Creating an effective collaborative network

The SCCRMC’s governance structure emerged as a key strength and main factor that helped the group to sustain itself after termination of CCEF funding and presents a potential governance model that other collaborative networks can apply to sustain their activities. The governance set-up of the SCCRMC, where a committee within the group was responsible for

117

overseeing network activities represents a participant-governed model that is highly flexible and helpful for facilitating closer relationships among members (Provan and Kenis, 2007). The participant-led management committee provided a central entity for information sharing and activity coordination, mechanisms that are useful for streamlining network activities (Cohen et al., 2012; Provan et al., 2008).

The DDBRMC, on the other hand, had a less comprehensive governance structure, with a small executive committee composed only of provincial governors and CCEF acting as the secretariat. The inclusion of provincial politicians in DDBRMC governance was necessary for the different provinces and municipalities operating under them to be able to collaborate. However, provincial politicians operate at a higher level and have more diverse responsibilities and less time to devote to the DDBRMC than the vice mayors and coastal managers in the SCCRMC governance system. Many actions for the DDBRMC occur at the municipal level – as demonstrated by the involvement of municipal coastal managers in DDBRMC trainings. The challenges the DDBRMC faced in determining an appropriate scale for governance and activities are common for regional collaborations. Regional programs often have to determine what is a manageable size for the collaboration and balance tradeoffs between geographic extent of the targeted region and existing governance and social opportunities that can promote collective action (e.g., Bryson et al., 2006; Mills et al., 2010; Sharfman, 1991). For the DDBRMC, a

governance structure incorporating municipal managers or officials (e.g., mayors or vice mayors, like the SCCRMC) may have been better suited to coordinate network activities and sustain its activities after the termination of CCEF’s program. However, the logistical difficulties of regularly bringing together municipal managers from nineteen municipalities across a much wider geographic region than the SCCRMC may have been overly complex, unmanageable, and

118

costly. For other collaborative networks, this underscores the necessity of thinking about the appropriate scale of collaborative management activities.

Trust among SCCRMC members was aided by the mechanisms the group had in place to monitor member actions and establish accountability, thus increasing the possibility that

participants would comply with network demands (Keohane et al., 1993; Page, 2004). The SCCMRC’s monthly meetings provided a forum for members to demonstrate they were following through on their commitments. The less frequent meetings of the DDBRMC and limited communication between meetings made it difficult to promote transparency, further limiting the development of member trust. Additionally, CCEF trainings were the mechanism that allowed DDBRMC members to develop trust and establish internal legitimacy, and members stressed that they did not have the capacity to coordinate these activities on their own. The

DDBRMC members’ dependence on CCEF reinforces the important role CCEF played in the DDBRMC and why the group failed to sustain itself following the end of CCEF’s project. The unsustainability of programs following the termination of outside funding is a common problem for tropical coastal management efforts (Gurney et al., 2014; Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005). If the DDBRMC had generated increased external legitimacy – such as obtaining funding from

national and provincial agencies to support project activities (e.g., continued meetings and trainings), like the SCCRMC had – this could have provided one potential solution for sustaining activities in lieu of CCEF support. The external legitimacy the SCCRMC generated was crucial in its sustainability by providing fiscal and technical support for regular network functions (e.g., meetings, coral reef monitoring), but also instilling group members with increased pride in their efforts and offering an additional incentive to sustain their activities.

119

The SCCRMC’s governance structure and internal and external legitimacy boosted member capacity by providing numerous opportunities for peer-to-peer learning. Strong bonding ties among members within a network, such as those within the SCCRMC, promote learning (Newell et al., 2004), thus increasing capacity. DDBRMC members also indicated that they benefited from sharing information with other members. Other resource management studies have found that peer-to-peer interactions are a key source of learning about new management innovations and increasing local capacity (Isaac et al., 2007; Rosset et al., 2011). However, despite increased member capacity, both the SCCRMC and DDBRMC had limited involvement of barangay representatives in their activities. For both networks, goals like decreased illegal fishing and stronger MPA enforcement are affected by actions at the barangay level. Community members who are informed and educated about coastal management activities are more likely to be supportive of activities and comply with management measures (Howe, 2001; Liebowitz, 2007). For networks to realize their ecosystem management goals, the networks and the social learning that occurs within them should go beyond the initial set of participants and extend to communities who are involved in management (Manring, 2007; Reed et al., 2010). Collaborative networks like the DDBRMC and SCCRMC members have the opportunity to strengthen their role as brokers between the network and community members. In doing so, they can share the information learned through network activities with others, helping increase local capacity and the ability of the network to effect change at multiple scales (Davidson-Hunt, 2006; NRC, 2008). 4.5 Conclusions

The SCCRMC and DDBRMC offer two examples of how social capital can be developed through and contribute to the effectiveness of collaborative networks, as well as challenges to operational effectiveness. Both networks demonstrate that even with participants who have not worked together previously, collaborating toward a shared cause helps network members build

120

social capital, share information, and increase capacity, all of which can be used to support achievement of network goals. As a network that sustained itself beyond the termination of donor funding, the SCCRMC offers a model that other networks can consider for overcoming the common development problem of program cessation once external support terminates. The SCCRMC developed a set “success mechanisms” – e.g., a strong governance structure, frequent meetings, member contributions, and high levels of internal and external legitimacy – that enabled it to sustain network activities. While there are different contextual factors at play that will influence a given collaborative network, the SCCRMC’s “success mechanisms” are useful strategies that can be applied in the implementation of other collaborative networks.

The DDBRMC represents a more politically complex network – encompassing four different provinces, 19 municipalities, and many small islands – as opposed to the seven

municipalities and one island province in the SCCRMC. The number of different political units in the DDBRMC was a major hurdle that was difficult for members to overcome. Political tensions between municipalities attenuated member relationships and trust, and at times hindered collaboration toward network goals. Additionally, a governance structure that only involved high-level politicians created a disconnect between the operational level of municipal coastal managers and the governance of the network in which they were involved. The challenges the DDBRMC faced highlight the need for coordinators to think carefully about the appropriate scale for network activities and consider whether geographic or political complexity may undermine the achievement of network goals.

Collaborative networks are becoming increasingly common in ecosystem management, and my analysis offers empirical evidence regarding potential social benefits of these networks and barriers to success. The framework developed and applied in this study linking elements of

121

social capital and collaborative effectiveness offers a novel analytic approach for examining the effectiveness of collaborative ecosystem management networks. The design and implementation components outlined throughout this paper are essential to consider at all stages in network development. In collaborative networks, by fostering collective action and helping develop shared norms, social capital offers a foundation that supports collaborative effectiveness. The lessons learned through the DDBRMC and SCCRMC demonstrate the benefits of social capital for collaborative networks, and highlight ways in which networks can work to function

122

5. Conclusions

The overarching objectives of my dissertation were to: 1) explore the role of social capital in marine management collaborative networks operating at multiple geographic scales; 2) compare multiple collaborative networks and understand how three attributes of social capital – relationships, trust, and information and knowledge exchange – influence the networks’

effectiveness and ability to create increased capacity for management; and 3) contribute to the theoretical understanding of collaborative network function in the context of marine management and provide recommendations for other collaborative ecosystem management networks. The Regional Exchange (REX) network of the Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF) and the Southeast Cebu Coastal Resource Management Council (SCCRMC) and Danajon Double Barrier Reef Management Council (DDBRMC) in the

Philippines serve as three representative collaborative marine management networks operating at diverse scales and entailing varying levels of political complexity. Despite their differences, they all shared common goals of connecting marine managers to engage in ecosystem approaches to management, share lessons among members, and increase capacity. By comparing social capital in collaborative networks operating at different geographic and political scales but sharing socio- ecological and management goals, I identified conditions that promote the generation of social capital and discovered key network characteristics that contribute to effective network

functioning. In Chapters 2 and 3, I presented new empirical evidence regarding the ability of networks to bridge traditional management and socio-cultural boundaries, promote social capital generation, and increase the capacity of members to manage coastal resources. In Chapter 4, I applied a new framework linking key elements of social capital and components of collaborative effectiveness that offers a novel analytic approach for examining collaborative network

123

effectiveness and which can be applied to other networks. Although there has been an increased push in the field of marine and coastal conservation and management toward larger-scale and more collaborative programs, there has been limited empirical research regarding the social outcomes of these efforts. I offer empirical evidence that demonstrates some of the social

benefits of these networks, as well as potential challenges and barriers to success. The findings I discussed throughout my dissertation and summarized below can be used to strengthen the design and implementation of collaborative ecosystem management networks.