|Variable Component Type||Actor|
|Theme||Institutions (learn about themes)|
|Question||What type of coordination do the members of this actor group engage in?|
|Select Options||No coordination, Informal, Formal, Both formal and informal|
|Importance||Informal vs. formal coordination imply potentially very different types of interactions among the members of a group. A group whose members only interact formally will likely not have as much social capital developed as one that also involves informal. An informally coordination group may not have as much legal legitimacy as a formal one.|
Coordination in this case refers to a clear distinction between formal and informal coordination. Formal coordination is governed by formal rules, themselves usually written down. Informal coordination does not rely on formal rules.
|Indonesian District Governments||inter or intra? Individual district governments engage in both formal and informal coordination, but there appears to be little if any coordination between district governments|
|"Reformasi" Indonesian Central Government (1998-2012)||Both formal and informal||As a set of government agencies, there is a large amount of formal coordination between agencies and between individuals within agencies.|
|Ozone Secretariat||Both formal and informal||The Ozone Secretariat coordinates formal meetings of the Parties but also acts to build capacity of countries with nascent regulatory systems. The Secretariat functions in accordance with article 12 of the Montreal Protocol, and its duties include administration, monitoring implementation, collection and processing of ODS data from the parties to the convention, and providing information concerning the ozone layer.|
|"New Order" Indonesian Central Government (1965-1998)||Both formal and informal||The government was a centralized hierarchy that had a high level of formal coordination. At the same time, informal kinship and clientelist connections between key actors (particularly among Suharto's military allies) played a key role in the forest governance system, enabling many 'friends' of the regime to gain forest concessions and to bend or escape legal consequences for formally illegal activities.|
|Large Extractive Industries in Indonesia||Does this refer to inter or intra group?|
|Indonesian Local entrepreneurs||No coordination||This is a group of people who have no definitive relationship with each other - consisting of small district level politicians and business people.|
|Ozone Nation States||Formal|
|ICCAT Contracting Parties||Both formal and informal||ICCAT has developed a formal process for analyzing fisheries data and producing recommendations. Recommendations are evaluated by contracting parties in both formal and informal settings, and final quotas are the result of formal and informal bargaining processes.|
|Ozone Depleting Substance Industrial Producers||Both formal and informal|
|ICPR nations (1976-1986)||Formal||Membership in ICPR|
|Galapagos Artisan Fishermen||Both formal and informal||It is unclear if fishing cooperatives engage in regular formal meetings. However, it is evident that the fishermen coordinate their opinions and concerns, which are then voiced by a cooperative representative at the formal meetings of the Participatory Management Board. Therefore it is likely formal meeting occur.|
|ICCAT Eastern Members||Informal||Formal coordination takes place among ICCAT contracting parties, there is no explicit recognition of Western members as a group.|
|ICCAT Western Members||Informal||There is no formal organization for Western members, but can coordinate informally.|
|GBR fisheries managers||Both formal and informal||They co-ordinate through formal stakeholder meetings and informal organisational networking and communication|
|GBR commercial fishers||Both formal and informal||Formal co-ordination through workshops organised by their member organisation (QSIA) and government. Informal co-ordination at landing sites and markets.|
|ICPR nations (1986-2000)||Both formal and informal||See "ICPR Nations (1987-1986)" In this new group, informal coordination in the form of side agreements between pairs of ICPR members more prevalent than in the past and has been pointed as one of the characterizing features of this period of governance|
|Rhine agricultural sector||Both formal and informal||The agricultural sector in Europe is very well organized, in the form of both unions and cooperatives; however this organization is for purposes other than pollution abatement|
|Rhine chemical firms||Formal||This is particularly evident in Germany (with France the main polluting country), which hosts both a German Association of the Chemical Industry (VCI) and the Abwassertechnische Vereinigung (the professional association of German wastewater specialists). At the European level, there is the CEFIC, which is the forum and voice of the European chemical industry. It represents about 40 000 large, medium and small chemical companies in Europe. It is made up of various national chemical industry federations as well as a number of large international companies.|
|GBR government co-managers||Formal||The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service are mandated under law to co-manage the GBR. Most of their active collaborations are agreed and formal in nature.|
|GBR recreational fishers||Both formal and informal||There are membership organisations through which some recreational fishers co-ordinate formally. However, for the majority co-ordination would be informal.|
|Svalbard Resource Managers||Formal|
|National Marine Sanctuaries Office of NOAA||Both formal and informal||There are formal teams, e.g. research team, and offices, but members of this group informally meet and discuss Sanctuary topics often.|
|Raja Ampat Tourism||Formal||There are formal guidelines for tourism in Raja Ampat: including tourism enterance fee and a licensing system that caps the number of liveaboards able to operate, etc.|
|Indonesian "Adat" Communities||Both formal and informal||This question it refers to two types of collaboration: (1) within each adat community, ; and (2) between adat communities. Adat refers to systems of unwritten, traditional or customary law and as such is considered informal under Ostrom's typology. These informal rules regulate intra-community collaboration. Between adat communities, there has been informal collaboration. For instance, the Dayak in Borneo even had a political party before Suharto's regime, and in recent years a strong social movement has united many Dayak communities in a struggle for socio-ecological resilience; it creates a collective identity for the Dayak people by helping communities build solidarity to face loggers, map their territories, and renew traditional adat laws (Alcorn et al. 2003). Furthermore, adat communities have formally collaborated since 1999 through an organization - AMAN (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara), the Alliance of Indigenous People of the Archipelago- constituted with support from Jakarta-based NGOs and international donors (USAID, CUSO, and OXFAM among others), building upon a process of mobilization that began with the International Year of Indigenous People in 1993 (Li 2001). AMAN has been at the forefront of struggles against large-scale timber concessions, mining operations and palm oil plantations on indigenous territories.|
|Civil society organizations in Indonesia||Both formal and informal||Coordination within civil society organizations is structured by written internal rules. Coordination between different civil society organizations is done formally and informally, as with YAPPIKA at the national level.|
|Wakatobi Bajau fishers||Informal||Informal - Bajau have strong cultural identity and traditions|
|Australian Toothfish Fishers||Both formal and informal||They coordinate through fishing operations. Also, these two companies also applied jointly for MSC certification. They are also members of the Coalition of Legal Toothfish Operators (COLTO) that lobbies on behalf of legal toothfish operators, pressing for regulations against IUU fishing.|
|Riparian Nations (1976-1986)|
|Wakatobi managers||Both formal and informal||Formal - TNC-WWF joint programme and MOU with park rangers. Share monitoring and patrolling. Informal - collaborations between local governement/park authority and NGOs is mutually beneficial.|
|Australian Antarctic Division||Both formal and informal||Staff of the AAD include support, policy and science personnel as well as researchers that spend extensive time in the field (in the Antarctic and subantarctic) as well as scientists based at the University of Tasmania, providing opportunity for formal and informal interaction between individuals in this collective group.|
|GMR managers||Both formal and informal||Formal and informal - between and within all organisations on the PMB|
|NWHI Researchers||Informal||Some coordination through the monument saying what they want, research Qs etc - informal collaboration in response to this.|
|Raja Ampat Managers||Formal||Formal. There is a head of the overall MPA network, and each local level MPA has its own head.|
|CORALINA||Formal||Their activities are codified by the law.|
|Raja Ampat Artisanal Fishers||Both formal and informal||Informal coordination, such as sasi, and formal coordination through the site-specific management plans. The fishermen abide by traditional management practices (sasi) for certain species and follow a strong leadership system that relies on pressure from community members to conserve as much as possible. (Agostini, 2012; Bawole, 2012).|
|Macquarie Island Managers||Both formal and informal||Nature reserve management plan and Marine Park Management Plan aim to align conservation policies.|
|Charles Darwin Foundation||Missing||Formal coordination as General Assembly, likely with some degree of informal coordination must occur|
|Galapagos Tourism Sector||Formal||Galapagos Chamber of Tourism|
|Seaflower artisanal fishers||Formal||There are fishing cooperatives|
|California Academic Researchers||Both formal and informal||Formal projects consist of multiple members of the research community, while informally collaboration does occur. Some members do not coordinate with other members.|
|California State and Federal Fisheries Agencies||Both formal and informal||While most of the group coordination is through formal means (management team meetings, presentations to the Council, public meetings, interagency meetings), many of the members of this actor group formulate relationships with other agency members and fishery participants to formulate management ideas and to incorporate social trends and attitudes.|
|California Sanctuary Recreational Users||Both formal and informal||Many formal activities (e.g. boat races, whale watching boats coordinating with each other, kayak clean up days) exist, but most coordination is informal (e.g. boaters on the weekend, scuba divers with own equipment). Whale watching vessels communicate amongst each other on sightings and help each other find whales.|
|California Groundfish Fishermen||Both formal and informal||The Fishermen’s Marketing Association is a formal group representing trawl vessel owners, skippers, and deck hands and speaks on behalf of the fishermen and tries to establish a stable market. Some processing companies form formal groups of boats they employ. However, most coordination is informal, through friends or family or handshake approved quota-share groups.|
|Australian Fisheries Management Authority||Formal||Members of the AFMA meet regularly with each other to manage fish resources.|
|Svalbard Tourism||Both formal and informal||AECO has a well-defined organizational structure with a Secretariat, an Executive Committee, and several other thematic committees. Their operational guidelines ask companies to coordinate itineraries before the tourist season commences, and to maintain radio contact while at sea to ensure that too many boats are not using the same area at the same time (AECO 2013). In a small town where everyone knows everyone, Evers et al (2013) found that companies recognize the need to respect the formal agreements (the written contracts) and the informal agreements (the ‘cognac deals’).|
|Svalbard Shrimp Fishers||Missing||Unknown|
|Galapagos Charles Darwin Foundation||Formal||Formal - well organised international NGO|
|NWHI Monument Co-Trusteeship||Formal||Formal - a memorandum of agreement (MOA) signed by the managing institutions established an institutional “co-trusteeship” of the protected area, requiring two federal agencies (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] and the US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]) and the State of Hawai‘i to manage the monument collaboratively as “co-trustees” (Kittenger et al. 2011)|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Director of National Parks||Both formal and informal||The executive team, which includes the Director and the 4 senior executives, and senior staff meet regularly to address strategic directions and current issues. Marine Division staff also participate in regular meetings, advising the Director on Commonwealth marine reserve issues. Where appropriate, video and telephone links are used to liaise with executive and senior staff that are located in remote locations. Coordination between managers and the executive team includes regular phone link-ups and an annual Parks Australia Forum that involves all senior managers. The Parks Australia Forum would also allow for informal coordination opportunities. Staff also participate in consultative committees to support internal management which would provide opportunity for both formal and information coordination.|
|Cenderwasih managers||Both formal and informal||Formal - MOU between WWF, State University of Papua and Wondama Bay Regency. Informal - collaborations between local governement/park authority and NGOs is mutually beneficial.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial Fishers||Both formal and informal||Members of this actor group engage in formal coordination through meetings (AGM, General meetings) organized by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA), the Great Australian Bight Industry Association (GABIA), the AFMA Commission and Wildcatch Fisheries South Australia (WFSA). Each fishery is covered by a AFMA management advisory committee and a resource assessment group. These groups allow for the exchange of information on fish stocks along with providing an avenue for consultation between various stakeholders in formal meetings. The Commonwealth Fisheries Association, whose membership represents over 95% of the Gross Value of Production (GVP) of Commonwealth managed fisheries, engages in informal coordination through newsletters and Facebook postings. Informal coordination would also take place at landing sites and at markets.|
|Cenderwasih fishers||Both formal and informal||Formal village leaders and informal village practices|
|New Zealand Fishery Managers||Both formal and informal||Primarily formal coordination, somewhat informal. All know each other closely.|
|Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Managers||Both formal and informal||Formal fisheries meetings within the Fisheries Department (according to FIG website) But also informal coordination. Managers are all in one building, no branches, and all know each other quite closely. To become official everything goes through formal processes, but informally talk about work too.|
|Patagonian Squid Trawlers||Both formal and informal||Formal: “The Falkland Islands Fishing Companies Association (FIFCA) FIFCA was established by the Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2005. The Association represents the interests of all holders of fisheries quota under the 25-year Falklands Individual Transferable Quota system (‘ITQ’). We work with our members to ensure that industry views are put before relevant bodies in areas of interest to the industry, participate in a number of committees and jointly fund and provide resources for the advancement of knowledge regarding the fishery, including its biological, operational, environmental and economic aspects.” (FIFCA 2015). The Loligo Producers Association is a subgroup of FIFCA. Informal: All the fishermen know each other. The Falkland Islanders are very close. The Spanish masters have all been doing this for many years and all know each other. The crew are retained year after year and are recruited from the same places.|
|New Zealand Arrow Squid Fishers||Both formal and informal||DWG is formal coordination. But a lot of these owners know each other socially. Mostly professional relationships, but discuss informally as well.|
|California market squid fishermen||Both formal and informal||Fishers all know each other (many are family members) and frequently coordinate informally. Coordinate officially through the California Wetfish Producers Association.|
|California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Managers||Both formal and informal||Formal meetings, but close community.|
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.