مدیریت منابع طبیعی در سطح جامعه : بررسی نقش سرمایه اجتماعی و رهبری در یک جامعه ماهیگیری روستایی

Social capital and leadership characteristics are important in resource management. We present a case study of a fishing community showing high levels of social capital quantified through social network analysis, but low willingness to report rule breaking. Furthermore, identified key individuals possess few links to financial institutions and important markets. These findings may, individually or in combination, explain the lack of common initiatives to deal with the overexploitation of fisheries. Alternative hypotheses are also discussed and include homogeneity among key individuals leading to poor recognition of the problem of changing ecological conditions, and the structural characteristics of their relational network, which reveal one person in a very influential position.

Social capital is often suggested as having a beneficial effect on the capacity of individuals to organize themselves effectively (Coleman, 1990 and Fukuyama, 1995), and together with leadership, is often seen as crucial for the initiation and maintenance of environmental conservation and management at the community level (Olsson et al., 2004, Ostrom, 2005, Pretty, 2003 and Pretty and Smith, 2004). This study explores the aspects of social capital and leadership in a rural fishing community to seek explanations for why collective action for sustainable management has not occurred, despite strong indications of declining fisheries and inshore habitat degradation, as well as increasing awareness of these problems among many fishermen and women (Crona, 2006, Crona and Bodin, 2006, McClanahan et al., 1997 and Ochiewo, 2004). The focus of this study is on natural resource management (NRM) at the community level. Thus, this study touches upon concepts such as co-management (see overview in Carlsson & Berkes, 2005) and adaptive co-management (Gadgil et al., 2000 and Olsson, 2003), often put forth as instrumental in enabling sustainable NRM. Furthermore, in the context of fisheries social capital has been suggested as an important factor affecting regulation and governance (Grafton, 2005 and Sekhar, 2007). As shown above, the concept of social capital has been extensively cited as important for conservation and resource management. However, its defining characteristics are multi-faceted (for review see, e.g., Krishna, 2002, Lin, 1999 and Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). First, the unit of analysis can vary from the individual to the group (Borgatti et al., 1998 and Portes, 1998). For example, Burt (2004) argued that links to different groups may enhance an individual’s social capital, whereas Putnam (1993) discussed social capital at the scale of whole countries. Second, there is a lack of agreement as to what actually constitutes social capital. For example, Putnam (1993) defines social capital as “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” Others suggest that social capital can be defined as “resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” (Lin, 1999), thus leaving out collective assets such as trust and norms (although acknowledging that factors such as trust may promote social relations and vice versa). Finally, social capital has been criticized for its lack of explanatory power, and several theses exist that differ primarily in their view of social capital as either an exogenous or an endogenous variable. It is seen by critics as a result of institutional performance rather than its cause, where independence cannot be verified. Adherents of this approach, represented by several disciplines (North, 1990, Schneider et al., 1997 and Wade, 1994), argue for reversed causality such that the existence of institutions explains social capital. An intermediate position is taken by Krishna, 2002, Berman, 1997 and Dale and Onyx, 2005, among others, who argue that social capital has some explanatory potential but that other factors also contribute to institutional performance and collective action. One such factor is agency, which is realized through the existence of agents, that is, leaders or influential actors, who activate a potentially latent stock of social capital and use it to produce a flow of benefits. In his extensive study in rural India, Krishna (2002) found that the existence of such leaders to mediate agency was necessary to activate the stock of social capital and make it productive in terms of economic development, community harmony, and democratic participation. Similarly, others have shown the importance of leaders and sense-makers for successful NRM, and the effect of good leadership in this context is an expanding field of research (e.g., Olsson, 2003 and Westley and Vredenburg, 1997). Inspired by these findings, this study examines the issue of social capital, agency, and collective action by applying an approach similar to the approach of Krishna (2002), although modified to fit an East African NRM context. The study area is a rural fishing village along the southern coast of Kenya. The use of resources in the village is centered around a low technology artisanal marine fishery, and to some degree the use of mangroves for poles and firewood. A majority of households depend primarily on fishing for their income, while farming and small scale businesses represent alternative livelihoods for some. Fishermen are not a homogeneous group, however, but are grouped primarily based on gear type (Crona & Bodin, 2006) (Table 1). In spite of high levels of resource dependence and the realization of resource decline among many users, villagers have not been successful in regulating the inshore local fishery. This lack of resource regulation is, unfortunately, not unique for this particular village but is rather common around the world (Ostrom, 1990).

This study shows that levels of community social capital can differ, depending on which aspect is under consideration. While social network measures indicate relatively high levels of social capital, reluctance to report rule breaking was high. This reluctance could actually be reinforced by cohesive social networks and potentially counter-balance the former. The study also identified key individuals and showed them to possess links to a number of external agencies, although with a marked shortage of links to financial institutions and markets beyond the trade of fishing gear. Comparing these results with similar studies (Krishna, 2002), identified shortcomings may help to explain the lack of common initiatives in the village to deal with the overexploitation of fisheries. However, if we look instead at the identified strengths, it is interesting to note that relatively high levels of social capital and the existence of various linkages among key individuals to different governmental authorities have not been sufficient for initiatives regarding resource management to occur. Other factors that are likely to influence collective action for resource management were also identified. First, a marked homogeneity of key individuals in terms of occupation and ethnicity appears to be related to poor problem internalization and recognition of changing ecological conditions within this group. Second, structural characteristics of the social network among the key individuals showed that one person occupies a very central position and possesses the only link to the formally appointed sub-chief. It is argued that these factors, respectively, affect resource management (1) by imposing a social barrier for management initiatives and reducing key individuals’ ability to perceive and synthesize new information and knowledge, potentially reducing the community’s ability to adapt to new circumstances; and (2) by the inherent vulnerability in depending on a single person for connections to formal government officials, as well as the impact that the personal characteristics and interests of a single person have on prioritization and decision-making. However, it is recognized that benefits may also be derived from the latter “bottleneck” by facilitating coordination of collective action initiatives. These findings support the idea that efforts directed at enhancing NRM at the community level should take several aspects of social capital into consideration. Furthermore, leadership characteristics such as links to external agencies, homogeneity of the most influential individuals, and structural characteristics of the social network among these individuals may also contribute to a community’s potential for management of natural resources. We argue that the methods applied in this study extend the framework developed by Krishna (2002) in a way that enables further investigation of the role of social capital and agency in NRM by local communities. In particular, by using methods based on structural characteristics of the community’s social networks, we were able to (1) identify the most influential individuals without having to rely on the so-called informed experts, and (2) provide for less context-dependency, thus making it easier to compare different cases worldwide. The latter is crucial in researching possible general aspects of social capital and agency, and their roles in successful community-based NRM. By using a structural network approach, it is also easier to communicate findings to a broader audience of researchers who are interested in developing the concept of social capital.