|Variable Component Type||Actor|
|Theme||Leadership (learn about themes)|
|Projects||SESMAD, Fiji fisheries|
|Question||How accountable are the leaders to the other members of the group?|
|Select Options||1 Low, 2 Medium, 3 High|
|Importance||This variable is important because affects whether or not leaders act on behalf of the group’s interest. This is crucial, as leadership authority, expertise and sense of opportunity might all work towards improved resource management or the opposite depending on the intent of the group leader/s (Theesfeld 2009).|
"Leadership accountability ascertains whether there are de facto mechanisms that enable the actors in a group to make the group leader/s liable for their decisions vis a vis resource governance. There are formal and informal mechanisms through which leaders can be held accountable, including from voting, reporting and financial auditing, to public hearings and other forms of personal communication (Madrigal, Alpizar, and Schluter 2010). Accountability can happen vertically, between a leader and other members of the group, and horizontally between leaders of the same group (Fox 1992). High: occurs when mechanisms of accountability are very effective and actors the leader represents are able to invoke/use them (e.g., when an elected official is not re-elected/or impeached because actors do not agree with his/her leadership or actions) Low: actors are not able to use accountability mechanisms, or no or very few accountability mechanisms exists"
|Centralization and corruption||Low|
|Conditions for general resilience||Moderate or High|
|Indonesian "Adat" Communities||missing in case|
|Indonesian District Governments||Does this refer to inter or intra group? Individual district leaders have medium levels of accountability to their district, but no accountability to other districts.|
|"Reformasi" Indonesian Central Government (1998-2012)||Medium (2)||The president is accountable to the general public (through elections and through the legislative and judicial branches), and the other sections of government make up a part of that group, however they are not the primary people to whom the president is accountable. Furthermore, there have been suggestions that even after the instigation of democracy, the government remains highly oligarchical (Fukuoka 2013) and that the main change has been a decentralization of patronage networks (previously centralized under Suharto) and a redistribution of riches to elites previously excluded from Suharto's group of allies (Fukukoka 2013b).|
|"New Order" Indonesian Central Government (1965-1998)||Low (1)||Suharto was a dictator with little accountability to others working in the government, or to citizens.|
|Large Extractive Industries in Indonesia||not applicable (no leader)|
|Indonesian Local entrepreneurs||Not applicable.|
|Ozone Nation States||Not applicable|
|Ozone Depleting Substance Industrial Producers||Low (1)||Not applicable.|
|Ozone Secretariat||Low (1)|
|ICPR nations (1976-1986)||Medium (2)||Leadership is informal and thus there are not institutional mechanisms to make The Netherlands accountable; however, there are mechanisms of transparency and judicial procedures hosted by the European Union.|
|Galapagos Artisan Fishermen||High (3)||Leaders (Presidents) are elected by the members of the fishing cooperative. Presidents are subject to the scrutiny of the unionized members of their cooperatives, and may be changed or deprived of their positions if internal conflicts arise.|
|ICCAT Contracting Parties|
|ICCAT Western Members|
|ICCAT Eastern Members||N/A|
|GBR fisheries managers||Low (1)||Accountable to State government not employees|
|GBR commercial fishers||Medium (2)||The staff of the QSIA are somewhat accountable to the commercial fishing sectors, although they cannot be formally voted in or out by the sector. And only some fishers are members of the association.|
|ICPR nations (1986-2000)||Low (1)||See "ICPR Nations (1987-1986)"|
|Rhine chemical firms|
|Rhine agricultural sector|
|Wakatobi managers||Not Applicable|
|Civil society organizations in Indonesia||Low (1)||During the Suharto regime, civil society organizations were limited and controlled by the government (Antlove et al. 2005); thus, they had very limited accountability, to Suharto and his allies. Moreover, most of the organizations were NGOs supported by donors which, as stated by advocacy-oriented activists in a motion of no-confidence motion in a 1995 meeting, "had merely become the extended arm and implementing agencies of the authoritarian government and had lost its commitment towards change." (Antlove et al. 2005) They were criticized for hierarchy, bureaucracy, co-optation and lack of internal accountability (ibid). After the fall of Suharto, there has been a significant growth in civil society and its organizations. Antlove et al note that the effects of the Suharto period are felt today in the form of elitism and little effective grassroots participation among NGOs, but that there is an increasing call for accountability from citizens to these organizations. "Right at the moment when there is a lack of confidence among civil actors about what they are actually able to achieve and how to achieve it, both the internal governance of CSOs [civil society organizations] as well as their external performance in the public domain are becoming subject of greater scrutiny....The general public, the media as well as state actors, are increasingly complaining about the lack of accountability of NGOs and other civil society organizations....There have been newspaper articles about the “Billion rupiah business of NGO” (Bisnin Milyaran LSM) and allegations of corruption and misuse. " At the same time, the authors point out that beginning in the 2000s there have been a number of initiatives to improve CSO governance (e.g. transparency and accountability), which are beginning to solidify. This includes a 2001 law (Law 16/2001) which was a breakthrough for good governance of the non-profit sector in Indonesia, " as it provided assurance and legal certainty, as well as restored the yayasan’s [foundations'] function as a non-profit institution with social, religious and humanitarian goals." So we could say accountability is low but increasing.|
|National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA||Medium (2)||Leaders are expected to follow guidelines set by national standards and to their employees, however a lack of appropriate leadership may take some time to be recognized and a substitute provided for.|
|Raja Ampat Tourism||High (3)||Tourism department of Raja Ampat government|
|Wakatobi Bajau fishers||High (3)||Village heads are elected every 3-5 years, standardised procedure.|
|Australian Toothfish Fishers||Missing|
|NWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship||High (3)|
|Raja Ampat Managers||High (3)||Formally appointed.|
|Riparian Nations (1976-1986)|
|Australian Antarctic Division||Medium (2)|
|GMR managers||High (3)|
|NWHI Researchers||Not Applicable|
|Macquarie Island Managers||Low (1)||Leaders of each group are not formally accountable to one another.|
|Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers||High (3)||The village leader is elected by the other community members to oversee all sasi practices, therefore their decisions directly affect everyone in the group and make them accountable (Mcleod, 2009)|
|Charles Darwin Foundation||High (3)||CDF is managed by an executive director who is appointed by a board.|
|Galapagos Tourism Sector||High (3)||Assume governement agency accountable|
|Seaflower artisanal fishers||Missing||NO DATA|
|GBR recreational fishers||Medium (2)||Leaders are voted in and out by the associations' members. Most recreational fishers are not part of these associations though they could elect to become members.|
|Community C||High (3)||4.32/5: This indicates that on average levels of trust in leaders falls between Trust More Than Distrust (4) and Trust Entirely (5)|
|California Academic Researchers||Low (1)||Principal investigators are accountable to their own institutions, projects, and funders but typically not to other members of the group.|
|California State and Federal Fisheries Agencies||High (3)||The chair and vice-chair positions are voted on by the voting members of the Council. Any such chair that is deemed to not be managing appropriately can be out-voted by council members.|
|Community B||Medium (2)||3/5. On average community members neither trust nor distrust local leaders. This measure assumes that levels of trust correspond to levels of accountability.|
|California Groundfish Fishermen||Low (1)||Leaders typically speak on behalf of the other fishermen, but are not expected to represent all fishermen.|
|Australian Fisheries Management Authority||Medium (2)||AFMA, as a government agency, has a bureaucratic structure.|
|Svalbard Tourism||High (3)||At each annual general meeting, there are elections held for the positions on each committee of AECO. Since AECO members pay an annual fee, (likely which helps to pay for salaried positions) we would expect the Executive Director to have high accountability to the member organizations.|
|Svalbard Resource Managers||High (3)||All members are working towards the same/similar goals.|
|GBR government co-managers||Low (1)||The leaders of these organisations are accountable to Federal and State governments respectively rather than to employees (members of the group).|
|Svalbard Shrimp Fishers||Not Applicable|
|Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation||High (3)||CDF is managed by an executive director who is appointed by a board.|
|California Sanctuary Recreational Users||Low (1)||Informal leaders must abide by laws and make way for other users (e.g. kayakers have to watch out for whale watching boats) and any violation of law can be enforced by the correct authorities. Higher accountability for recreational fishers and avoidance of overexploitation of target species.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks||Low (1)||The Director of National Parks is accountable to Federal and State governments respectively rather than to employees (members of the group).|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers||Medium (2)||CFA staff and board have to report the outcomes of the modus operandi to the membership that includes: quarterly reports, an annual review, annual financial accounts and an annual report. Although, only some fishers are members of the Association.|
|Cenderwasih fishers||High (3)||Leaders are elected, and the communitites will speak out if their leaders misbehave (socio-economic basline survey 2008)|
|New Zealand Fishery Managers||Medium (2)||Professionally held accountable, but not to the law.|
|New Zealand Arrow Squid Fishers||High (3)||High social pressure.|
|Community A||High (3)||4.12/5. This measure indicates that average levels of trust in leaders falls somewhere between trust more than distrust and entirely trust. This measure assumes that levels of trust correspond to accountability.|
|Community G||Medium (2)||3.67/5: This value indicates that levels of trust in other members of the community falls between neither trust nor distrust (3) and trust more than distrust(4).|
|Community F||Medium (2)||3.36/5: Average level of trust in leaders from members of the community indicates that it falls somewhere between neither trusting nor distrusting (3) and Trust more than distrust (4).|
|Community E||Medium (2)||3.88/5: This indicates that on average respondents level of trust in leaders falls between neither trust nor distrust (3) and trust more than distrust (4).|
|Community D||High (3)||4.64/5: This value indicates that on average levels of trust in leaders falls between trust more than distrust (4) and entirely trust (5)|
|Community H||Medium (2)||3.61/5. This value indicates that on average levels of trust in leaders falls between neither trust nor distrust (3) and trust more than distrust (4).|
|California market squid fishermen||Medium (2)||No formal way to hold accountability, but socially important.|
|California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Managers||Low (1)||While leaders could be held accountable, this is rare. Professionally held accountable.|
|Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Managers||Medium (2)||While there are formal processes to hold managers accountable, such as the Internal Review Process, such processes are not especially strong. Managers find themselves accountable and hold themselves to professional standards. But yes held to their actions, though fisheries it is difficult to ascertain fault.|
|Patagonian Squid Trawlers||High (3)||Leaders rotate, and those that cause trouble are dealt with by the group.|
Basic:A basic variable describes essential and basic background information for a component.
Biophysical:Biophysical variables describe just that: important biophysical properties, largely of environmental commons, that are not captured by a more specific theme.
Causation:A variable with this theme describes issues of causality, which is a complex subject. Most basically this theme is associated with variables that describe different types of causation and different types of causes of environmental problems.
Context:contextual variable relates the component with which it associated to the social and/or ecological setting of a particular interaction and/or case.
Ecosystem services:Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or describe the provision of important ecosystem services by a natural resource.
Enforcement:Enforcement involves several different processes, including monitoring for violations of rules, sanctioning violators, and conflict resolution mechanisms involved in this process. Variables that relate to any of these processes should be attached to this theme.
External:Variables with this theme relate a component to processes external to the case with which the component is associated.
Heterogeneity:Variables with this theme describe important ways in which the member of an actor group differ from each other.
Incentives: This theme is associated with variables that are not directly related to institutions and rules, but which still play a role in affecting the incentives that commons users have to ameliorate or exacerbate the commons they use.
Institutional-biophysical linkage:This is a sub-theme of the institutions theme, and describes those variables that ask about the relationship between a set of institutions and a biophysical aspect of a commons.
Institutions:Variables with this theme describe the social institutions (rules, property rights) that are used to organize and direct human behavior. It does not include monitoring and enforcement of these institutions, as these are associated with the Enforcement theme.
Knowledge and uncertainty:Variables with this theme describe levels of knowledge that actor groups have regarding a commons, as well as factors that affect how much uncertainty there is in the status and dynamics of that commons.
Leadership:Leaders play an important role in commons management, most traditionally by providing for public goods needed to organize commons users. But there are other possible roles, and variables associated with this theme can relate to any role that a leader might play in an interaction.
Outcomes:This theme is attached to variables that deal with any outcomes that are produced by the actions of relevant actors in an interaction.
Resource renewability:Variables associated with this theme deal with the ability of a natural resource to be highly productive and renewable.
Social capital:Social capital captures the processes that enable the members of an actor group to work effectively together. Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or in some way express the level of social capital among members of a group.
Spatial:Variables associated with the Spatial theme describe important spatial patterns or dynamics, such as the spatial heterogeneity of a commons, or whether or not a user group resides within a particular commons.
Technology:This theme is attached to variables that consider the role that technology and infrastructure have in affecting commons outcomes.