Navigating governance networks for community‐based conservation

Abstract

A little over a decade ago, Berkes (2004) argued that community conservation "starts from the ground up but deals with cross-scale relations", and that a more nuanced understanding is needed of "people, communities, institutions, and their interrelations at various levels". This perspective of community-based conservation (CBC) leads us into the realm of governance networks. We define governance 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 conservation actions (adapted from Biermann et al. 2009; see also Lebel et al. 2006 andScarlett andMcKinney 2016). A focus on governance networks helps to draw attention to the relationships (or lack thereof) among individuals (eg harvesters, policy makers), organizations (eg local conservation committees, government agencies), and conservation objectives (eg restoration, protection, multi-use) (see Scarlett and McKinney 2016, and specifically Panel 1 therein, for more on governance networks, or network governance). Such a focus also highlights the interplay (good and bad) of values and interests among a diverse range of conservation actors.Governance networks are presumed to generate benefits by promoting interaction between organizations, agencies, and other actors through which conservation decisions are made and actions are taken (eg within and between the state, civil society, and the private sector; see Torfing 2005; Evans 2012; Panel 1 in Scarlett and McKinney 2016). These benefits may include opportunities to identify and resolve social conflicts -for example, between resource users and enforcement officersthat would otherwise undermine biodiversity protection or the cooperation necessary to establish protected areas (Redpath et al. 2013). However, such benefits may not always exist in practice, or the network arrangements that do exist may exacerbate unequal social relationships and obstruct conservation efforts, as is the case where powerful interests in the network (eg industry) can overwhelm the priorities of community-based actors (Agrawal and Gibson 1999;Raik et al. 2008; see also WebPanel 1). Governance networks can facilitate coordinated action and shared opportunities for learning among conservation scientists, policy makers, and communities. However, governance networks that link local, regional, and international actors just as often reflect social relationships and arrangements that can undermine conservation efforts, particularly those concerning community-level priorities. Here, we identify three "waypoints" or navigational guides to help researchers and practitioners explore these networks, and to inspire them to consider in a more systematic manner the social rules and relationships that influence conservation outcomes. These waypoints encourage those engaged in community-based conservation (CBC) to: (1) think about the networks in which they are embedded and the constellation of actors that influence conservation practice; (...

Mangroves, fishers, and the struggle for adaptive comanagement: applying the social-ecological systems framework to a marine extractive reserve (RESEX) in Brazil

“…However, marine RESEX have struggled to achieve success in mangrove conservation (Santos andSchiavetti 2014, Borges et al 2017) in line with MPAs globally (Halpern 2014, Bennett andDearden 2014). The institutional complexity of MPA governance continues to challenge scholars and practitioners (Jones et al 2013, Alexander et al 2016). …”

“…At the land-sea interface, coastal SES research has helped unpack the complexity of spatially overlapping characteristics and interactions between marine and terrestrial systems, and how these influence sustainability (Alexander et al 2016, Pittman and Armitage 2016, Partelow et al 2018a. Coastal zones often have multiple spatially proximate ecosystem types, resource uses, and actors, often with divergent interests, creating challenges for collective management (Glaser and Glaeser 2012, Schlüter et al 2018.…”

The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social–ecological systems

“…Here, we build on this approach by theorizing network configurations that predispose actors in a SES with the capacity to adapt to changing conditions and to begin a transformation. The network configurations we propose can be viewed as the building blocks of a SES "governance network," loosely defined as formal and informal interactions among different types of actors that make decisions affecting environmental governance (Robins et al 2011, Cohen et al 2012, Alexander et al 2016). …”

“…It has been widely acknowledged that social networks, defined as social relationships between individuals and groups, are crucial for building this capacity (e.g., Adger 2003, Armitage et al 2009, Brondizio et al 2009Cinner et al, unpublished manuscript). Social networks provide a means for sharing knowledge, resources, and support and facilitate opportunities to build trust and social capital (Bodin and Crona 2009)-all of which are critical for effective decision making in response to disturbance and change , Alexander et al 2016, Chaffin et al 2016. For example, knowledge sharing facilitates learning, a key element of adaptive capacity (Nelson et al 2007).…”

Examining horizontal and vertical social ties to achieve social–ecological fit in an emerging marine reserve network

“…knowledge exchange), and assess the extent to which different attributes, features, and functions of the social network may enhance or inhibit particular aspects of social–ecological fit. In this regard, the term ‘governance network’ is used to emphasize that this social network consists of key actors that effectively constitute the de‐facto governance structure of the study area (Alexander, Andrachuk, & Armitage, ). This study specifically seeks to build upon and extend emerging research focused on social connectivity as a key aspect in the governance of MPA networks (Alexander, ; Horigue et al, ; Solandt et al, ), and in improving social–ecological fit (Bergsten, Galafassi, & Bodin, ; Bodin , Crona, Thyresson, Golz, & Tengö, ; Guerrero, Bodin, McAllister, & Wilson, ; Kininmonth, Bergsten, & Bodin, ).…”