Governing large-scale marine commons: Contextual challenges in the Coral Triangle

Abstract

Environment and development agendas are increasingly being characterised by regional-scale initiatives. This trend is in part motivated by recognition of the need to account for global drivers of change (e.g., climate change, migration, and globalisation), the aspirations of achieving large-scale ecological goals (such as maintaining ecosystem processes), and reconciling potentially conflicting priorities in multi-use planning. However, regional-scale governance is challenging and there is little theoretical guidance or empirical evidence to suggest how it can be achieved. This paper uses the Institutional Analysis and Development framework to highlight the diverse contextual factors that challenge governance of a large-scale marine common, using an example of the Coral Triangle Initiative. The analysis points to the need for a critical, reflexive approach to the Coral Triangle Initiative if it is to effectively navigate diverse contexts and reconcile multiple objectives in the region. Recognising the heterogeneous, multi-scale and interlinked nature of large-scale marine systems is critical. Coping with contextual complexity will require innovative approaches that strive to be inclusive of varied perspectives and actors, enable and support effective collective-choice arrangements at lower levels of organisation, and organise and link diverse institutional arrangements at multiple scales. Large-scale marine governance will also involve a great deal of experimentation and regular adjustments to governance arrangements to account for the dynamic nature of regional commons.

Rethinking environmental leadership: The social construction of leaders and leadership in discourses of ecological crisis, development, and conservation

“…Leadership in existing regimes was associated with outcomes such as resource-use monitoring, sanctioning of rule-breaking and conflict resolution (Ruttan, 2006;Van Laerhoven 2010;Cinner et al, 2012). More often, however, leadership is associated with change (Folke et al, 2005;Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2007;Christie et al, 2009;Olsson et al, 2008;Biggs et al, 2010;Black et al, 2011;Kates et al, 2012;Rosen and Olsson, 2013).…”

“…While leadership is often identified as one of a range of important factors, it is frequently found to be one of the most important factors. The large-N studies and meta-analyses identify the presence of a leader as having a high (Pagdee et al, 2006;Van Laerhoven, 2010;Gutierrez et al, 2011) to moderate or mixed (Ruttan, 2006;Cinner et al, 2012) influence on governance…”

“…Only a relatively small proportion of the literature problematizes leadership or associates the presence of leadership with contested or undesirable management outcomes (Njaya et al, 2012;Mohammed and Inoue, 2012;Fleischman et al, 2010;Zulu, 2008). In the few quantitative studies where outcomes are disaggregated, authors report more nuanced, mixed findings for the role of leadership (Ruttan, 2006;Cinner et al, 2012). For example, Cinner et al, (2012) find that trust in leadership is important for 'reported compliance' to fisheries management rules but is not significantly correlated with 'benefits to livelihoods'.…”

“…In the few quantitative studies where outcomes are disaggregated, authors report more nuanced, mixed findings for the role of leadership (Ruttan, 2006;Cinner et al, 2012). For example, Cinner et al, (2012) find that trust in leadership is important for 'reported compliance' to fisheries management rules but is not significantly correlated with 'benefits to livelihoods'. Similarly, Ruttan (2006) finds that the presence of leaders is significantly correlated with some outcomes in irrigation studies, but is not correlated with any successful outcomes in the fisheries systems he examined.…”

“…The CTI is a regional policy to transform marine conservation, fisheries management and food security in parts of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. President Yudhoyono of Indonesia has been widely heralded as the instigator of the CTI (CTI RPOA, 2009;Fidelman et al, 2012;Foale et al, 2013). However, analysis reveals behind-the-scenes involvement from up to fifty institutional entrepreneurs representing three international conservation agencies (WWF, CI and TNC) (Rosen and Olsson, 2013).…”