Can the center hold? Boundary actors and marginality in a community-based natural resource management network

Abstract

Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) seeks to align the interests of local communities and conservation institutions. A significant challenge to this realignment is that CBNRM is often implemented in locations with colonial histories of oppression, persecution, and dispossession that have left legacies of inequity and marginalization. Social networks are one method for discerning how marginalized CBNRM actors can negotiate entitlements and agency. Through the lens of social networks, marginalization can be viewed as insufficient connectivity between the center and the periphery of the network. One possible remedy to this dysfunction are boundary actors, which are thought to be vital to connecting parts of social networks that would otherwise be poorly connected. Using social network analysis to visualize interactions between the Topnaar community and CBNRM institutional actors in Namibia's Namib-Naukluft and Dorob National Parks, we find a number of individuals well-positioned to serve as boundary actors. Although our results suggest these individuals can be effective in sharing and translating key knowledge, supporting transfers of benefits, and enabling or negotiating entitlements, we also found that social, political, institutional, and geographic constraints limited their effectiveness. In particular, the Topnaar Traditional Authority, adopted a "neo-traditional," top-down, gatekeeper role, while their community wanted them to be more responsive and engaged in directly addressing the communities' problems. In general, the boundary actors were the focus of much discontent and conflict, in large part because of unclear pathways of accountability. We recommend the co-creation of boundary objects that specify responsibilities and thus reduce conflict and support effective boundary actors.

The Doctrines of Margin of Appreciation and Evolutive Interpretation: A Review of the European Court of Human Rights

“…Having contributed to communication strategies and analysed the digital content of CBNRMorganizations in Namibia, including social media, websites, and online forums, the authors identified that digital literacy was an urgent need. Moreover, content analysis from previous research (Al-Shawaf, and Buss, 2021;Castillo-Huitrón et al, 2020;Snorek and Bolger, 2022) has identified misinformation, common misconceptions, and patterns of communication that contribute to misunderstandings. The combination of these methods will provide a comprehensive understanding of the misunderstandings surrounding the sustainable use approach in Western settings and the role of digital literacy in addressing them.…”

CBNRM, national parks, elites, and ethnography: a comment on (mis)representations

“…Additional tensions may arise between processes of commodification and market access by investors in communal lands and cultural heritage practices normally considered the remit of Traditional Authorities, given that priming land and resources for external access and investment may impinge on Indigenous access and use (Sullivan and Ganuses 2021). In other words, circumstances in Namibian CBNRM tend rather toward the opposite of the conceptual frame acting as the explanatory anchor for the network analysis presented by Snorek and Bolger (2022), even if elite capture of resource access and use by the Topnaar TA may be of concern to the wider !Khuiseb community.…”

“…On these issues of (mis)representation I make one final observation regarding the paper's presentation of anthropologist Winifred Hoernlé's work in the early 20th century with peoples associated with the !Khuiseb. Snorek and Bolger (2022:2) write that "[p]rejudicial accounts have also stemmed from anthropologists, including being labeled 'probably the most miserable of all the remnants of the Nama'" (Hoernlé 1985(Hoernlé [1925). To understand this statement made almost 100 years ago by Hoernlé, however, it is necessary to consider the fuller statement within which it is embedded, and to note its positioning within some of the most detailed and respectful research amongst various Nama groupings (Carstens 1985, Bank 2016.…”

“…The article "Can the center hold? Boundary actors and marginality in a community-based natural resource management network" (Snorek and Bolger 2022) provides a useful analysis of boundary actors regarding natural resource management and institutional structures for the lower !Khuiseb River valley, west Namibia. This area sits within the Namib-Naukluft National Park in which, unusually for Namibia and following strong resistance to removal, Indigenous peoples (predominantly ǂAonin or Topnaar Nama, as well as Damara / ǂNūkhoen) managed to retain rights of habitation (Jones 1992).…”

Care-based leadership in a core-periphery network: a South African case study in collaborative watershed governance

“…Boundary actors serve as a bridge between disparate actors across a watershed. They provide social learning opportunities across social boundaries (Friedman and Podolny 1992, Perrault 2003, Olsson et al 2004, Pahl-Wostl 2009, Long et al 2013) and support the navigation of intercultural or cognitive barriers between heterogeneous groups (Burt 1992, Cohen and Davidson 2011, Long et al 2013, Snorek and Bolger 2022. By bridging central organizations to other actors across networks, a relational hub can enable the continuity of watershed governance (Cockburn et al 2019b).…”