Download Supplementary

 Supplementary Materials: A Multi‐Tier Social‐Ecological System Analysis of Protected Areas Co‐Management in Belize Kenrick W. Williams and Hsing‐Sheng Tai Table S1. Variables posited by the literature as pivotal in influencing co‐management outcomes. Variable in SES Framework RS2: Clarity of system boundaries GS1: Government organizations GS2: Non‐government organizations GS3: Network structure GS4: Property‐rights systems GS5: Operational rules GS6: Collective choice rule GS7: Constitutional choice rules GS8: Monitoring & sanctioning A2: socio‐economic attributes A5: Leadership A6: Norms/social capital Working Definition Boundaries of resource system are clearly delineated. Government ministry or department with public mandate local or international non‐government organizations Vertical and horizontal partners in co‐management Property tenure held as state‐owned, private, communal, or open access Daily site‐level rules affecting daily harvesting and use Collective rules at the site‐level of particular SES National laws and policies of the government which guide collective rules Monitoring of actors use of SES to ensure minimal rule breaking; sanctioning rules Culture and identity and economic characteristics among actors Active individual(s) to lead collective action Actors share the same code of ethics and develop levels of trust Reference Included in Analysis Reasons for Not Including Both are clearly delineated protected areas [1–3] No [1,4,5] Yes [1,6] Yes [2,3] Yes [1,2,7] No Both are state owned [2,7] No Both cases have developed operational rules [1,4,7] No Both cases have developed collective choice rules [1,4,7] No Both cases have developed constitutional choice rules [1,2,7,8] No Both cases have developing monitoring and sanctioning rules [1,7] No Variations did not factor into outcomes [1–3,7] Yes [1,3,7] Yes Prior to field work, we adapted an initial set of 11 factors (also identified as variables in the framework) based on our initial set of factors selected from Ostrom’s Social Ecological Systems Framework. These were used as an initial set of codes to generate themes and decode the data: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Government organizations Non‐government organizations (NGOs) Network structure Leadership Social capital Dependence on resources Information sharing Conflict resolution S1 9. Investment activities 10. Self‐organizing activities 11. Networking activities Post field visit and throughout the analysis phase, in order to reduce our data and identify themes and patterns from the data we expanded our initial set of codes to include other important categories and codes. As such, our initial list of code was expanded from 11 to 16 codes and 40 sub‐codes (as shown below). Our expanded set of codes was, like the initial set, guided by those attributes of the framework which we sought to understand further with some additions. These codes were coded both digitally and manually from a vast source of information including news articles, published organizational reports, interviews, peer reviewed literature and field notes. Table S2. Codes and Sub‐codes used in data reduction and analysis. Code Government departments Non‐government organizations Bridging organizations Network structure Leadership Social capital Dependence on resources Information sharing Conflict resolution Sub‐Codes
Attendance/participation Monitoring and patrols Funding Training/capacity Established NGOs Funding Training/Capacity building Research collaboration Leveraging funds Training/capacity building Co‐management Vertical partners Horizontal partners Founding member/Long term leader G. Ch’oc T. Salam Training/experience Leveraging/entrepreneurship Trust among residents Trust of leaders Reciprocation Farming in SES/P.A. Fishing in SES/P.A. Harvesting NTFP Village meetings Radio‐shows/Flyers/Brochures Participation by local residents Conflicts Meeting/forums Collaborative activities Investment activities Residents’ Trainings Equipment purchases Self‐organizing activities Post national park declaration Forums Partner co‐managing agencies Partner with Guatemalan agencies Other agencies Networking activities Co‐management Socio‐economic activities Pre/N.P. establishment/ co‐management Resource System Notes The objective is to tease out activities/participation of various departments (Fisheries, Forest, and Environment) over time. Identify the activities of various NGOs including SATIIM and FMBNP and their interactions of with other NGOs Indicate the role these organizations particularly those APAMO played Identify the vertical and horizontal networks established as a result of co‐management and thereafter Assess performance of the leaders in co‐management, management activities, capacities, etc. Trust among stakeholders, trust of leadership (including government), communal/participatory activities that builds trust Local communities use of local resources All sources of mediums use to get across information to stakeholders‐ particularly buffer communities with a direct stake in P.A. sustainability Issues of conflict and deliberations and activities to address them or engage local residents Investments in both human capacity, infrastructure, equipment as it relates to both protected area management and community development Activities in response to declaration of the N.P. as well as those to address major disturbances Any collaborative activities with local, national, or international agencies for capacity building, P.A. management, community development etc. Nature of the collaboration between government and CBO; negotiations, and performance over time. Projects that attempt to reduce impact on P.A. and improve local livelihood Co‐management agreement Alternative income projects Historical interactions All interactions pre the establishment of the protected areas and co‐management Major human disturbances Major natural disturbances Major human and natural disturbances that may have significantly affected the resource system. S2 Table S3. Local and National Level Organizations involved in sample cases of co‐management in Belize. Acronym SATIIM MLA TAA NGC NKC FMBNP Forest Department APAMO PACT PACT Foundation UB‐ERI Meaning and Functions
Sarstoon Temash Institute of Indigenous Management: co‐manages the Sarstoon Temash National Park (STNP) with the Forest Department of the Government of Belize. Maya Leaders Alliance: is an alliance of Mayan organizations including SATIIM, the TAA, the Kekchi Council of Belize, the Maya Women’s Group and others. They serve to lobby the Government of Belize on issues of importance to the Mayan populace. Toledo Alcaldes Association: a consortium of Alcaldes (local mayors) of all 36 Mayan villages in Belize. They serve as the administrators of Mayan villages and liaise with the Government, particularly the Ministry of Local Government and Judiciary on local level governance. National Garifuna Council: serves the social, economic, and political interest of the indigenous Garifuna of Belize. National Kekchi Council of Belize: serves the interest of the indigenous Kekchi (also spelled Q’eqchi’ Mayas of Belize—the most traditional group of Mayas in Belize). Friends of Mayflower Bocawina National Park: co‐manages the Mayflower Bocawina National Park (MBNP) with the Forest Department of the Government of Belize. Forest Department: is the arm of the Government of Belize with responsibility to management terrestrial protected area. The Department has signed co‐management agreements with both SATIIM and FMBNP. Association of Protected Areas Management Organization: is a network of 13 co‐managing organizations whose signed co‐management agreements with the Forest Department. Protected Areas Conservation Trust: a fund established by the Government of Belize on the recommendations of social partners to fund conservation in Belize. The organization is managed by a Board of Directors which includes government officials, the University of Belize, community‐based organizations, and NGOs. Protected Areas Conservation Trust Foundation: a subsidiary fund managed by the Protected Areas Conservation Trust. University of Belize’s Environmental Research Institute: a Research Institution at the University of Belize with special focus of supporting conservation with research data as well as building capacity of stakeholders in protected areas management and conservation. References 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Pomeroy, R.; Katon, B.; Harkes, I. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co‐management: Lessons from Asia. Mar. Policy 2001, 25, 197–208. Pomeroy, R.S.; Cinner, J.E.; Nielsen, J.; Andrew, N.L. Conditions for successful co‐management: Lessons learned in Asia, Africa, the Pacific, and the wider Caribbean. In Small‐Scale Fisheries Management: Frameworks and Approaches for the Developing World; Pomeroy, R.S., Andrew, N., Eds.; Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International: Wallingford, UK, 2011; pp. 115–131. Gutiérrez, N.; Hilborn, R.; Defeo, O. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 2011, 470, 386–389. Rashid, A.; Craig, D.; Mukul, S.; Khan, N. A journey towards shared governance: Status and prospects for collaborative management in the protected areas of Bangladesh. J. For. Res. 2013, 24, 599–605. Basurto, X.; Jiménez‐Pérez, I. Institutional Arrangements for Adaptive Governance of Biodiversity Conservation: The Experience of the Area de Conservación de Guanacaste, Costa Rica. J. Lat. Am. Geogr. 2013, 12, 111–134. Stevenson, T.; Tissot, B. Current trends in the analysis of co‐management arrangements in coral reef ecosystems: A social‐ecological systems perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 7, 134–139. S3 7.
8.
Cinner, J.; McClanahan, T.; MacNeil, M.; Graham, N.; Daw, T.; Mukminin, A.; Feary, D.; Rabearisoa, A.; Wamukota, A.; Jiddawi, N.; et al. Comanagement of coral reef social‐ecological systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 5219–5222. Evans, L.; Cherrett, N.; Pemsl, D. Assessing the impact of fisheries co‐management interventions in developing countries: A meta‐analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1938–1949. S4