Showing posts with label Bua. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bua. Show all posts

Thursday, October 10, 2013

District and Village Planning Moves Forward



Last week we had a District Resource Planning Workshop in Navave Village. This was the second workshop of a series designed to help communities come together to discuss environmental issues, think about possible solutions, and work toward a solid governance structure/plan for sustainably managing natural resources in our district. 

The first workshop was held in June, after general awareness sessions about eco-system based management principles had been completed in each village. Every village was asked to elect a few representatives to attend the district workshop. It was advised that there should be a mixture of men, women, and youth. Most villages came and there were a few women and youth. At that workshop we identified targets, threats to achieving them, causes of those threats, and potential strategies for addressing them. This exercise is called conceptual modeling.  It was divided into 3 habitat types: terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal/marine. 

After the workshop, the team from our village took the initiative to form their own Yaubula, or environment, committee. They gathered at my house on a Sunday afternoon and planned how to share what they learned at the workshop during the next village meeting. 

At this recent workshop, we revisited the outcomes of the first workshop, because some new people and villages that weren’t able to participate the first go-round were in attendance. We talked more about management rules and strategies, but some of the focus was on building the capacity of the attendees to go back and be agents of change in their communities.

Wildlife Conservation Society, with the help of Seaweb, facilitated the workshop. I was there to provide general support and work with the team from my village.

Some days it can feel like two years of work hasn’t amounted to much because things happen so slowly. And some days it’s all you can do not to give up, especially when some gossipy ol’ lady in your community asks your boyfriend what you’ve been doing all this time. That hurts. But when we attended this workshop we were actually an example for the other villages. My fellow community members were standing up on their own and sharing ideas and strategies for good practices and tips for problem solving. I felt so proud of them!

Real change doesn’t take place over night. But change is happening on Fiji time. 

One lesson that I’ve learned is the importance of building a team in the community. It’s something we’ve learned together. It has taken a lot of trial and error, various projects and committees, building relationships and trust, and just a lot of time learning how things work behind the scenes in a rural village to get to where we are now. But I’m happy to say that we are on our way to writing our own village natural resource management plan. We intend to seek funding for implementation, which will also include some income generating projects. And I’m not doing it alone.

I’d say our biggest advice to other communities wishing to “develop” would be to first take a hard look at your community and the way you work together. There is both the traditional and administrative structure to consider.  There can be a lot of other dividing lines to reach across. If you can identify a few key people to stand up and keep fighting to knock down those divisions -- that’s the best place to start. There’s not a whole lot of use rushing into having any type of community-wide or district-wide plan, if there isn’t a strong foundation for people to work together to implement it.
The more I’m involved in NRM planning activities in Fiji at the various scales (community, district, provincial, national), the more I’ve realized how the key to sustainable resource management is with the communities. They are the ones who are going to be ones on the ground doing the work in the end. 

But the scale at which to do NRM planning is a hot debate. Neither government or NGOs can target every community, there aren’t enough resources. And we must always consider the scale at which ecosystems function. It’s much larger than a village. 

If we can’t engage all communities from the bottom up, the district level isn’t a terrible solution. It can focus on building the capacity of key individuals who can then facilitate the trickling down of information and processes. Taking what they learn back to the communities and being an agent of change. 

One of the best outcomes for me to see at the workshops was communities discussing amongst themselves their unique issues and really considering ways that they could work better together, as a pre-cursor to what will be a later conversation of how the various communities can join together.
That’s not going to be an easy task, to create a working governance structure at the district level. There are subtle rivalries getting in the way. There are sensitive traditional issues people do not like to talk about. I’m akin to some of them, but it is not my place to speak up about them. Our Yaubula Committee is working to build a stronger relationship with our Bose Vanua, or the elders, in our village as a place to start. 

Workshop participants at the Navave workshop. Can you find me? :)

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Social Network Research in Bua



I am currently involved in a social network research project, partnering with Wildlife Conservation Society, to complete my Master's program. This research is being conducted to gain information about how people in Bua Province communicate and work together on natural resource management. Effective resource management requires a range of people and organizations to plan and take action together. They way these stakeholders communicate and work together can be referred to as a “network.”  We will be administering questionnaires in each village in Bua beginning this month, with hopes of finishing by February this coming year. Read on if you'd be interesting in learning more about the research...


Recently, social network theory as it applies to natural resource management has emerged as a way to enhance our understanding of collaborative and adaptive resource governance (Bodin and Prell 2011, Vance-Borland and Holley 2011). While By applying a network approach to the Itegrated Coastal Management (ICM) process in Bua, we recognize that stakeholders interact with each other through networks and that various network characteristics affect the way in which the network functions. Social network theory explores how connections and characteristics of networks can affect intended outcomes (Bodin and Prell 2011). Understanding relational patterns amongst stakeholders in Bua will be important for effective ICM planning and continual development of the Bua Yaubula Management and Support Team (BYMST) as a governance body. 


Theoretically, applied network analysis can help both practitioners and network members not only better understand the way their network functions, but to “engineer” network structure to better optimize conservation success (Bodin and Prell 2011, Vance-Borland and Holley 2011, Bodin et al 2006).  This can be referred to as network “weaving” or network intervention (Holley 2012, Valente 2012, Vance-Borland and Holley 2011).  


Studies in other fields suggest that merely presenting network maps to network members can trigger changes in a network (Valente 2012), however, it has not yet been determined if network interventions are indeed a tool that can be used to improve natural resource management outcomes (Vance-Borland and Holley 2011). Previous works do show SNA to be useful in stakeholder identification and engagement, understanding resource and knowledge flow, and understanding power relations (Bodin and Prell 2011). 


This particular study proposes to investigate whether applied SNA can be a useful in the ICM process in Bua. It is part of longer term research seeking to compare various ICM strategies and evaluate both their ecological and socio-economic outcomes in a continued attempt to develop best practices for ICM in Fiji. This study will help create baseline data for testing the hypothesis that using SNA as a tool in ICM can increase understanding of ICM stakeholder networks and, when paired with network weaving activities, can hence improve desired management outcomes. This is shown conceptually in Figure 1 below.



Figure 1. Conceptual model showing SNA’s relationship to improved desired ICM outcomes




Particular questions SNA will help us investigate in this study are:

·         What are some of the network characteristics of communities/districts who are actively implementing NRM activities?

·         Why are certain people/villages working better together and on certain issues than others?

·         Are key decision makers receiving information and communicating about NRM issues and practices?

·         Who works or wants to work together, and on what kind of NRM issues specifically?

·         How integrated are ICM stakeholders across sectors and scales? How do communities currently receive and relay information on NRM?

·         How can communities, government, and NGOs improve collaboration and communication regarding ICM?

·         Are working relationships stronger between communities with traditional ties?

·         How do stakeholders communicate about NRM and what barriers exist to communicating about best practices?
  

The information gathered in the questionnaire will be used to create a network map like the one shown in Figure 2 below. A social network map can be useful in many ways. It visually shows how different groups of people communicate or work together. IT is one tool we hope stakeholders, and specifically the newly formed can find useful. 

Figure 2. Example Social Network Map

(Vance-Borland and Holley, 2011)

References

Bodin, Ö., B. Crona, and H. Ernstson (2006). Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecology and Society 11(2): r2

Bodin, Ö. and C. Prell (2011). Social Networks and Natural Resource Management : Uncovering the Social Fabric of Environmental Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions, Science, 337: 49-53.

Vance-Borland, K. and J. Holley (2011). Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving, Conservation Letters, 4: 278-288.