination with Inuit artists from Nunavut, Canada. Ecology and Society 21(2):21. [Online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ ES-08369-210221. [Accessed 8 January 2017].

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Communities, multi-level networks   251

Rathwell, K.J. and Peterson, G.D. (2012). Connecting social networks with ecosystem services for watershed governance: a social-­ecological network perspective highlights the critical role of bridging organizations. Ecology and Society, 17(2): 24. [Online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­04810-170224. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Rathwell, K., Armitage, D. and Berkes, F. (2015). Bridging knowledge systems to enhance governance of environmental commons: a typology of settings. International Journal of the Commons, 9(2). [Online] URL: www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.18352/ ijc.584/. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA). (2011). Arctic monitoring and assessment program, Arctic Council. Weiss, K., Hamann, M., Kinney, M. and Marsh, H. (2012). Knowledge exchange and policy influence in a marine resource governance network. Global Environmental Change, 22(1): 178–188.

14 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Synthesis Governing coastal transformations Derek Armitage, Fikret Berkes and Anthony Charles

Introduction This book is about change, and, particularly, how coastal communities are dealing with change and uncertainty in the environment on which they depend. As noted in the book’s introduction, most approaches to the challenges of rapid change in coastal settings emphasise the vulnerability of coastal communities and their limited capacity to effect positive change. However, this book takes a different perspective. Individually and collectively, the preceding chapters have shown how communities are engaging with a wide range of actors in proactive ways to respond to rapid change in the coastal commons and create better, more sustainable conditions for themselves and their environments. The outcomes are not always clearly positive, and the change processes rarely straightforward. But the lessons and insights that have been offered highlight the inspiring efforts of coastal communities around the world. To our knowledge, this book is unique in adopting a transformations focus with regard to coastal commons and communities. The primary focus here has been on the notion of deliberate transformations which we defined in Chapter 1 as those transformations carried out by individuals and communities in a purposeful manner (i.e. deliberate). These transformations are considered largely intentional as perceived (and driven) by the different actor groups with the agency – and sometimes power – to instigate change (O’Brien, 2012; Moore et al., 2014). As the chapters in the book have illustrated, transformations can come in many different forms and at many different scales (e.g. social, ecological, social-­ecological and governance or institutional), each with different implications. Sometimes these transformations involve social-­ecological conditions more generally. But oftentimes the focus is on shifts in the governance processes and institutions through which societies – and individual communities – make decisions to seek alternative pathways of development (see O’Brien, 2012). In approaching

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Synthesis   253

the constraints and opportunities reflected in different approaches to governing the coastal commons, the contributions have emphasised a social-­ecological systems perspective as a way to think about resilience and transformation (Chapter 1). Moreover, the contributions have focused explicitly on small communities that are culturally, economically and physically connected to coastal systems. In the first part of the book, chapters highlighted the various ‘Ingredients’ that can contribute to transformative change in the coastal commons. Some of these important ingredients included: • • • • • •

issues of rights and access to resources; the role of participation and participatory processes; legal and institutional changes; the role of customary or traditional systems of decision-­making; the role of values and value change; the importance of learning processes.

The second part of the book pivoted towards examples and initiatives of trans­ formations in the governance of the coastal commons. Here, chapters explored ‘Opportunities’ for transformative change as reflected in emerging and more profound shifts in governance, defined here as the structures and processes through which societies make decisions about issues of importance. The contributions in this part highlighted: • • • •

the emergence of community-­based resource management; the formation of network governance; the transformation of more centralised forms of governance to more collaborative and adaptive ones; efforts of civil society to overcome perceived inadequacies in how coastal commons are governed.

This synthesis offers an opportunity to reflect on the insights and examples provided in the chapters. The book has a rich diversity of experiences and geographic contexts from which to draw, including examples from Asia, Oceania, southern Africa, Europe and the Americas. The diversity of geographic settings serves as a reminder of the differing realities of transformations in different places. Here, however, we seek to summarise experiences and draw out wide-­reaching lessons from across the cases, in relation to the propositions outlined in Chapter 1. In this way, we hope to contribute to and develop a better understanding of transformations in the coastal commons, and to assess future research needs and practical opportunities (e.g. better policy, new partnerships) that can further support the initiatives of coastal communities on the front lines of efforts to transform conditions which may be socially, economically and ecologically untenable (see Walker et al., 2004).

254   D. Armitage et al.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Towards transformative change in the coastal commons In this book, governance – the structures and processes through which societies make decisions about issues of importance – is recognised as an important dimension in navigating change and facilitating transformations (Patterson et al., 2015). However, there is significant diversity in coastal social-­ecological systems worldwide, and the governance arrangements in those systems will inevitably vary. In Chapter 1, we identified several working propositions that reflect some common governance ‘ingredients’ or enabling conditions to foster transformative change, and to promote coastal commons stewardship and sustainable livelihoods. These propositions prove useful in summarising some of the main empirical insights from the chapter contributions in this book. Accordingly we return to these propositions below, along with some selective examples and illustrations from the chapters. Proposition 1: Governance arrangements that involve interactive networks and linkages across multiple levels, with vertical and horizontal links among institutions, that are responsive to changes in local social-­ecological systems over time, and sensitive to local context, create new opportunities for decision-­making and collaboration that catalyse transformations. This appears certainly to be the case in the Solomon Islands (Chapter 8). Here, the emergence of community-­based resource management is a reflection of a broader governance transformation in which customary institutions have been a foundation for change at the community level that links to international networks and organisations as well. The transformation of customary institutions in Indonesia (Chapter 11) as a basis to foster sustainability of the coastal commons is another example. Sasi laut is a customary form of community­based management involving periodic closures and local rules. As that chapter illustrated, a renewed focus on sasi has involved multiple parties (local and non-­local) and is consistent with trends towards more adaptive, collaborative and multi-­level forms of governance. The multi-­case analysis of Armitage and colleagues (Chapter 13) shows the importance of coastal communities being able to work within multi­level governance networks, e.g. by building bottom-­up networks, scaling up the networks and mobilising knowledge within them, as well as benefiting from partnerships and bridging organisations. Several other cases in the book involve such multi-­level governance networks, including the Nova Scotia case of Graham and Charles (Chapter 12). Proposition 2: An adaptive and flexible governance system is required in which uncertainty is recognised and addressed by policy, a diverse portfolio of management options and suitable institutional arrangements (e.g. customary arrangements, new property rights regimes, co-­management) is maintained, outcomes and feedback of interventions are monitored, a wide range of actors is collaboratively engaged, and diverse sources and types of knowledge are incorporated (Folke et al., 2005; Charles, 2007). For instance, the dynamic transformation of sasi laut (Chapter 11) was facilitated by the active participation of diverse stakeholders, including local leaders, community members and external actors. There was, moreover, evolution in terms of better engagement with gender dimensions of customary systems.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Synthesis   255

Similarly, the fluidity of customary marine tenure systems in the Solomon Islands (Chapter 8) has been an important part of the identified transformation as those customary systems have adapted to meet contemporary realities. In Quintana Roo state of Mexico (Chapter 4), a different governance shift occurred, leading from open access to community-managed access rights in several coastal communities. This shift also involved recognition of uncertainty (notably in Punta Allen), suitable collaborative approaches, and choices of management options that fit each local situation. The case of the Olifants estuary and the fishing communities of Ebenhaeser and Papendorp, in South Africa (Chapter 2), demonstrated that strong efforts by coastal communities and civil society may be needed to push the official governance system towards greater flexibility, more collaborative engagement, and recognition of customary arrangements. The desired end result may be apparent, but reaching that point is not a simple task. Another approach, when the governance system is not necessarily flexible, is for local agents to make their own institutional arrangements, where this is possible as a result of the benign neglect of external governmental authorities. This idea is consistent with Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) design principle number 7 for commons management, about the ‘minimal recognition of rights to organize’. An example is Chapter 10 by Dearden et al. in which a successful transformation is made possible through local initiatives which are not opposed by Thai authorities. Proposition 3: Deliberation and informed participation that includes the emergence of multi-­level collaboration and multi-­party participatory processes, helps to bring together multiple actors and perspectives, and to build social capital needed for lasting partnerships and collaborative relationships (Béné and Neiland, 2006; Reed, 2008). This is very much the case in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site process (Chapter 6) where local initiatives transformed a region into an example of community conservation success shaped by extensive collaboration among user groups. Here, consensus on challenging issues was achieved in part because of the presence of academic researchers that served as a bridge in the deliberative processes. Similarly, in the Camargue region of France (Chapter 7), Bouamrane and colleagues note the resilience-­enhancing nature of ‘participatory and bottom-­up approaches’ with the ‘involvement of interactive and redundant social networks across multiple levels’. Communicating across levels and the involving diverse networks of people builds resilience in the sense that decisions taken are more likely to deal successfully with environmental uncertainties. In the example from Nova Scotia, Canada, by Graham and Charles (Chapter 12), the Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia, an umbrella NGO for networking, engaged in diverse modes of participation, and built both horizontal and vertical linkages (see also ‘Proposition 1’). The horizontal linkages involved bringing together geographically scattered conservation groups. Vertical linkages involved linking formal governance processes and on-­the-ground experiences of local organisations. As in the France case, this combination of local participation, bottom-­up approaches and multi-­level collaboration helps the governance system to deal with

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

256   D. Armitage et al.

uncertainty – and also to learn from mistakes (see ‘Proposition 4’ below). In Nova Scotia it led to a transformation in governance thinking over a ten-­year period (2004–2014), and presumably to better coastal governance. Proposition 4: Social learning provides an important foundation for adaptive governance and is recognised as both a social process and an outcome of collaborative processes influenced by social relations of power among different actors (civil society, government, industry) in the coastal commons (see Reed et al., 2010; Armitage et al., 2011). Social learning was important in the Bali example by Frey and Berkes (Chapter 5), in which the fishers in the reef fishery for ornamental species were transformed from destroyers of the reef environment to conservationists. The transformation in world views associated with reef protection reflects ‘double-­loop’ learning, or changes in the norms and assumptions about fishers’ relationship with the reef. Here, double-­loop learning has contributed to shifts in governance to better address the destruction of the reef and change community relationships with a key coastal commons resource. In South Africa (Chapter 2), processes of social learning – including identification of knowledge gaps, drawing on different knowledge sources, and engaging in transdisciplinary research – were crucial in empowering coastal fishing communities, ensuring fishing rights, and increasing participation in governance. Proposition 5: Knowledge pluralism and co-­production is needed in which there is recognition of the value in drawing from multiple sources of knowledge to build a holistic, integrated understanding of complex coastal systems, and in emphasising the generation of new knowledge collectively (Pohl et al., 2010; Berkes, 2012), as well as methods to engage with indigenous cultural practices. The concern with knowledge is particularly relevant in the cases in this book where customary practices based on local and traditional knowledge are a key part of transformative processes (see Chapters 4, 8 and 11). The Brazil case (Chapter 9) reflects a good example of a different kind. Here, a new ‘Terms of Agreement’ set up to transform a top-­down approach to the management of marine protected areas was collaboratively developed and the success to date in doing so was linked to incorporating the knowledge, experiences and practices of local fishers. A related experience arose in the Camargue region of France (Chapter 7), where ‘co-­production of knowledge processes’ was seen as a crucial ingredient of success, along with participatory governance. Experiences in Nova Scotia (Chapter 3) provide an example of how local knowledge production can be empowering. When the lobster fishery of the community of Port Mouton Bay started suffering damage from externally owned large aquaculture operations, knowledge pluralism was used as a mechanism for transforming coastal governance. A unique combination of local fishers’ knowledge and marine science produced ‘community science’, characterised by place-­based social learning led by the community, with input from scientific experts. This collaborative scientific inquiry at the community level produced technical reports that could not be easily refuted by the government or the aquaculture industry, changing the status of the community from ‘victim’ to co-­producers of defensible knowledge who

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Synthesis   257

took on the role of leading the charge for a kind of coastal governance in which the rights and livelihoods of communities would be taken seriously in decision-­ making. Proposition 6: Leadership and capacity building is crucial, where the importance of leadership is recognised in regards to mediation, building trust, sense making, managing conflict, and compiling and generating knowledge, as well as fostering entrepreneurial activities (e.g. income and livelihood diversification), and in recognising that leaders come in many forms – facilitators, entrepreneurs, bridging and boundary organisations (Folke et al., 2005; Berdej and Armitage, 2016). Leadership was one of the variables from the Solomon Islands case (Chapter 8) that explained why certain communities had particular success in sustaining the community resource management transformation. Similarly, the role that bridging actors in governance networks can play in fostering transformations was a common theme in Chapter 13. Another example comes from Thailand (Chapter 10), which shows the crucial role of leadership. The failing community fishery at Koh Pitak triggered a transformation from a resource-­ based to a service-­based economy. The village Headman was the key person in developing the community-­based tourism enterprise based on homestay. Taking advantage of the community’s social capital and the local culture of hospitality, the Headman was able to obtain a small amount of government funding, won a national award for his community that led to publicity, and arranged for capacity building by local educational institutions. The transformation led to livelihood diversification, with the community fishery serving to provide fresh seafood for the tourists in homestay. These six enabling conditions can be seen as attributes of governance which are relevant in efforts to maintain a system or a particular trajectory (adaptation), but also in terms of efforts to shift from one system or trajectory to another (transformation) (Olsson et al., 2014; Biggs et al., 2015). Several chapters provide examples to illustrate each of the six propositions. That does not mean that the illustrations prove the point of the proposition. Perhaps more to the point, none of the cases refute or disprove any of the six enabling conditions. Moreover, these propositions as ingredients of governance are consistent with other findings in the literature, including the importance of a complex system perspective, the importance of learning to deal with change and uncertainty, fostering trust and shared understanding through participatory and collaborative approaches, and developing polycentric governance arrangements through networks and linking of actors vertically and horizontally (Berkes et al., 2003; Folke et al., 2005; Patterson et al., 2015). Governance of the coastal commons under conditions of uncertainty, adapting to change and fostering deliberate transformation requires some major shifts in the ways in which we consider human-­nature interactions (Berkes, 2012; Charles, 2012). Governance arrangements that are developed around short-­term, top-­down management of environmental problems have a range of limitations, including unforeseen social and environmental costs. They may also contribute to a ‘pathology

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

258   D. Armitage et al.

of natural resource management’ in which simplistic objectives fail because they do not take into account the reality of natural environmental variation (Holling and Meffe, 1996; Ludwig, 2001). The limitations of linear thinking and centralised, command-­and-control governance approaches for resilience and transformations become particularly clear when viewed through a social-­ecological systems lens that highlights issues of scale, feedback and complexity (Cash et al., 2006; Charles, 2012).

Navigating the social-­ecological complexity of transformative change The six propositions described above can provide useful guidance that would under certain conditions foster opportunities to transform untenable conditions and build resilience of communities and resource systems of coastal commons. In addition, cases analysed in this book suggest that to sucessfully navigate transformative change, paying attention to five key areas is crucial. The first is about contestations and conflicts which makes coastal management a ‘wicked’ problem. The second is the issues of agency, politics and power, which seem to underlie all aspects of social-­ ecological system governance. The third is the identification of common features of transformative change. The fourth is the understanding and agreement on what characterises success in a transformation. Finally, it is important to highlight the development of practical strategies for transformation. These five areas or elements are described in turn below. (1) Most of the transformative processes outlined in the preceding chapters reflect a range of contestations and conflicts, and they point to the notion of transformations in the coastal commons as an example of a profoundly complex or ‘wicked’ problem. Rittel and Webber (1973) coined this term to refer to problems that have no definitive formulation, no stopping rule, and no test for a solution. Indeed, as Jentoft and Chuenpagdee (2009) observed, coastal management in general is a ‘wicked’ problem. The examples and experiences outlined in this book may not necessarily be fully positive depending on the perspective adopted, or they may at some point be negative for particular actors or groups. In most of the cases, neither the solution to the problem nor even the problem or suite of problems that catalyse transformative efforts by coastal communities are easy to diagnose, whether for those actively engaged in the transformation or for external observers of the process. Still, these contestations and conflicts have been navigated successfully, as illustrated in the case from Mexico (Chapter 4). Here, fishers and tourism interests have found ways to assure spatial access rights to coastal commons while supporting diverse local livelihoods. Similarly, conflicts and contestations were managed effectively in the case of transformation in Shiretoko, Japan (Chapter 6) in which third-­ party ‘honest brokers’ (notably academic researchers) helped mediate issues and achieve consensus among the various parties. In the Nova Scotia case described by Graham and Charles (Chapter 12), complexity is approached by coalition-­building

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Synthesis   259

of citizen groups and by social learning, using many small on-­the-ground experiences as stepping stones. However, the transformation in this case was slow, on the order of a decade. This variety of approaches to navigating contestations and conflicts is echoed in the analysis of multiple cases by Armitage and colleagues (Chapter 13). That chapter points to a variety of successful approaches, many involving the creation of suitable governance mechanisms – some being local level but others being based on engagement in novel partnerships, utilising bridging organisations, and building linkages through multi-­level networks. This diversity of governance approaches was a recurring theme in the book – one we will return to later. (2) In reflecting on transformative processes in coastal commons, the chapters in this book have adopted a social-­ecological systems lens in ways that draw attention to ideas of resilience including scale, feedbacks and emergence. However, the chapters also point to the importance of engaging explicitly with human agency, politics and power. This is necessary in order to emphasise that resilience in social-­ecological systems cannot be deterministic, and that dimensions such as individual and collective agency, empowerment and self-­efficacy shape the way people behave (Brown and Westaway, 2011). Emphasis on agency and power relations also helps to contextualise and understand more fully the nature of transformative change, as well as to avoid managerial or technocratic responses to change that reinforces incremental adjustments, as opposed to deliberate transformations. Such objectives are rarely straightforward and self-­organisation cannot be planned ahead (Seixas and Davy, 2008). Processes of transformation develop their own internal mechanisms, and once they start, they can move in unpredictable directions. In the Bali case (Chapter 5), for example, the transformation took place through the individual agency of two key people who were the early adopters of cyanide-­ free technology to capture ornamental fish. They were both young fishers and not at all traditional leaders. But they were good communicators and networkers, and astute businessmen who could see that everyone would be better off if they switched to environmentally friendly technology. In the Solomon Islands case (Chapter 8), the transformation catalysed through the adoption of community-­based resource management was characterised by the inclusion of multiple voices and actors at various levels of organisation. However, actually shifting power was a challenge as male leaders of clans with territorial rights to coastal commons still dominated. Similarly, in the Brazil case (Chapter 9) the transformation from top-­down to more collaborative approaches to marine protected areas engaged fishers for the first time in management arrangements that directly affected them. This shift in collaborative relations was significant, considering the long history of centralised decision­making in Brazil. However, the slowness of the process reveals the inherent difficulties in reworking power relations even in settings where there is an impetus to do so. The multiple examples discussed by Armitage and colleagues (Chapter 13) and by Graham and Charles (Chapter 12) reflect efforts by coastal communities to gain power, often through partnerships and networks, including engagement with actors from outside their community.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

260   D. Armitage et al.

(3) Every coastal community and its relationship to the commons will vary in some manner. As a result, solutions, insights and lessons on deliberate transformations, and the factors behind them, cannot be ‘one size fits all’. The problem is comparable to finding the factors of success in commons management. Ostrom (1990) originally came up with eight factors (principles) for commons management, knowing that there would be many other factors as well, depending on the case. Her later analyses, looking at clusters of variables and the relationships among them, do in fact show a much higher number (Ostrom, 2009). Her solution was to take a ‘diagnostic approach’, as a doctor takes in diagnosing a disease (Ostrom, 2007). In some such way, we do know that a huge number of variables, including historical and political context variables, determine if a transformation is going to be successful. However, the success of the transformation in a given case is going to depend on a unique set of factors. What are the factors in common in transformation cases? What do the literature and the book chapters say about that? Identifying common factors, as we have sought to do in this book, is challenging, but it is needed to generate lessons applicable to more than one place and context. Three sets of common factors seem to emerge fairly consistently from the chapters: some form of legislative or policy change, the presence of some ‘catalyst’, and the development of new institutions/organisations and associated capacity building. A fairly common theme or feature of transformative change across the chapters in this book is the emergence of some form of legislative or policy change that creates a window of opportunity to move forward. In some cases, the window of opportunity is sudden and dramatic, as in the case of Chilean regime change that led to democratisation in many areas of life, and allowed a bold new experiment in coastal benthic resources co-­management in 1988–1992 (Gelcich et al., 2010). In many cases, however, policy change is step-­wise and the ‘window’ opens gradually, as in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef case (Olsson et al., 2008). This was also the case with the Brazil example (Chapter 9) which highlights a new ‘Terms of Agreement’ that helps redefine relationships, building on a national policy that allows greater user participation. It could also be seen in the Japan case (Chapter 6) where a nomination process and subsequent policy change contributed to the transformation, building upon Japan’s long-­standing policies on coastal community-­based management and co-­management (Makino, 2011). Similarly, declaration of a natural protected area in the sea off the community of Xcalak in Quintana Roo, Mexico (Chapter 4) induced development of new institutional arrangements through multi-­level collaboration of local, regional and federal institutions. In South Africa (Chapter 2), underlying increased empowerment and participation of fishers, and the recognition of their fishery and socio-­economic rights, was a crucial ‘progressive and well­respected Constitution and legal framework’. A second commonality identified across the chapters was the presence of some ‘catalyst’ or trigger of change (Seixas and Davy, 2008). These catalysts or triggers could be either social or ecological in nature. For example, the Solomon Islands (Chapter 8) transformation was spurred on in part by the faltering sea cucumber

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Synthesis   261

fishery which encouraged a greater receptiveness to new governance models. In the Thailand case (Chapter 10), the failing commercial fishery triggered a transformation from a fishing economy to a tourism economy. In some cases, triggers act like tipping points. They build up slowly and then all of a sudden something happens to tip the balance to a new trajectory. This seems to have been the case in Bali, where declining coastal fishery resources and incomes made the ornamental fishers ‘predisposed’ to change. But it was the cyanide-­free technology brought in by NGOs and its successful adoption by two individuals that tipped the trajectory into a reef conservation one. In some cases, catalysts and triggers are small but cumulative. The Nova Scotia chapter by Graham and Charles (Chapter 12) portrays the catalyst as a series of coastal decision-­making cases. No one case alone, such as what happened at Digby Neck, set off a transformation. But cumulatively all the cases added up to considerable on-­the-ground experience, lessons and understandings that led to a transformation in coastal governance. The Bali, Indonesia case, documented by Frey and Berkes (Chapter 5), also points to a commonality found in several other cases, development of new institutions or organisations and associated capacity building. In the fishing town of Les, the new institution was the Ornamental Fishers’ Association which promoted and socially enforced the cyanide ban. The associated capacity building involved teaching fishers the new technique of using barrier nets and hand nets (instead of cyanide). In fact, the fishers at Les became so good at these techniques that they started teaching them to other communities on the north coast of Bali. In Port Mouton Bay, Nova Scotia (Chapter 3), the new institution was Friends of Port Mouton Bay, a community organisation, which became the face of opposition to aquaculture development, coordinating citizen science and strategising policy interventions. Capacity building in this case involved a range of skills, from collecting scientific data to managing media relations. (4) An emerging insight from the chapters in this book is that they all show evidence or elements of success, but in different ways. Characterising success then becomes a key focal point for how we critically reflect upon transformations and the narratives used to describe them. In some cases, success is relatively easy to measure through socio-­economic measures such as improved incomes or livelihoods, or through biophysical measures such as habitat or fishery stock improvement. The ecological restoration of coral reefs in Bali (Chapter 5) falls into the latter category, but increased coral cover (a measurable biophysical indicator) cannot tell the whole story, as success in the Bali case equally includes empowerment, community pride, the development of self-­organisation and stewardship ethics, as well as coral reef restoration. Similarly, for southern France’s Camargue region and the Delta du Rhone Biosphere Reserve (Chapter 7), we saw how ‘success’ involved considering both ecological and economic vulnerabilities, and taking measures to enhance ecological and social resilience, as well as collective institutional resilience. It was clear that focusing on just one of these goals was not enough for success – a holistic systems perspective was needed. Success could also be assessed in terms of the nature of the

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

262   D. Armitage et al.

governance system that was created – in particular, its strong participatory component and multi-­level networking. In other cases, success is not easy to measure, as there are no obvious indicators. For example, both Nova Scotia cases (Chapters 3 and 12) clearly have experienced some success, but can these cases properly be considered ‘success stories’? The coastal governance arrangements have not yet incorporated true community empowerment which may reflect circumstances where the necessary power sharing has not fully occurred. It may be that in these cases, there is a need for both communities and governments to better engage with one another in multi-­level governance. In any case, while there is obviously no direct answer to the question of success, it is one that practitioners and scholars must analyse and reflect upon on a case-­by-case basis. Moreover, the challenge of scaling up may be an important dimension of how successful transformations are characterised, and the Solomon Islands case (Chapter 8) documents the tension with scale. Here, the change processes at regional and national scales appear fairly profound, yet for individuals and communities, success is mixed and heterogeneous. This may be an irreconcilable tension. In the Bali, Indonesia, case (Chapter 5), for example, the authors noted that community scale solutions do not necessarily scale up to the regional level. The transformation seen in Les, Bali, occurred only incompletely in some of the other fishing communities, and not at all in some other parts of South East Asia where ornamental fishing takes place. Scaling up is a challenge also noted in the other Indonesia case (Chapter 11) focused on the role of customary practices as a key dimension of the transformation. (5) As the cases in this book show, transformations of the coastal commons are inherently political, and shaped by contestations, inequitable relations of power and definitions of success. However, they are invariably practical as well. Indeed, ongoing efforts to support deliberate transformations and build the resilience of coastal communities will require theoretically informed and empirically tested lessons and strategies to chart a pathway forward. There are practical strategies associated with the transformation cases we outline here. Some of the strategies are policy oriented, while others are more focused on taking action, as in partnership building. Specifically, some of the key practical strategies identified across the cases include the following: • •

•

Using and respecting knowledge of different types, as in the Japan and Indonesia cases (Chapters 6 and 5), and in Nova Scotia (Chapter 3). Creating a supportive policy context as in the Mexico (Chapter 4) and Brazil (Chapter 9) examples, each involving new legislation, rules and incentives serving to foster the transformative change. Transforming mindsets, as in the example from South Africa (Chapter 2), Bali (Chapter 5) where a key strategy was to expose fishers to new information that reconfigured their ways of thinking, and in Thailand (Chapter 10) where fisher families were transformed into households providing homestay with fresh seafood.

Synthesis   263

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

•

Drawing on a local institution (France’s Delta du Rhone Biosphere Reserve, in Chapter 7) to shift policies for greater sustainability and participatory governance.

Our findings are generally consistent with a growing literature on transformations. For example, Olsson et al. (2008) documented that transformation to an ecosystem­based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, could be seen in terms of a number of practical strategies, such as use of different kinds of knowledge, inclusive user-­group participation, and increasing public awareness of the environmental problems of the Great Barrier Reef, along with manoeuvring the political system for support at critical times. However, there are no panaceas (Ostrom, 2007). As the chapters show, using practical strategies often means trying different ones and learning-­by-doing. The actual mix of practical strategies will vary depending on the social-­ecological system and nature of the challenges being faced. But based on the example of chapters in this book, the practical strategies mentioned here provide some helpful guidance for communities and their partners engaging in transformative efforts to protect the coastal commons for future generations.

Conclusion The contribution of this book is unique in that it is one of the first efforts to adopt a transformations focus with regard to coastal commons and communities, and tries to make sense of multiple examples from different parts of the world. As we have outlined in the introductory chapter and in this ‘Synthesis’ chapter, transformations in the coastal commons can be analysed using a social-­ecological systems lens, and principles from commons and resilience. These transformations are not haphazard but can be understood using natural and social sciences and an interdisciplinary approach. Yet transformations do not always work and are not necessarily desirable – at least for some sectors of the society being transformed and for some powerful interests. It is important to point out that transformations in the coastal commons, and in particular deliberate transformations, are inevitably contested. There is no scenario that is universally a ‘winner’ for everyone. However, notions of transformation in the coastal commons can serve as a focal point – or boundary concept – to ask questions about linked social-­ecological changes and strategies needed to move towards sustainability. In the context of changing coastal commons, the feedbacks and challenges confronting social and ecological systems are not going to be resolved through incremental improvements in conventional practices (see Gillard et al., 2016). Rather they reflect the situations which demand (and create) opportunities to rethink more fundamentally how coastal communities and commons will continue to coexist in ways that support human well-­being and maintain the ecosystems upon which we depend. Some of the experiences and strategies from the different cases outlined in this book will inevitably be overwhelmed by forces from within or without, and their

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

264   D. Armitage et al.

transformative potential diminished, at least in the shorter term. However, many of the cases point ultimately to fairly powerful sources and roots of transformation in the coastal commons in the longer term. In particular, these sources and roots of change include the reworking of institutions and governance in ways that may be difficult for more powerful actors to undo. They also include how different forms and types of knowledge are created and incorporated into learning processes about change and sustainability. Most fundamental, however, is the strength of the connection that communities maintain with their coastal commons. That connection to coastal place and space, and the links to culture, livelihood and memory, ultimately serve as the foundation for transformative change.

References Armitage, D., Marschke, M. and Tuyen, T.V. (2011). Early-­stage transformation of coastal marine governance in Vietnam? Marine Policy, 35(5): 703–711. Béné, C. and Neiland, A.E. (2006). From participation to governance: a critical review of the concepts of governance, co-­management and participation, and their implementation in small-­scale inland fisheries in developing countries. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews 29. Penang, Malaysia and Colombo, Sri Lanka: The WorldFish Center, and the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food. Berdej, S.M. and Armitage, D. (2016). Bridging organizations drive effective governance outcomes for conservation of Indonesia’s marine systems. PLoS ONE, 11(1): e0147142. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147142. Berkes, F. (2012). Implementing ecosystem-­based management: evolution or revolution? Fish and Fisheries, 13: 465–476. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (eds). (2003). Navigating Social-­ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  Biggs, R., Schlüter, M. and Schoon, M. (eds). (2015). Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-­ecological Systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, K. and Westaway, E. (2011). Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: lessons from human development, well-­being, and disasters. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36: 321–342. Cash, D.W., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L. and Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-­scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11: 8. [Online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/ vol11/iss2/art8/. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Charles, A. (2007). Adaptive co-­management for resilient resource systems: some ingredients and the implications of their absence. In: D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday (eds) Adaptive Co-­management. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 83–104. Charles, A. (2012). People, oceans and scale: governance, livelihoods and climate change adaptation in marine social-­ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4: 351–357. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-­ ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 441–473. Gelcich, S., Hughes, T.P., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Defeo, O., Fernandeza, M., Foale, S., Gunderson, L.H., Rodriguez-­Sickert, C., Scheffer, M., Steneck, R.S. and Castilla, J.C. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107: 16794–16799.

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Synthesis   265

Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J. and Van Alstine, J. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIREs Climate Change, 7: 251–265. Holling, C.S. and Meffe, G.K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10(2): 328–337. Jentoft, S. and Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Marine Policy, 33: 553–560. Ludwig, D. (2001). The era of management is over. Ecosystems, 4: 758–764. Makino, M. (2011). Fisheries Management in Japan: Its Institutional Features and Case Studies. London: Springer. Moore, M.-L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., Knapp, C., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J.A., Norström, A., Olsson, P. and Biggs, D. (2014). Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-­ecological transformations. Ecology and Society, 19(4): 54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06966-190454. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5): 667–676. Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Hughes, T.P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-­based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105: 9489–9494. Olsson, P., Galaz, V. and Boonstra, W.J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19(4): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-­06799-190401. [Accessed 8 January 2017]. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104: 15181–15187. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-­ecological systems. Science, 325: 419–422. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., Adler, C., Hurlbert, M., van der Hel, S., Schmidt, A., Barau, A., Obani, P., Sethi, M., Hissen, N., Tebboth, M., Anderton, K., Borner, S. and Widerberg, O. (2015). Transformations towards sustainability: emerging approaches, critical reflections, and a research agenda. Earth System Governance Working Paper No. 33. Lund and Amsterdam: Earth System Governance Project. Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G.S., Schneider, F., Speranza, C.I., Kiteme, B., Boillat, S., Serrano, E., Hirsch Hadorn, G. and Wiesmann, U. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-­production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 267–281. Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141: 2417–2431. Reed, M.S., Evely, A.C., Cundill, G., Fazet, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., Newig, J., Parrish, B., Prell, C., Raymond, C. and Stringer, L.C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4): r1. Rittel, H. and Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science, 4: 155–169. Seixas, C.S. and Davy, B. (2008). Self-­organization in integrated conservation and development initiatives. International Journal of the Commons, 2: 99–125. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R. and Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2): 5. [Online] URL: www.ecologyand society.org/vol9/iss2/art5. [Accessed 8 January 2017].

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Index

Page numbers in italics denote tables, those in bold denote figures. adaptive capacity 8; adaptive change 193; social adaptive capacity 193; see also resilience agency see transformation aquaculture 46–7, 52–3, 83, 215–18, 223, 234–5, 235, 238, 246, 256; policy 50–1, 54; shrimp 245–6; waste 48 aquarium-fish trade 81–2, 86, 241; timeline 85 Arctic see Canada Australia: Great Barrier Reef 263 biodiversity 101, 124–30, 125, 127, 181, 240; conservation of 26, 33, 121, 158–9, 164, 173, 182, 207; loss 234, 236; monitoring 192–3; see also conservation; United Nations Convention on Biodiversity biosphere reserve 121, 123; Delta du Rhone (Camargue) Biosphere Reserve see France; Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve see Mexico; Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves 121 Brazil: Behaviour Adjustment Term 168–76, 169; Caiçara people 157, 161–2; Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) 158; Fisheries of the Tamoios Marine Reserve Consultative Management Council 165; Ilha Grande Bay 160, 165;

indigenous lands 158; Mambucaba, community of 166; Paraty Fishers Organisation 162; quilombola 158; stakeholders 158, 168, 170–1, 175–6; Tamoios Marine Reserve 159, 164–70; Tarituba, Paraty 157–76, 259; Terms of Agreement 157–9, 166, 169, 256, 260; traditional people and communities 159, 173 bridging organisations 130, 224, 227, 234–5, 237, 239, 243, 244, 257, 259; boundary organisations 257; bridging process 239 Canada: actors 45, 54, 212, 224; Aquaculture Strategy 218; Arctic 233, 234, 238, 240, 243, 248; Bay of Fundy 220–1; Bear River First Nations 221; Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia 233, 235, 237, 243; Climate Change Action Plans 213; Coastal 2000 214; Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia 211, 214–28, 255–6, 258, 261; coastal jurisdiction 213; cod fisheries 213; Digby Neck Quarry, Nova Scotia 211, 219, 220–2; Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 46, 52, 248–9; indigenous people 212, 219; individual transferable quota system (IQT) 235, 235; Integrated Community Sustainability Plans 213; Inuit art 238, 240, 248; Inuit people 235, 248; Louis

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Index   267

Head Beach, Nova Scotia 211, 218–20, 219, 226; Mi’kmaq people 213, 221; Nova Scotia coastal strategy 215–17, 225, 228; Nova Scotia Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture 50, 52, 212–13, 217; piping plover 218–20; Port Mouton Bay, Nova Scotia 43–57, 216, 256, 261; Provincial Ocean Network 215; Saint Margaret’s Bay, Nova Scotia 212, 219, 222–4; stakeholders 223–4 Caribbean Fisheries Co-management (CARIFICO) 247; see also Dominica; Jamaica citizen science see community science climate change 1, 61–2, 66, 69, 102–4, 128, 143–4, 152, 194, 208, 213, 215, 223, 231, 233, 235, 236, 245, 248; adaptation 7, 103, 116, 208, 233, 245; responses to 194; see also coastal change; environmental change coalitions 214–16, 222, 226–7, 236; coalition-building 227–8, 258; Coastal Coalition of Nova Scotia see Canada; see also partnerships coastal change 1, 4, 128, 143, 152, 183, 194, 198, 205, 231, 234, 237, 252; adapting to 193; coastal development 65, 215, 219, 219–20, 224–6, 231; coastal erosion 206, 208; coping with 193; coral reef exploitation 81; natural disasters 131, 145, 216; overfishing 88, 183, 231, 234–5, 236; pollution 183; reacting to 193; see also climate change; environmental change coastal commons see commons coastal development see coastal change coastal livelihoods 27–31, 46–7, 60, 81–3, 94–7, 101–3, 110, 115, 116–17, 133, 142, 157, 173, 182, 211, 219, 237, 239–40, 246, 258, 261, 264; adaptive strategies 233; disruption 145; diversification 192, 194, 257; entrepreneurship 194, 257; loss 246; threats to 194, 233 coastal management see management coastal uses 216 colonialism 201 commons 1, 2, 2–5, 9–13, 96, 231–2, 236–7, 241–2, 245–6, 248, 252–64; collective-choice rules 146, 148; constitutional rules 146, 148; definition 1; enclosure 233, 235; knowledge 248; operational rules 146, 148; principles for management 260; property rights see property rights; rights to organize 255;

tragedy of the commons 82, 96, 100, 173 community 2–4, 9–13, 60, 127, 246, 252–64; community-based conservation 193, 202–3, 206, 211, 255; communitybased organisations 248, 261; community-based resource management 141–53, 198, 204, 243, 253–4, 259; community science see community science; external support 188, 205–6; grass-roots groups 227–8; institutions see institutions; mismatched priorities 225; norms 147, 150; scenario planning 193; social capital 188, 192, 238, 244, 246, 248, 257; values 135, 211, 222, 226, 253; vulnerabilities 133, 217, 252, 261 community science 43–5, 44, 48–9, 52, 54–6, 243, 256; citizen science 45, 261; definition 45 community-based conservation see community community-based monitoring see monitoring community-based resource management see community community-based tourism see tourism complexity 6, 45, 56, 72–3, 96, 133, 231, 241–2, 257–64 conflicts 12, 25–7, 40, 108, 112, 114–15, 123, 128, 133–4, 157–9, 164–7, 171, 173–4, 182, 189, 198–9, 200, 201, 205, 223, 225, 234, 236, 258–9; addressing 26, 38; honest brokers 258; managing 15, 257; preventing 208; resolving 104, 115 conservation 25; culture and customary practices 26; incentives 71, 76, 82, 87, 88, 94, 95, 182; monitoring see monitoring; protected areas see protected areas; stewardship 4–6, 9, 12–14, 47, 52–3, 56, 67, 101, 122, 157, 242, 261; see also community coral reef 62–3, 85, 145, 186, 233: artificial reef structure 91–3, 241; Great Barrier Reef see Australia; mining 86; Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System see Mexico; restoration 93–4, 239, 241, 248, 261; stressors 84–8 Coral Triangle Initiative 143–4 deliberate transformation see transformation Dominica: Massacre, community of 233, 234, 239, 243, 247; see also fish aggregating devices ecological restoration 131

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

268   Index

ecologisation 127 ecosystem services 45, 47, 51, 54, 62, 63, 109, 181, 233; cultural 62; ecological services 5; loss of 46, 52; provisioning 62; regulating 62; shifts 234–5; supporting 62 empowerment 97, 208–9, 226, 237, 256, 259–62 environmental assessment 44, 51, 57, 67, 182, 219, 225, 241 environmental change 81, 199, 236; see also coastal change environmental governance see governance environmental management see management estuary see Indonesia; South Africa fish aggregating devices (FADs) 233, 234, 239, 243, 247 fisheries: artisanal 157, 162–74; associations 82–4, 85, 90, 96, 234, 248; by-catch 28–9; caste-based see India; cod see Canada; commercial 29, 103, 105, 111, 115, 164, 166, 183, 192, 261; cooperatives 63, 65–9, 71–2, 103, 106–8, 111, 234, 238, 243, 248; culture 28, 211, 237, 240; cyanide 81–8, 95, 259, 261; dynamite 84; enhancement 186–7; extension programmes 167; gear 110, 166–7, 199, 238, 246–7; giant clam 183, 186; gill-net fishing 29–30, 37–8, 47, 105, 109, 162; integrated management 158; licenses 167; livelihoods see coastal livelihoods; lobster 46–7, 63, 72–3, 212, 232–3, 235, 237, 239, 241, 248–9; organisations 162, 164–5, 170–1, 213; ornamental 81, 85, 86, 92–4, 95, 256, 259, 261–2; overfishing see coastal change; policy 29, 30–6, 72, 105, 144; sea cucumber 145, 260–1; shrimp 66, 85–6, 91–2, 162; small-scale fisheries 30–1, 34–5, 72, 170, 183; way of life 183 France: actors 131, 134; birds 130–1; Delta du Rhone (Camargue) Biosphere Reserve 120–35, 255–6, 261, 263; gardians 128; National Reserve of the Camargue 129; Parc natural regional 129; stakeholders 120–1, 124, 128, 134; syndicat mixte 130 gender 63, 71, 83, 146, 200, 205–7, 254 Global Socioeconomic Monitoring Initiative for Coastal Management 171 globalization 198; see also coastal change

governance 2, 2–5, 62, 217, 232, 253; actors 2, 9, 11–14, 231–3, 236, 239–45; adaptive 14, 252–64; bottom-up 32, 100, 115–16, 130–1, 237–8, 254–5; capacity 33–5, 37, 182, 226; capacity building 15, 68, 76, 89–90, 96, 121, 166, 169, 194, 207, 218, 257, 260–1; centralised 143, 158–9, 175, 182, 205, 258–9; civil society 158, 174, 211, 213–14, 218, 228, 244, 253, 255; collaborative 27, 32, 56, 73, 82, 100, 114, 114, 158, 186, 194, 207, 237, 241, 243, 249, 253–7, 260; collective action 44, 55, 62, 82, 96, 133, 244; collective decision-making 193–4, 239, 241; context-based 191–2; decentralisation 4, 142, 150, 182, 198, 201, 253; definition 2, 232; fit 44, 47, 51; distributional equity 188; fragmentation 234; gap 44, 51; governability 174; hybrid 231; inequality 152–3; informal 47; ingredients of 4, 14–15; institutions see institutions; integrated 217–18; interactive 14, 63, 109, 254; interdisciplinary approach 28; leadership 14, 55, 151, 183, 188, 193, 205, 257; management see management; mechanisms 193, 226, 259; multi-level 7, 133–5, 194, 209, 228, 234–5, 255, 260; multi-level networks 231–2, 237, 239, 241, 243, 244–5, 253–4, 259, 262; participation see participation; rulemaking processes 247; sasi laut see Indonesia; self-governance 76, 108, 116; self-organisation 90, 97, 122, 171, 259, 261; silo approach 217–18, 223; social learning see social learning; stakeholders 7, 16, 240–1, 244, 254; syndicat mixte see France; as a system 5; tenure systems see Solomon Islands; thinking 224–5, 225, 228; top-down 30, 32, 143, 173, 226, 259; translation 244 human rights 25–6, 35, 63 human well-being see well-being identity 28, 52, 56, 131, 161, 211, 213, 233, 237–8, 240, 243, 246; see also sense of place India: caste 235; Chilika Lagoon 233, 235, 236, 242 Indonesia: actors 94, 199–200, 206; Bali Marine Protected Area Network 241; birds 205–6; Buleleng 83–4, 91–3; East Buleleng Conservation Zone 240;

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Index   269

estuary 206, 208; Haruku, Maluku Tengah 198–209; Kalpataru Award 206; Les, Bali 81–97, 256, 259, 261–2; Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands 202; mangrove rehabilitation 206; Nusa Penida Marine Protected Areas 240; Nusa Penida, Bali 234, 240, 243; religion 82, 200–5, 205; sasi laut 198–209, 200, 202, 204, 254–5; stakeholders 84, 93, 208 institutions 4, 63, 74, 82, 104, 141, 144, 200, 232, 234, 254; community 193, 225; educational 194, 257; government 213; institutional change 8, 15, 84, 159, 253; institutional innovation 135, 194; institutional network 243; institutional sea 159, 176; institutional turbulence 174, 176; institutional vacuum 200–1; institutionalisation 209; local 205, 207, 228, 237, 238, 242, 263; new 82, 217, 237, 243, 244, 260–1 International Union for Conservation (IUCN) of Nature 100, 157 Jamaica 234, 243, 247–8; Bluefields Bay 239, 247; Bluefields Bay Special Fishery Conservation Area 239; Caribbean Challenge Initiative 234, 236; Marine Police 247; Oracabessa Bay 239, 247; Sandals 248; Special Fishery Conservation Areas 234, 238, 241 Japan: actors 100–1, 106, 116–7; Ainu civilisation 102; centralised fishing licence system 104; endangered species 101–2; Fishermen’s Union Regulation 104; Fisheries Cooperative Associations (FCAs) 106–8, 107, 111; Fisheries Cooperative Associations Law 106; Hokkaido Island 100–1; indigenous people 102–3; Meiji Fishery Law 104; Multiple Use Integrated Marine Management Plan 114, 116; Okhotsk culture 102; Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site (WNHS) 100–17, 255, 260, 262; Shiretoko WNHS timeline 105; stakeholders 100, 108, 110, 112, 113–16; wildlife 111–13 knowledge mobilisation 53, 241, 243 knowledge pluralism and co-production 14, 34, 44, 134–5, 241, 254, 256, 262–4 knowledge systems 200, 238–9 lagoon see India; Vietnam local knowledge and practice 32, 34–9,

109, 152, 170, 194, 198–9, 202, 202–3, 205, 209, 237, 241, 246, 256; indigenous rites and rituals 204–5; in policy 241; see also traditional ecological knowledge management: adaptive 130, 159; adaptive co-management 128, 157, 165, 174–5, 209, 226, 234; centralised 157–8; co-management 3, 30, 72–3, 104–8, 165, 173, 194, 234–5, 238–9, 241, 247, 254, 260; community-based resource management see community-based resource management; definition 2–3; devolution 203, 238, 243, 248; ecosystem-based management 108, 116, 263; integrated 203, 226; participatory 174 mangrove rehabilitation see Indonesia, Thailand marine protected area (MPA) see protected areas marine reserve see protected areas Mexico: actors 62; Mahahual, community of 60–76; Maya period 62; Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System 60–76; National Commission of Fisheries and Aquaculture 62; National Commission of Natural Protected Areas 64; Punta Allen, community of 60–76; Quintana Roo 60–76, 255, 258, 260, 262; Riviera Maya 65; Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve 62, 68; stakeholders 62–3, 67, 69; tourism development 64–5; Xcalak, community of 60–76; Xcalak Reefs National Park 71 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 4–6 modernisation 198–9 monitoring: biodiversity monitoring see biodiversity; community-based 34, 241; participatory 157, 159, 171–2; social and ecological 160 natural resource management see management NGOs (non-governmental organisations) 31–2, 38–9, 52, 68, 73, 83, 85, 88–90, 94–5, 97, 110, 113, 114, 130–1, 143–4, 151, 170, 175, 189, 193, 201, 206–8, 221, 234, 241, 255, 261 participation 14, 31–7, 100, 122–7, 133–5, 150, 158, 171, 184, 199, 208, 225–6, 238, 243, 247, 253–6, 260, 263; barriers 173–4; participatory modelling 134; participatory polycentric 133, 257; Participatory Rural Appraisal 188

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

270   Index

partnerships 1, 15–16, 25, 32, 33, 38–9, 53, 85, 151, 171, 182, 206–7, 221–2, 223, 237–9, 242, 243, 244, 247–9, 255, 259, 262; see also coalitions planning 25, 31, 38, 40, 170–1, 182, 184, 188, 202, 213, 218, 225, 226; conservation 37; development 121; indigenous planning processes 193, 213, 218; land use 217, 223; marine management 145, 222; municipal 224; participatory 33, 128; policy 249; regional 134; scenario see community; tourism 64 policy: aquaculture see aquaculture; change 142, 147, 260–2; coastal 222, 225, 226–8; community-centered 90, 149, 158; coordination 113; debates 26; environmental 133; evolution 128; fisheries see fisheries; fit 47; interventions 261; lack of 213–14, 218, 222; mismatch 51; for participation 122; planning see planning; state-centered 4, 7, 9, 228; tourism see tourism; transformation see transformation; for uncertainty 14 political ecology 199–200 power 13, 37, 131, 142–3, 146, 150, 182, 193, 200, 208–9, 243, 245, 252, 256, 258–9, 262; see also political ecology; transformation property rights: changes in 65, 162; collective 246; common property 65; communal property 162, 198; community-managed 255; open access 65, 71, 162, 246, 255; private property 75; privatisation 65, 133, 220, 233; regime 14–15, 243, 254; resource access rights 25, 31, 34, 61, 66–7, 69–76, 82, 106–8, 134, 144–5, 199, 236, 252, 255, 258; state property 65, 162; territorial user rights for fishers (TURFs) 234, 238, 259; user groups 61, 63, 69, 109, 144, 164, 199, 234, 243, 245–6; see also commons protected areas 25–6, 29–31, 47, 64, 67, 71, 92–3, 100–1, 130, 131, 240, 256; closed areas 158; communityrecognised 186, 193, 206; definition 158; extractive reserve 173; fisheries exclusion areas 158; marine reserve 158, 160, 162, 248; networks 233, 234, 241, 243; no-take zones 35, 157, 173–5, 234, 238–9, 241; Programme of Work on Protected Areas see United Nations Convention on Biodiversity; sanctuaries 158; zoning 240

rapid impact assessment 145 resilience 7–9, 52–3, 56, 122–3, 131–4, 253, 258, 261; absorptive capacity 8; adaptive capacity see adaptive capacity; community 122; definition 7; emergence 259; impact of government policy 9; regime shift 43, 82, 134; tipping point 261; transformation see transformation; transformative capacity 8, 151, 252 sanctuaries see protected areas scale 6–7, 51, 56, 69, 132, 258–9, 262; definition 6; geographical 6; level 7, 62, 132; multi-scale 142, 231; scaling up 53, 56, 160, 172–3, 242, 254, 262; sociopolitical 6; spatial 6; temporal 6 Second World War 64, 104, 105, 129 sense of place 52, 54, 122, 127, 131–4, 237–8, 242; changes to 237; see also identity social-ecological system (SES) 2, 4–8, 44, 51, 62, 96, 109, 141, 183, 232–3, 252–4, 258, 263; adaptation 7–8, 67, 103, 116–20, 134–5, 152, 208, 257; definition 4; drivers 5–6, 61, 64–9, 87, 141, 233, 235, 237, 242, 244–5; feedback 6, 53, 110, 257, 259, 264; governance system 233; interdependency 134; level see scale; meaning 63, 109; motivation 63, 109; outcomes 63, 109, 124–7, 193; resilience see resilience; resource system 233; scale see scale; subsystems 233; traditional systems 198, 253 social learning 14, 44, 44–5, 48–51, 52–3, 54–5, 95, 135, 158, 194, 227, 256, 259; double-loop 256; transformative learning 39 social networks 54–5, 122, 134–5, 234, 239, 243; nestedness 239; positionality 244; shadow networks 237, 239, 244; social relational networks 236 Solomon Islands 141–53, 254, 257, 259–60; actors 143, 153; church closures 147–8; customary closures 147–8; environmental closures 147–8; Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology 144; ‘New Song for Pacific fisheries governance’ 144; tenure systems 143–4, 150–3, 255 South Africa: actors 25–7, 38–9; Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE) 30; Constitution 26;

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 21:05 04 May 2017

Index   271

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) 30–3; Ebenhaeser, community of 25–40; Estuary Management Plan 30, 32; Olifants River estuary 25–40, 255; Papendorp, community of 25–40; post-apartheid 26; stakeholders 33, 35–40 stakeholders; forums 35; see also actors; collaboration; participation sustainability 2, 17, 26, 31–4, 51, 54, 65, 94–5, 110–12, 116–17, 182, 194, 198, 204, 223, 238, 244, 248, 252, 263–4; short-term trade-offs 246–7; sustainable development 26, 121–3, 223 Thailand: actors 194; Best Practice of Coastal Conservation 183; Environmental Management waste ball 187; Koh Pitak, Chumporn 181–95, 257, 261–2; mangrove rehabilitation 187; Mu Koh Chumporn National Marine Park 186; sufficiency economy 184; tourism challenges 190–1 tourism 60, 67–71, 70, 83, 93, 110, 128–30, 132, 162, 183–9, 215, 219, 224, 234, 261; capacity 188; communitybased 183–95, 257, 262; community adaptations to 68; cooperatives 184; culture-based 192, 205; ecotourism 83, 96, 114, 131, 219, 220–1; homestays 83, 184–5, 188, 190, 257, 262; management of 184; monitoring impacts 188; policy 64–5, 67; service providers 70; scuba diving 63, 69, 83, 186, 240 traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) 199, 202–3, 237, 238, 243, 256; see also local knowledge and practice transdisciplinary research 256 transformation 2, 2–5, 7–13, 44, 134, 150–3, 204–6, 205, 208–9, 214, 225, 226–8, 232, 243, 246, 252–64; agency 13, 55–6, 122, 141, 151, 237, 245, 252,

258–9; agents of change 245; catalyst 152, 241, 259–61; common factors 260–3; definition 54; deliberate 9–10, 73, 82, 131, 141, 151, 252, 257, 259, 262; forms of 10; indicators of 12; ingredients for 14–16, 82, 226, 232, 253–4; innovation 151; measurement of 10, 12; of the mind 94; opportunities for 16, 192, 233, 253; phases of 11; policy 260–2; politics of 11, 13, 201, 258–9; scales of 11, 252; success 258, 261–2; system identity 12–13; timing 54; trajectories of change 10; transformational pathways 141; transformative change 1, 3, 4, 8, 10–16, 10, 55, 141, 232, 240, 258–9, 262, 264; transformative learning see social learning; transformative potential 242, 243; triggers 142; windows of opportunity 142–5, 152, 260; winds of opportunity 159, 176 transformative change see transformation uncertainty 5–6, 12, 14, 231–2, 252, 254–7 UNESCO World Natural Heritage 100–1, 110–15 United Nations Convention on Biodiversity 26, 144, 181; Aichi Targets 181; Programme of Work on Protected Areas 26 Vietnam: Tam Giang-Cau Hai Lagoon 234, 238, 242, 243, 246–7; vans 246 Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries 35 well-being 5–6, 47, 51, 63, 67, 121, 134, 239, 243, 248, 264; quality of life 135, 221 wicked problems 173; definition 258 World War see Second World War WorldFish 145, 150