• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Variables

Variable TypeOrdinal
Variable Component TypeActor
Variable KindInteraction
ThemeContext (learn about themes)
ProjectsSESMAD, Fiji fisheries
QuestionHow high is the level of participation of this actor group in the process that determines how this environmental commons is governed?
Select Options1 Low, 2 Medium, 3 High
Unit
RoleCommonsUser
ImportancePolitical participation influences natural resource management in three ways: First, when people participate in decision-making processes, they tend to find the process more legitimate. Second, participation enables information sharing between actors and governance systems. Third, participation enhances the democratic legitimacy of processes, which is important in and of itself. This relates to a design principle (collective choice arrangements) (Ostrom 1990).
Definition

"This variable describes the level of participation this actor group has in the process that determines how this environmental commons is governed. High: actors have active engagement in decision-making processes, including, but not limited to the ability to meaningfully make changes in important rules when appropriate. Medium: for example, the actor group may participate in electing representatives who have some say in rule changing, but the actor group itself does not participate. Low: Low participation means that members of the actor group do not have any ability to participate in rule changing processes (although they may be informed of these processes, or have access to extreme ways of changing rules, such as, e.g. violent protests or acts of resistance of the type described by Scott (1985))."

Sectors

Theory Usages

TheoryValue Used
Polycentric comanagementHigh
Crowding in and participationHigh
CBNRM design principlesHigh
Participatory management High
Critique of fortress conservationLow

Case Usages

CaseInteraction TypeComponentValue UsedExplanation
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceLarge Extractive Industries in IndonesiaHigh (3)Extractive industries were closely tied to the central government, and had a high level of participation in shaping policy during this period.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceIndonesian "Adat" CommunitiesLow (1)Adat communities had customary rules governing forest use, however these were ignored by the central government, which undermined all ability of local forest users to participate in governing forests during this period.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceIndonesian Local entrepreneursMedium (2)This group participates extensively in environmental governance at the local/regional level, but has little power at the national level, where important decisions are still made.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceIndonesian "Adat" CommunitiesLow (1)Although this group can now vote in elections & has some modest formal recognition of its customary laws, most of the decisions about resource use are made in distant regional & national capitals, and the level of participation, while in a sense higher than under the Suharto regime, is still low.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceCivil society organizations in IndonesiaMedium (2)This group has played an increasing role in forest policy in Indonesia since democratization in 1998, but it is still limited.
Forests in IndonesiaGovernanceLarge Extractive Industries in IndonesiaHigh (3)Although perhaps less important than in the final years of the Suharto regime, extractive industries continued to play an important role in the process of determining how forests were governed during this period. More broadly, see Fukuoka (2013) for a description of the persistence of the old oligarchy in the reformasi regime.
Community H (Fiji Fisheries)GovernanceCommunity HMedium (2)61% of respondents indicate that they participate in rulemaking processes.
Montreal ProtocolGovernanceOzone Depleting Substance Industrial ProducersMedium (2)Industries maintained a strong unofficial role in the governance of ODS and since implementation of the protocol have at times encouraged rapid implementation and undertaken a variety of voluntary initiatives.
International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)GovernanceICPR nations (1976-1986) 
International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR)GovernanceRhine chemical firmsMedium (2)No direct representation in the ICRP but lobbying activities at both the national and European levels
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR recreational fishersHigh (3)Sports fishing lobby is very active
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR recreational fishersMedium (2)No formal mandate to co-manage fishers, but representatives from recreational fisher associations participate in policy reform and regulatory change processes
Community D (Fiji Fisheries)GovernanceCommunity DMedium (2)63% of community members indicate that they can participate in decisions regarding resource use.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersLow (1)No formal legislation for co-management by commercial fishers. Some legislation specifying they must be consulted in some decisions. Some involvement by some operators, and their representative association (QSIA) in conservation and fisheries policy change. But not full representation of commercial fishers in QSIA, nor full participation of fishing operators in such decision-making arenas.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersMedium (2)No formal legislation for co-management by commercial fishers. Some legislation specifying they must be consulted in some decisions. Some involvement by some operators, and their representative association (QSIA) in conservation and fisheries policy change. But not full representation of commercial fishers in QSIA, nor full participation of fishing operators in such decision-making arenas.
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersMedium (2)Toothfish fishers participate in rulemaking processes and have played an important role in the MSC certification process. AFMA, however, ultimately makes all decisions regarding rules for resource use; while other governmental actors are responsible for decisions for the Marine Park and Nature Reserve. They also have played an important role as part of the Coalition of Legal Toothfish operators in influencing CCAMLR regulations.
Montreal ProtocolGovernanceOzone Depleting Substance Industrial ProducersLow (1)Industries participate in national-level processes to govern ODS, and lobby government negotiators.
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Academic ResearchersMedium (2)The management bodies rely heavily on the best available science. Researchers are constricted by the results of their research in terms of influencing governance, but if the science reflects a clear directive in governance then they can help decision makers formulate a decision. They are incorporated in the management teams and advisory bodies and participate heavily in terms of peer-review and cooperative research projects.
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial FishersMedium (2)There is no formal co-management arrangement between State, Commonwealth and industry which limits the commercial fishers' authority but, the Director of National Parks consults with the Consultative Committee about management and proposed operations in the GABMP (CW) and this Committee includes representatives from the commercial fishing sector. Commercial fishers would also have less participation in the process of how the southern right whales are governed as this commons is listed as an Endangered species and falls under both international and national protection.
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Artisan FishermenHigh (3)The PMB, which includes fishing representatives, were responsible for rule making for the GMR (conflicts meant that the fishing sector got the outcome they wanted)
Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR)GovernanceGalapagos Tourism SectorHigh (3)Chamber of Tourism represented on PMB and in advisory role in IMA. (Although high profile conflicts with the fishing sector undermined much of the rule making)
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi Bajau fishersLow (1)Bajau are a marginalised group throughout Indonesia, and prefer to maintain their identity through abstaining from participation in offical government initatives (Majors 2008; Clifton 2013).
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi Bajau fishersLow (1)Bajau are a marginalised group throughout Indonesia, and prefer to maintain their identity through abstaining from participation in offical government initatives (Majors 2008; Clifton 2013).
Wakatobi National Park GovernanceWakatobi Bajau fishersLow (1)Bajau are a marginalised group throughout Indonesia, and prefer to maintain their identity through abstaining from participation in offical government initatives (Majors 2008; Clifton 2013).
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat Artisanal FishersMedium (2)Communities heavily involved through traditional management, likely assisted/directed by NGOs, but coded as high. (full community-participation involvement for zoning: Grantham et al. 2013)
Community A (Fiji fisheries)GovernanceCommunity ALow (1)24% of respondents indicate that they participate in resource use decision-making processes.
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat TourismLow (1)Overall, tourism wasn't involved and the tourism section of the government was established after the MPAs. Although the Misool MPA was heavily influenced by the eco-resort.
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat Artisanal FishersHigh (3)MPAs were first declared through adat/traditional declarations
Community B (Fiji Fisheries)GovernanceCommunity BMedium (2)Approximately 55% of respondents indicate that they can participate in resource use decisions.
Community C (Fiji Fisheries)GovernanceCommunity CMedium (2)52% of community members indicate that they are able to participate in decisions regarding resource use.
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard Shrimp FishersLow (1)Regulations are made by a government agency – The Directorate of Fisheries (which is coded as part of the Resource Managers group). Fishermen do not have any direct ability to change the regulations.
Seaflower MPAGovernanceSeaflower artisanal fishersHigh (3)Artisanal fishers were involved in the MPA rule making process from the beginning
Macquarie Island Marine ParkGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersMedium (2)Toothfish fishers do not hold authority to create rules to limit seabird interactions and bycatch. However, they do participate in rulemaking processes, and have made important contributions to the design of seabird bycatch mitigation measures.
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Groundfish FishermenMedium (2)Fishermen are individually engaged in the public hearing and input steps in the regulation process, and many are part of a fishermen's association which is highly active. "The process for controversial or complex issues takes at least three Council meetings. Proposals for management measures may come from the public, from participating management agencies, from advisory groups, or from Council members. If the Council wants to pursue these proposals, it asks for other possible solutions to the problem being addressed and then directs the Groundfish Management Team (GMT), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and/or Council staff to prepare an analysis. At the next meeting when such a proposal is on the agenda, the Council reviews the analysis and chooses a range of alternatives and possibly a preliminary preferred alternative. The analysis is then made available for public review, and the Council makes a final decision at the next meeting the item is scheduled."
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Academic ResearchersMedium (2)The management bodies rely heavily on the best available science. Researchers are constricted by the results of their research in terms of influencing governance, but if the science reflects a clear directive in governance then the power they have is great. They are incorporated in the management teams and advisory bodies and participate heavily in terms of peer-review and cooperative research projects, but do not make the decisions.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR recreational fishersMedium (2)No formal mandate to co-manage fishers, but representatives from recreational fisher associations participate in policy reform and regulatory change processes
Central California National Marine Sanctuaries GovernanceCalifornia Sanctuary Recreational UsersMedium (2)Recreational users can influence policy through stakeholder input, but the governance of this resource is rarely up for discussion. Recreational users often participate in the role of reporting sightings (commonly though a mobile phone device).
Community F (Fiji Fisheries)GovernanceCommunity FMedium (2)40% of respondents indicate that they participate in rulemaking processes.
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard TourismMedium (2)Since tourism is one of the main economic activities on Svalbard, and the Norwegian Government has outlined the importance of developing tourism (Report No.22 2008-2009), tourism interests are taken into consideration by the managers. However, their influence is limited to consultation.
Raja Ampat (National Act No. 32 2004)GovernanceRaja Ampat Artisanal FishersMedium (2)MPAs managed by co-management so involvement of local fishers is medium through representatives - MPAs were built upon traditional sasi management
Seaflower MPAGovernanceSeaflower artisanal fishersHigh (3)Artisanal fishers were involved in the MPA rule making process from the beginning.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersMedium (2)Commercial fishermen do not have any direct ability to change management or legislation, but do have influence through lobbying. The Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) works to promote the seafood industry and advocate for commercial fishers. There was extensive consultation during the re-zoning process. Nevertheless, there are still some misgivings among the commercial fishers about the structural adjustment package (Ledee et al 2012).
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial FishersMedium (2)There is no formal co-management arrangement between State, Commonwealth and industry but, the Director of National Parks consults with the Consultative Committee about management and proposed operations in the GABMP (CW) and this Committee includes representatives from the commercial fishing sector.
Svalbard Nature ReservesGovernanceSvalbard TourismMedium (2)Since tourism is one of the main economic activities on Svalbard, and the Norwegian Government has outlined the importance of developing tourism (Report No.22 2008-2009), tourism interests are taken into consideration by the managers. However, their influence is limited to consultation.
Community E (Fiji Fisheries)GovernanceCommunity EMedium (2)61% of respondents indicate that they can participate in rulemaking processes.
Community G (Fiji Fisheries)GovernanceCommunity GMedium (2)54% of respondents indicate that they are able to participate in rulemaking processes.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersMedium (2)AFMA ultimately sets the rules for toothfish fishing, in line with CCAMLR conservation measures, but the fishing industry is highly involved in the rule-making process through scientific and advisory consultative forums (SARAG and SouthMAC).
Cenderwasih National ParkGovernanceCenderwasih fishersLow (1)MPA was designated by central government. WWF did try to engage local communities in 2008.
Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkGovernanceGBR commercial fishersLow (1)Fishers are involved in rule-making over fisheries but not really over how corals themselves are governed, other than through protected areas.
Cenderwasih National ParkGovernanceCenderwasih fishersLow (1)MPA was designated by central government. WWF did try to engage local communities in zoning in 2008.
New Zealand squidGovernanceNew Zealand Arrow Squid FishersMedium (2)Consulted with for formal governing. Can go to court (and frequently do) if disagreements. Decisions (informal rules) made by and within Deepwater Group are high level of participation.
Falkland Islands squidGovernancePatagonian Squid TrawlersMedium (2)FIFCA statement: 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.
California squidGovernanceCalifornia market squid fishermenMedium (2)Fishermen are formally and informally consulted with. Fishermen are on advisory councils, and also formally participate through public hearings.
Great Australian Bight Marine Park (GABMP) (Commonwealth Waters)GovernanceGABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Commercial FishersMedium (2)There is no formal co-management arrangement between State, Commonwealth and industry which limits the commercial fishers' authority but the Director of National Parks consults with the Consultative Committee about management and proposed operations in the GABMP (CW) and this Committee includes representatives from the commercial fishing sector.
Heard and McDonald Islands Marine ReserveGovernanceAustralian Toothfish FishersMedium (2)Toothfish fishers at HIMI cannot make their own rules, but do participate in the AFMA and CCAMLR rule-making processes about seabird bycatch mitigation measures. Industry representatives go to CCAMLR and are also part of SouthMAC (the Subantarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee; the advisory committee for the fishery) and SARAG (the Subantarctic Resource Assessment Group; the scientific assessment group for the fishery). Based on advice from SARAG, SouthMAC recommends catch rules to AFMA. Industry representatives are also part of CAMLR Consultative Forum (CCF), which provides input on all aspects of CCAMLR.