1

Reef Futures Exploring the dynamics of transformative change in marine social-ecological systems

Franciska von Heland

2

©Franciska von Heland, Stockholm University 2014

ISBN 978-91-7447-963-8

Printed in Sweden by Printers name, Stockholm 2014Distributor: The Stockholm Resilience Centre

“One way to open your eyes is to ask yourself, ‘What if I had never seen this before? What if I knew I would never see it again?’”

Rachel Carson

�

� �

ABSTRACT Marine resource degradation is a pressing issue worldwide. This thesis comes at a time when transformative change is necessary if we are to maintain the capacity of marine ecosystems to provide life-supporting benefits for millions of people. This is why resilience research has shown an increasing interest in transformability, that is, the capacity to shift from undesirable system toward new system trajectories. Despite the increasing research interest in transformability, the underlying factors and management strategies that enable us to shift to new types of governance are poorly understood. This thesis aims to nuance the understanding of transformative change processes. The thesis consists of four papers that explore issues relating to transformative change in the context of marine governance in the Coral Triangle, and the effects of such change processes on policy, stakeholder relations and management activities. The Coral Triangle is located along the equator at the confluence of the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, and is recognized as a priority site for conservation due to high marine biodiversity and high ratings of exposure to reef threats and reef dependence. Paper 1 studies how change-oriented actors (institutional entrepreneurs) operating at the international level can introduce and purposefully navigate large-scale change processes. Paper 2 studies the impact of resource asymmetries on multi-stakeholder collaboration, and tackles the literature of boundary work so as to increase its usefulness for understanding complex, multi-level governance initiatives. Paper 3 explores how narratives about the marine environment are entwined with and influence critical aspects of marine ecosystem governance such as resource allocation, day-to-day management actions, stakeholder relations, and long-term ecological monitoring. Paper 4 investigates how actors at the local level can capture opportunities at higher institutional levels while at the same time catalyzing local potential for change by focusing on the interplay between strategies, opportunity and context. The results reinforce evidence that institutional entrepreneurs play an important role in introducing and driving transformative change. Institutional entrepreneurship requires understanding of how strategies can be matched with opportunity and context, for example by offering a way for other actors to address key priorities and add value to their organizations. This is linked to the capacity to coordinate the activities of other actors, not only within organizations, but also outside of and between organizations. The results also show that behind-the-scene organizing is often a precondition for the introduction of transformative change. Shifting the process from an informal track to a formal track where ideas about transformative change can be deliberated among a broader set of stakeholders is thus a major challenge. Moreover, a strong narrative is key to successfully introducing and driving transformative change. In this sense, the ability to articulate and distribute a narrative, which tells a compelling story about the broader system, rather than merely making sense of ecological knowledge or formulating visions, is critical. However, the actors involved in a governance context are not equally capable of value articulation, deliberation and knowledge exchange. Power dynamics are constantly at play in transformation processes due to resource asymmetries. The thesis shows that differences in resources may influence the credibility, legitimacy, and salience of transformative change. It also shows that communication technology and media help to drive transformative change, and that actors are increasingly facing a new dilemma of knowing where to find the right knowledge at the right time. Lastly, this thesis demonstrates that emotion is an important but neglected aspect of transformative change. Keywords: transformative change, marine governance, multi-level governance, multi-stakeholder collaboration, institutional entrepreneurship, boundary work, narrative, Coral Triangle

� �

SAMMANFATTNING PÅ SVENSKA Miljöförstöring i marinaområden är ett växande problem världen över. Transformativa förändringar, det vill säga, långtgående förändringar i hur vi utnyttjar och förvaltar marina miljöer, är således avgörande för att säkerställa att de miljontals människor som beror av ekosystemstjänster från våra hav kan möta en säker framtid. Långtgående miljöförstöring i våra hav är en anledning, bland andra, till att resiliens forskning har visat ett ökat intresse för ’transformaility’. Transformability är en benämning på vår förmåga att bryta beteenden och strukturer som ligger till grund för miljöförstöring. Trots ökat intresse för denna typ av forskning finns föga kunskap om de underliggande faktorer och management strategier som kan möjliggöra sådana skiften. Denna doktorsavhandling har för avsikt att bidra med kunskap om hur transformativa förändringsprocesser kan aktivt drivas. Avhandlingen basers på fältforskning i ett område som vanligen går under namnet ’the Coral Triangle’ (på svenska Koralltriangeln) och består av fyra olika artiklar som med hjälp av olika infallsvinklar undersöker transformability. Koralltriangeln är belägen där den västra delen av Stilla havet möter Indiska oceanen och är känt för att inrymma unik mångfald av marina arter, vilket också gjort den till ett prioritetsområde för naturbevarande. Överfiske, illegala fiskemetoder som dynamitfiske, kustnära exploatering, och utsläpp både till havs och på land i avrinningsområdet utgör ett stort hot mot Koralltriangeln och de 120 miljoner människor som där försörjer sig på småskaligt fiske. Området sträcker sig från Malaysia och Indonesien i väst, via Filippinerna och Timor-Leste till Papua Nya Guinea och Salomonöarna i öst. Artikel 1 undersöker hur förändringsorienterade individer och organisationer, vilka i avhandlingen går under namnet ’institutionella entreprenörer’, kan introducera och katalysera förändringsprocesser på internationell nivå. Artikel 2 studerar hur resursojämlikhet (exempelvis i politiskt inflytande, ekonomisk makt, språkkunskaper, etc.) påverkar hur transformativa förändringsprocesser kan drivas och med vilka resultat. Artikel 3 undersöker kommunikationens (exempelvis det sätt vi väljer att skildra ett ekosystem) påverkan på förvaltning och sociala relationer. Artikel 4 belyser hur aktörer på det lokala planet kan katalysera förändring genom att matcha deras förändringsstrategier med möjligheter och skeenden på nationell eller internationell nivå samt genom att noggrant ’läsa’ den omgivande lokala miljön. Avhandlingen visar att institutionella entreprenörer spelar en viktig roll i att möjliggöra för transformativa förändringar och att ett sådant entreprenörskap kräver förståelse för hur strategier bäst kan matchas med närliggande möjligheter och andra kontextuella faktorer. En avgörande faktor i sådana processer verkar vara att institutionella entreprenörer måste ’bygga’ värde för andra organisationer. En annan viktig förmåga som sådana individer eller organisationer måste besitta är förmågan att organisera mellan organisationer och informella processer. Avhandlingen visar också att transformativ förändring i ett inledande skede sker ’bakom kulisserna’ och att en inledande utmaning är att skifta en sådan informell process till en formell process där fler aktörer kan delta i att diskutera och förhandla om förändring. Den visar även att en strak och tilltalande berättelse är nödvändig för att driva förändringsprocesser. Detta betyder att förmågan att artikulera och sprida en sådan berättelse är en avgörande faktor. Samtidigt har de aktörer som deltar i en förändringsprocess olika förmåga att uttala och få gehör för sina berättelser. Exempelvis spelar tillgången till resurser en avgörande roll. Därutöver föreslås att kommunikationsteknologi och media har stor potential att pådriva förändring. Slutligen, framhåller avhandlingen att forskning i ökad utsträckning måste ta hänsyn till känslomässiga aspekter av transformativa förändringar.

� �

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Thank you Per Olsson and Beatrice Crona for being my supervisors and believing in me. Thanks for all the advice and important insights you have given me throughout these years. Julian Clifton, thank you for taking the time to working with me. You have been a great inspiration. And to Pedro Fidelman, thanks for inviting me to collaborate with you and for your important input into my research. It was great living with you in Australia and I will never forget your hospitality and friendship. Thanks to Örjan Bodin. I would also like to thank the ARC Centre of Excellence in Australia and WorldFish in the Philippines for welcoming me as a guest researcher. A special thanks to Joe Padilla at UNDP in Bangkok. It was a great experience working with you. The Stockholm Resilience Centre: thank you all for the creative atmosphere. A special thanks to Martina Kadin, Arvid Bergsten and Jonas Hentati-Sundberg. You are stalwarts and I am deeply grateful for you friendship! Matilda Thyresson, thanks for mental and physical coaching. Henrik Ernstson, thank you for sharing insights and for always taking the time to help me out. Wijnand Boonstra, thanks for all the advice and your critical eye on my papers and kappa, for which I am truly thankful. Thanks to Vanessa Masterson, Carol Crumley and Andrew Merrie for proofreading. Thanks also to Jerker Lokrantz. Thérèse La Monde and Cecilia Linder, thanks for administrative support! To all the people I have worked with in Wakatobi and elsewhere in Indonesia: thank you so much for welcoming me and for sharing your knowledge with me. I would especially like to mention Hugua and Lida Pet-Soede. Thanks to WWF and TNC. Despite the critical stance in this thesis, I am deeply inspired by your work and constant effort to make change possible. I would also like to thank all the informants who have contributed to my thesis. Your generosity has made this research possible. I hope that your enthusiasm will continue to inspire people around the world to make a difference. Finally, I would like to thank Jacob. You are the most inspiring discussant, critical reviewer and loving supporter. You rock my world!

� �

LIST OF PAPERS

I. Rosen*, F., Olsson, P. 2013. Institutional entrepreneurs, global networks, and the emergence of international institutions for ecosystem-based management: The Coral Triangle Initiative. Marine Policy 38, 195–204.

II. von Heland, F., Crona, B., Fidelman, P. Mediating science and action across multiple boundaries in the Coral Triangle. Global Environmental Change. In press.

III. von Heland, F., Clifton, J. 2015. Whose threat counts? Conservation narratives in the Wakatobi National Park. Conservation & Society 13(1).

IV. von Heland, F., Clifton, J., Olsson, P. 2014. Improving stewardship of marine resources: Linking strategy to opportunity. Sustainability 6, 4470–4496.

Publications outside the thesis:

V. Fidelman, P., Evans, L., Fabinyi, M., Foale, S., Cinner, J., Rosen*, F. 2012. Governing large-scale marine commons: Contextual challenges in the Coral Triangle. Marine Policy 36, 42–53.

VI. Fidelman, P., Evans, L., Foale, S., Weible, C., von Heland, F., Elgin, D. 2014. Coalition cohesion for regional marine governance: A stakeholder analysis of the Coral Triangle Initiative. Ocean & Coastal Management 95, 117–128.

VII. Rosen*, F. 2011. Vårt öde och havens är ett. Havsutsikt 3, 8–9. * Name before marriage

� �

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 7

Research framework 9 Study design 15

Field context 17

Methodology – a reflexive note 22

Summary of papers 24

Synthesis of results and discussion 29

References 36 Appendix A: Interview templates 45

LIST OF BOXES AND FIGURES

Box 1: Coral Reefs and MPAs 8 Box 2: President Yudhoyono speaks on the Coral Triangle Initiative 21 Box 3: RAINBOW: Enabling change 33 Figure 1: Research framework 14 Figure 2: Scope of the thesis 15 Figure 3: Map 19 Table 1: Analytical and empirical focus for each Paper 16

� �

INTRODUCTION Until very recently the ocean was foreign territory to me. I appreciated it for its beauty, sense of endlessness and serenity, but never could I imagine that it would become my profession to safeguard its ecosystems. I use the word ocean in singular to underline the connectivity of all major saltwater bodies, with each other, with the land and the atmosphere (Orbach 2002). As a PhD student I was soon to explore the many ways in which humanity is interlinked with the ocean and how our future wellbeing depends upon it. This was the beginning of a marvelous journey where I have gradually become an untiring advocate of new marine policy. This journey has brought me to tropical latitudes with warm waters where millions of people rely on marine life, such as corals and coastal fisheries, to support their livelihoods. Diving in these waters has certainly been a feast for the eyes, but also a rude awakening to the fact that humanity is on a collision course with the biosphere (Rockström et al. 2009). My research has been situated in the Coral Triangle, a region located at the confluence of the Indian and the Pacific Oceans where many corals are vulnerable to warming temperatures and ocean acidification (Pandolfi et al. 2011). The region includes parts of or all the seas of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste. Here reefs are only a fraction of the size that they once were due to overfishing, destructive fishing, marine pollution, and coastal exploitation (Burke et al. 2011). Together with climate change, these stressors will rearrange food webs, lead to further loss of corals, and this will result in substantially fewer fish and other marine creatures (Nellemann et al. 2008, Burke et al. 2011). While scientists are still learning how much — or how little — marine ecosystems might adapt to these changes, it is clear that new governance institutions are urgently needed to protect the identity of the Coral Triangle. This is particularly important for coastal communities who are already facing poverty and are among the most vulnerable to changing ocean conditions. But this is also critical from a macro economic perspective, as productive marine ecosystems generate important revenue (e.g. income, taxes, license fees and trade revenues) and employment opportunities across the Coral Triangle countries (Foale et al. 2013, Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2009). Healthy reef systems and mangroves also protect coastal communities from storms and tsunamis, reducing causalities, injuries, and future reconstruction costs (CTI Secretariat 2009). New marine governance institutions are emerging to protect the unparalleled marine biodiversity of the Coral Triangle (Veron et al. 2009). One example is the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) and to connect these through networks to safeguard important marine ecosystems such as coral reefs (Flower et al. 2013, Fernandes et al. 2012). MPA networks are believed to strengthen resilience to environmental stresses “through protecting a representative cross-section of habitats and species within a defined area and facilitating species movement between sites through connectivity” (Clifton 2009: 91). However, a large proportion of MPAs offer little or no protection (Burke et al. 2011, Mora et al. 2006). In regions like the Coral Triangle, conservation is commonly subject to severe budgetary constraints that impede the ability of authorities to implement enforcement activities (Christe 2004). There is also a widespread belief among government authorities that there is no relationship between fishing effort and stock decline as fisheries data show increasing catches over time (Davis 2001). Yet, catches have increased because fishermen use more advanced fishing technology and travel greater distances, which disguise the fact that stocks are declining. Such perceptions further decrease the willingness of governments to finance and seriously engage in conservation. In the Coral Triangle, actors involved in implementing networks of MPAs have also been criticized for failing to address the

� �

into several sectors and governance levels) in transformation processes. For example, Westley and colleagues (2013) stress that there is ”a need for a contextual understanding of the relationship between different strategies and techniques actors utilize, and the broader system dynamics that shape the context in which they are working” (pp. 1, see also Walker et al. 2006, Folke et al. 2010). Such knowledge is important in order to develop a more coherent theory of the role of change agents, and the strategic actions they employ, in transformation processes. Another issue that has often been neglected in resilience research is the role of power, and that managing for resilience or transformation runs the risk of reproducing inequality and domination (Hornborg 2009).

Developing an ecosystem stewardship of marine resources would require a radical change in present institutional frameworks governing how we use and think about the marine environment (Westley et al. 2011). Ecosystem stewardship is understood as an improved capacity to learn from, respond to, and manage environmental feedback in dynamic ecosystems to sustain the supply of ecosystem services to support human well being (Chapin et al. 2010). In the context of marine governance, institutional change has proven extremely difficult. Until the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into force in 1994 there was no international regulation on ocean use. Even though UNCLOS was an attempt to regulate all aspects of the marine environment, it includes no regulation to protect natural habitats and wildlife or important ecological processes such as the replenishment of fish stocks or larvae dispersal. Historically, the notion that the ocean is a source of inexhaustible resources has affected the way we manage marine ecosystems (Orbach 2002). Additionally, marine ecosystem use was motivated by the ‘Freedom of the Seas’ doctrine, a principle put forward in the seventeenth century, which proclaimed open access to the world’s oceans (Eckert 1979, Wilder 1998). These two aspects have led to the widespread view that the ocean is in no need of restriction, in opposition to the precautionary principle. Until the nineteenth century, the ocean was also understood to be timeless, a belief that survives in the common trope of the ‘eternal sea’ (Gillis 2011). Unlike the land, the ocean was not thought to be an important factor shaping human destiny (ibid). Despite the current knowledge that marine resources are not only finite but also in decline, institutional inertia means that the view of the ocean as an inexhaustible resource is still influential in shaping how we manage marine ecosystems. Additionally, marine governance is often out of sync with ecosystem dynamics, and marine degradation often arises due to institutional mismatches between the scale of management (determined by the institutional framework informing management) and the scales of the ecological processes (Galaz et al. 2008). Many marine environmental problems transcend policy sectors, administrative units, and nation-states, meaning that they often are too multifaceted to be solved within traditional problem-solving structures of single state bureaucracies (Juda and Hennessey 2001, Crowder et al. 2006). For example, management is often divided into separate regimes for fisheries, aquaculture, marine conservation, tourism, shipping, and oil and gas without much coordination between sectors (Young 2002). There are at least three different types of mismatches between governance systems and marine ecosystems –– spatial, temporal and functional mismatches. Spatial mismatches between the scales of governance and marine ecosystems are widespread and decision making takes place at multiple levels of social organization (Young 2002). This means that the resilience of the ocean is affected by management decisions occurring within different jurisdictional areas such as the high sea, Exclusive Economic Zone, territorial sea, and the coastal zone. These zones are often managed in isolation to one another and jurisdictional boundaries often cause seascape fragmentation. This undermines efforts to treat marine areas as interconnected (ibid.). On the one hand, the scale at which authority resides often does not

� ��

match the spatial scales of the resources or processes it is supposed to manage (Crowder et al. 2006), and, at the other hand, large-scale management institutions tend to ignore local heterogeneity (Hughes et al. 2005). Temporal mismatches arise in situations in which the time required for governance systems to respond to environmental decline or when the rhythm of policy-making does not match the temporal scales of ecosystem processes (Galaz et al. 2008, Young 2002). In such cases intervention efforts often come too late. A majority of political systems build on a 4-year voting cycle. The relatively short time frame of political systems affects the willingness of decision makers to make long-term commitments to marine conservation and sustainable management. The third type of mismatch is of functional character. Marine ecosystems are not only characterized by multiple use, they are also valued for different things (Ostrom 1990). There is a general tendency of governments to primarily target their conservation efforts on species of commercial value (Young 2002). As a result, broader-scale ecological processes and keystone species that have little commercial value, but uphold ecosystem resilience, are not recognized as important to preserve. Marine degradation is also difficult to address due to significant mismatches between the supply of scientific information and the knowledge requirements of policymakers (Parker and Crona 2012, Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008). Therefore, new institutions and organizational mechanisms are urgently needed for improving exchange between scientific knowledge, policy, and marine resource management. This thesis aims to improve our understanding of how transformative change can be introduced and catalyzed by networks of individuals and organizations. It also aims to generate new insights on the dynamics of transformative change processes to improve understanding of the interplay between agency and context. In so doing, the thesis generates knowledge of the factors and social mechanisms at work in institutional transformation processes of marine governance. The thesis takes its analytical point of departure in four complementary analytical frameworks that contribute important insights on transformative change. These are: 1) institutional entrepreneurship, 2) complexity perspectives on leadership, 3) boundary work, and 4) value articulation (Figure 1). These are described here: The concept of ‘institutional entrepreneurship’ was developed within sociology and has emerged to study the activities of individuals who spearhead collective attempts to create new institutions, often in the interests of achieving particular goals of their own (DiMaggio 1988, Maguire et al. 2004, Garud et al. 2007). DiMaggio writes: “new institutions arise when organized actors with sufficient resources (institutional entrepreneurs) see in them an opportunity to realize interests they highly value (DiMaggio 1988:14). The idea that individual action can play a role in shaping broader system dynamics taps into a long-running debate in the social sciences about the tension between institutional determinism and agency (Emirbayer and Mische 1998). Whereas institutional determinism describes our norms and beliefs as institutionally determined, and that individual agency can therefore only play a limited role in institutional change, the notion of institutional entrepreneurship suggests that groups of individuals can break the institutional status quo by initiating divergent changes and actively participating in their implementation (Battilana et al. 2009). In other words, they organize collective attempts to disseminate new beliefs, norms, and values into social structures (Rao et al. 2000). Analytically, the concept takes its point of departure in the assumption that any institutional context involves struggles over resources, stakes and access, and focuses attention on the way in which actors influence their institutional context by participating in such struggles (Maguire et al. 2004). To successfully perform institutional entrepreneurship requires the employment of a series of activities and strategies. Generally, it involves developing a vision (i.e. activities undertaken to make the case for change including sharing the vision with followers), mobilizing people (i.e. activities undertaken to gain other actors’ support for and acceptance of change), and motivating other to achieve and sustain the vision (i.e. activities undertaken to institutionalize change (Battilana et al. 2009). In the

� ��

context of this thesis, the concept of institutional entrepreneurship has enabled me to investigate how individuals and networks of individuals can purposefully play a role in transformation. The concept has also enabled me to investigate relational dynamics of such processes. ‘Complexity perspectives on leadership’ are inspired by complexity science (building notions such as non-linearity, uncertainty, self-organization, and experimentation) and build on the growing recognition that traditional top-down theories of leadership are overly simplistic and unable to account for the inherent complexity in social change (Lichtenstein et al. 2006). Rather than being an innate individual characteristic, leadership – defined as the capacity to influence others – is understood as an emergent outcome occurring through interaction between and across individuals, networks and organizations (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007, Lichtenstein and Plowman 2009). “Leadership is not only incremental influence of a boss toward subordinates, but most important it is the collective incremental influence of leaders in and around the system” (Osborn et al. 2002). In other words, leadership is understood as a dynamic process transcending the capabilities of individuals alone. Yet, individuals are described as capable of catalyzing change by promoting behaviors and actions that can encourage emergence in and across organizations (Lichtenstein et al. 2006), for example by disrupting existing practices and beliefs (i.e. embracing uncertainty and creating controversy), by recombining resources into new configurations, or by encouraging novelty through experimentation, sense making, and supporting collective action (Lichtenstein and Plowman 2009). From this follows an interest in the ‘space between’ individuals and a view of leadership as potentially enacted within every interaction between members of an organization and its environment (Lichtenstein and Plowman 2009, Uhl-Bien et al. 2007). In this sense, traditional, hierarchical views of leadership (focusing on the CEO, the top management team or other individuals with authority) are understood to be less useful to explain processes of organizational change. The framework recognizes that organizational members or lower level system participants can interact, exchange information, and act without coordination from a manager, resulting in unintended institutional change at higher levels within or beyond the organization. The aim of the framework is to develop a better understanding of organizational change through investigating the interaction between micro-behaviors and macro-context and how influence can be co-generated across multiple interactions throughout the organization and its environment (Lichtenstein and Plowman 2009). Building on the concept of institutional entrepreneurship, complexity perspectives on leadership have helped to focus the analysis toward taking into account how the interplay between institutional entrepreneurship and context shapes transformation. ‘Boundary work’ offers a concept for studying the interaction between different actors in the processes through which new policy emerges (Shackley and Wynne 1996, Schneider 2009). In particular, the concept has been used to investigate the infusion of research-based knowledge into policy and how science and policy communities can organize their relations with each other to produce new ways of knowing and solving complex problems. The concept was developed within Science & Technology Studies (STS) and emerged in response to an identified need to analyze how actors within science and policy established ‘boundaries’ between their different communities when working to ensure meaningful communication and reach common goals (Jasanoff 1987). Literature on boundary work is not only interested in how boundaries between science and ‘non-science’ are constructed or blurred, but also in the consequences of such boundary delineation (Guston 2001, Miller 2001, Schneider 2009, Lidskog 2014). Recent studies of boundary work stress that distinctions between science and policy is often vague, that the two spheres often co-mingle, and that boundary making is often a result of strategic and context-specific activities undertaken by groups to legitimize their own positions and roles (Parker and Crona 2012; Lidskog 2014). Due to the proliferation of actors seeking to orchestrating scientific knowledge to support (or hinder) particular policy outcomes, the boundary work concept is

� �

increasingly recognized as a valuable tool for understanding how actors in the policy process organize their relations with science and other sources of knowledge for decision support and to promote action (Clark et al. 2011, Huitema and Turnhout 2009, Robinson and Wallington 2012, Parker and Crona, 2012, Lidskog 2014). As the concept of boundary work has migrated to other research fields, actors other than policymakers and scientists have come to populate the analysis (Parker and Crona 2012). As a consequence of its migration the concept nowadays has to accounts for interactions between heterogeneous stakeholders, often without clear-cut demarcations between science and policy, and with highly unequal means to participate in knowledge creation and policy making. Definitions of ‘success’ of boundary work vary across studies, but the generation of social capital, creation of shared meanings, joint learning, and changes in perception, practices, and eventually in institutions is commonly mentioned (Schneider 2008). For this thesis, the boundary work concept has helped to further investigate relational aspects of transformative change, especially how power and resources come into play, and how knowledge for transformation is constructed. Developed with in the social sciences and humanities (Sörlin 1999, Leach et al. 2010, Crompton 2010), theories on ‘value articulation’ investigate actors’ work to construct narratives wherein specific ecosystems and species are assigned characteristics, meanings, and value. In other words: actors’ different ways of thinking about and representing a system. The framework recognizes that all analysis, whether by researchers, policy actors or local communities, requires framing, and that all framing involves an element of value judgments (Leach et al. 2010). For example, it is often said that researchers and policymakers ‘mutually construct’ policy by jointly negotiating what questions need to be answered and what knowledge counts (Fairhead and Leach 2003). In framing policy, these actors produce narratives about the issues at hand and compelling reasons for change. These narratives describe events, define a set of characteristics that makes certain environments what they are, explain how problems come about, and what needs to be done to mitigate them. In other words, they define what is wrong and how it can be solved (IDS 2006). They therefore influence agenda setting, goal definition, characterization of options, and prioritization (Leach et al. 2010). Narratives may also portray the promoted project or policy as superior to previous ones, that is, de-legitimating existing institutional arrangements or those supported by rivals (Battilana et al. 2009). One may say that actors develop narratives to make complex problems and interactions governable (Westley 2002). In essence, narratives are part of and evolve from sense-making processes of self and world and therefore provide concepts and metaphors for understanding how the world operates. Yet, our efforts to interpret reality and create appealing metaphors tend to simplify social-ecological interactions. Over time, some narratives come to be supported by institutional and political processes so as to bring about a particular set of interventions, while other narratives remain marginalized. Understanding narratives, and the social practices through which these are produced, is therefore central to understand why policies on the environment take particular shapes (IDS 2006). Not least is this important as narratives may profoundly impact on human-environment interaction. For example, historical research demonstrates that in order for a site to become a target for conservation a widely distributed narrative articulating its high value is absolutely vital to mobilize action for a new type of governance (Ernstson and Sörlin 2009). Moreover, dominant narratives often gain validity at the expense of alternative narratives that frame problems and solutions in different ways. Leach and colleagues (2010) argue that “all too often the marginalized narratives are those voiced by or representing the perspectives of marginalized people” (pp. 373). For this research, theories on value articulation have helped to analyze how actors can create policy space for transformation and why processes of change take particular shapes.

� ��

FIELD CONTEXT

“If we look at a globe or a map of the Eastern Hemisphere, we shall perceive between Asia and Australia a number of large and small islands, forming a connected group distinct from those great masses of land and having little connexion [sic] with either of them. Situated upon the equator, and bathed in the tepid water of the great tropical oceans, this region enjoys a climate more uniformly hot and moist than almost any other part of the globe, and teems with natural productions which are elsewhere unknown” (Wallace 1869: 1)

These are the opening lines of Alfred Russel Wallace’s seminal book The Malay Archipelago, first published in 1869, which over time has become a classic in modern biogeography (Veron et al. 2009). Wallace was a contemporary of Darwin and is known for demarcating the ‘Indo-Malayan region’ from the ‘Austro-Malayan region’ with a red line when lecturing for the Royal Geographical Society in London in 1863. This line, more known as the ‘Wallace line’, has since then become one of the best-known demarcations in the history of biogeography for denoting the locus of marine biodiversity. Later studies of biogeography repositioned the line so as to include the Great Barrier Reef in Australia (Veron et al. 2009). This demarcation was altered in the 1990s when studies of the global distribution of corals were first compiled at a species level, and clearly indicated that the Malay archipelago was the de facto center of coral diversity (Veron 1995). This region is known as the Coral Triangle (Figure 3). The impact of this finding on marine conservation efforts was swift. It shifted the international focus of coral reef conservation from Australia to the relatively under-studied and largely unprotected Coral Triangle, a heavily populated region with very different socio-economic conditions than Australia (Veron et al. 2009). The Coral Triangle is 5.7 million km2 in area, which is as large as half of the USA (Fidelman et al. 2012). Although it only covers 1.6 percent of the Ocean, the Coral Triangle harbors 76 percent of all known coral species, 37 percent of all known coral reef fish species, 53 percent of the world’s coral reefs, the greatest extent of mangrove in the world, and spawning and juvenile growth areas for the world’s larges tuna fishery (CTI Secretariat 2009, Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2009). The area covers all or part of the seas of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste. Maritime border conflicts between Malaysia and Indonesia have over the last years caused reoccurring territorial disputes and strained diplomatic relations (Jakarta Post 2011a, 2011b). Likewise, there are no settled maritime boundaries between Indonesia and the Philippines and between Indonesia and Timor-Leste (Jakarta Post 2011a). Approximately 372 million people reside within the Coral Triangle (Fidelman et al. 2012). Poverty among coastal communities is widespread and as many as 120 million rely on local marine resources for their income, livelihoods and food security (CTI Secretariat 2009). The Bajau people are an ethnic minority group living in coastal settlements in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, very often in stilt houses in the intertidal area (Acciaioli 2001). A very high proportion of the Bajau make a living by fishing and there is a strong tradition of travel and migration. While they are often imagined to have an inherent desire to roam, like the Rom in Europe, the fact is that the Bajau probably do so only when it becomes too difficult to remain where they are, either because of conflict with land-based communities or government authorities or because of changes in environmental conditions (Kortschak 2010). There is often a (mis)perception among land-based communities that the Bajau do not care about the marine

� �

• Designate the sustainable management of marine and coastal resources as a high and an

urgent ongoing priority on national agendas; • Mobilize high-level public and private sector leadership; • Achieve enhanced regional collaboration to address important regional problems; • Implement economic, policy and legal reforms where needed; • Establish a system of sustainable funding and orient these financial resources toward

achievement of the CTI Regional Plan of Action; • Achieve rapid improvement in institutional and human capacity; • Lead effective, highly participatory multi-stakeholder alliances; • Integrate conservation, management and development; and • Promote public/private partnerships.

The CTI Regional Plan of Action is a 10-year action plan, which captures the above priorities and commitments. It is organized around five overall goals covering: (i) priority seascapes; (ii) ecosystem approach to managing fisheries and other marine resources; (iii) marine protected areas; (iv) climate change adaptation; and (v) threatened species. Each goal includes one or more time-bound targets. A regional system of areas of high biological value has been selected to implement the CTI. The selection of sites was guided by criteria that consider the existing state of the resource base, existing enabling factors, and the feasibility of conservation work in candidate locations (CTI-CFF 2013). In Indonesia, the Wakatobi National Park in Southeast Sulawesi has been identified as a priority for the CTI (Figure 3). At 13,900 km2 it is Indonesia’s third largest MPA. In May 2014, the WNP was nominated as one of four flagship sites for the establishment of a functional MPA network by the six CTI countries and their development partners. These four sites, the WNP included, were nominated on the basis of being “large, already effectively managed sites that have regional ecological, governance and socioeconomic importance” (CTI-CFF 2014) The Wakatobi National Park is described further in Papers 3 and 4. The choice for the CTI as a case study reflects the fact that the CTI implies radical change in marine governance institutions for the Coral Triangle countries (and for the WNP) and that significant changes are already occurring due to the agreement of the six countries to implement the Initiative. The CTI has introduced a new paradigm for structuring human-environment interaction and highlights the many ways in which social systems are interlinked with marine systems. For this region, the scale of the Initiative is unprecedented and demonstrates an effort to better match governance with the scale of ecological processes. Another reason for my selection of case study is the high biodiversity of the region. The Coral Triangle is ecologically unique and therefore important from a global conservation perspective. The uniqueness of the CTI (e.g. its scope and complexity), alluded to suggests it could work as a ‘critical case’, i.e. aimed to achieve information which permits logical deductions of the type, ‘if this is (not) valid for this case, then it applies to many (few) cases’ of similar type and complexity (Flyvbjerg 2006). For example, if we are not able to transform marine governance for this area, which contains the globally most important coral reef, then we are likely to also fail in other less important areas (especially in emerging organizational fields (Maguire et al. 2004) with high resource inequality, high natural resource dependence, and multilevel governance structures). Accordingly, the CTI promised to be a fruitful case study for the study of transformative change in tropical regions relying on marine resources for income, food and livelihoods. The thesis approaches the CTI as a process of transformation, which has initiated radical institutional change, but does not claim that the CTI demonstrates a fully institutionalized transformation.�

� ��

METHODOLOGY - A REFLEXIVE NOTE This thesis is based on qualitative research interviews. As described by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), the research interview is always “an interpersonal situation, a conversation between two partners about a theme of mutual interest” (pp. 123). From this perspective, it follows that knowledge is co-constructed by the informant and the researcher (Holstein and Gubrium 1995). Thus knowledge is not viewed here merely as found by or given to the researcher, but rather actively created through questions and answers. Consequently, the quality of scientific knowledge depends on the researcher’s ability to engage with his/her research rather than firmly situating the world in a particular narrative that strips the research context and research activity of their complexity (Holstein and Gubrium 1995, Alvesson 1999). Before conducting my interviews, I designed interview templates for the different studies. Questions were formulated to reflect important aspects of each analytical framework. To investigate the role of institutional entrepreneurship in the creation of the CTI and in the governance of the WNP, interview templates for Paper 1 and Paper 4 focused on the role of individuals and networks in catalyzing change, as well as contextual factors. Templates were also designed to illicit information on barriers to change and with the help of what strategies such barriers were confronted. To analyze the CTI from a boundary work perspective, interview templates were designed to illicit information on different actors’ contribution to, and capacity to engage in, the CTI process, including their perceptions of multi-stakeholder collaboration and associated conflicts. Building on theories on value articulation, the interview template for Paper 3 aimed to illicit information on central actors’ narratives about marine governance in the WNP and in what contexts these narratives were articulated. In doing so, it asked about actors’ perceptions of marine ecosystems, threats to these ecosystems, and finally their preferences with respect to management interventions. Narratives were then juxtaposed with actual management activities. All interview templates included questions on the socio-economic context of the four studies. The interviews were semi-structured (Bernard 2006), yet always flexible enough to allow follow-up questions and improvisation, including personal judgments about which questioning techniques to invoke or not invoke (Kavle and Brinkmann 2009). As a general rule, I introduced a topic, and then followed up on the informants’ answers to seek new information and angles on the issue at hand. The methods used are described further in the individual papers. Conducting interviews is an academic practice, but it is also a locally determined practice. As Alvesson notes (1999), “the interplay between two people with their genders, ages, professional backgrounds, personal appearances, ethnicities, put heavy imprints on the accounts produced” (pp. 6). As Kavle and Brinkmann (2009) draw attention to, interviewing is also “influenced by, and itself influences, the larger social situation in which it takes place” (pp. 309). In my research I have interviewed a number of actors (e.g. policy experts, government officials, local officials, politicians, NGO officials, resource users and researchers). Some of these operate at the international level, while others operate at the national level or at specific local sites. Certainly, the interplay of identities has influenced the process of conducting interviews and consequently knowledge production. Being a young, foreign and female doctoral student interviewing, for example, government officials in Muslim Jakarta, expatriates in Bangkok, tourism operators in Wakatobi, or climate change negotiators from Australia, situates research in a relational field. On several occasions I have experienced situations where my gender and age facilitated the research process by disarming my informants in the sense that my identity posed little threat them, which

� �

often lead to informal, personal accounts. In other situations, such as when applying for an Indonesian research permit, I have faced various intimidations by government officials and the police. I also experienced difficulty in interviewing senior policy experts, which often entailed considerable aspects of politically motivated behavior and a tendency to portray themselves in beneficial terms (Alvesson 1999). This illustrates the strategic interactions involved in interview contexts and the challenge of reaching beyond political manifestations while at the same time allowing for a certain degree of political speech, not least as such speech is central to cultural production and sense making. In sum, I have experienced that this kind of ‘identity work’ situates research in a trial-and-error process in terms of developing my own interview skills. As pointed out by Hammersley and Gomm (1997), research biases are sometimes produced once a particular interpretation, explanation or theory has been deployed to interpret data in terms of it. From this observation follows that the researcher may be inclined to search for data that falls in line with and confirm it, or even shape the research process in ways that lead to erroneous conclusions. Building on four different analytical frameworks, this PhD thesis has explored the research subject from different analytical angles, diminishing the risk for a bias toward a particular kind of conclusion. It does not claim to present an objective truth about the investigated processes and relations, rather it acknowledges that knowledge is always, to some degree, co-constructed. Furthermore, to critically analyze the used frameworks and the empirical material and was central undertaking, and, in the view of this thesis, an important undertaking to improve understanding of transformative change processes and how resilience research can approach this area of research in the future. The interview sample for Paper 1 and Paper 2 is slightly biased toward a higher representation of males. Meanwhile, at the local level in the Wakatobi the sample has a strong bias toward male informants (Paper 3). This bias reflects the fact that very few women occupy senior positions within the Wakatobi district government. Likewise, there is a lack of female employees in local NGO offices. Paper 4 is intentionally written from the perspective of a person holding a senior managerial position in the Wakatobi district government, but strives to reflect the larger context in which this person operates. The account should therefore be seen as subjective. As research was conducted in two of the six Coral Triangle countries (Indonesia and the Philippines), and, due to the location of many donors, in Thailand, the research is biased toward perspectives of the CTI found in these three countries.

� ��

SUMMARY OF PAPERS I: Institutional entrepreneurs, global networks, and the emergence of international institutions for ecosystem-based management: The Coral Triangle Initiative This study analyzed institutional change through an investigation of the role of institutional entrepreneurs in the development of the CTI. It analyzed how institutional entrepreneurs develop strategies to overcome barriers to change and navigate opportunity contexts to mobilize support for new marine governance and management institutions. The study builds on a series of qualitative interviews. The paper demonstrates that the CTI was initially developed in a shadow network of institutional entrepreneurs who belonged to different organizations, primarily conservation oriented NGOs with network ties to the donor community and to influential, senior government officials. Establishing network ties with high-level political leadership was important to legitimize and support consumption of divergent ideas and to shift the CTI planning process from being an informal activity to a formal process that could be better integrated into government structures. Linked to this, the institutional entrepreneurs identified to what ongoing government processes of environmental policy making the CTI could be related to. In leverage support for the CTI they drew on previous experiences of bringing governments together to work on conservation. These previous examples of cooperation between NGOs and governments were important to build trust and a shared vision. The institutional entrepreneurs also facilitated interaction between central stakeholders by supporting the development of new governance mechanisms wherein the CTI could be deliberated. For example, the design of the ‘Senior Official Meetings’, which is a forum for the six countries, NGOs and donors to convene, structure the CTI planning process, and negotiate new policy. The institutional entrepreneurs used the ecosystem approach to visualize the interconnectedness of social and ecological systems and to frame sense making. For example, they made the issue of declining ecosystem services relevant to political leaders by linking it to regional stability and food security, as well as by linking the CTI to parallel, international processes of environmental policy making. Understanding the interplay between institutional entrepreneurship, informal social networks, political priorities and ecosystem dynamics is key to understanding the dynamics of large-scale governance transformations. Additionally, understanding about timing –– the ability to create the right links at the right time around issues of high political priority –– should also not be underestimated. As shown by this thesis, and other research (Westley et al. 2013, Olsson et al. 2008, Olsson et al. 2006), such knowledge can help to identify mechanisms behind the capacity of change-makers to self-organize in relation to new challenges, create windows of opportunity, and scale up new ideas. With that said, this thesis suggests that institutional entrepreneurship may raise critical questions about legitimacy, accountability and ownership of change processes. In the Coral Triangle, there is a risk institutional entrepreneurship leads to increasing reliance on external capital and human resources, rather than improved institutional capacity to deal with interacting environmental problems. The question of legitimacy is a central question in Paper 2 (described below), which focuses on the first phase of implementing the CTI. While Paper 1 focuses on analyzing the role of influential individuals and the networks through which these persons operate, Paper 2 focuses on relations between the central actors participating in the CTI (i.e. governments, NGOs, donors and scientists) and their capacity to meaningfully engage in collaborative processes. The

� ��

perspective in Paper 2 complements the analysis of individual agency by showing that structure and resources put heavy imprints on transformation. II: Mediating science and action across multiple boundaries in the Coral Triangle The paper studied the process of boundary work as represented by the CTI, i.e. the process by which actors within science, policy and civil society interact and co-produce knowledge for governance. Qualitative interviews with representatives of the different organizations involved in the CTI form the basis of the study. Boundary work among heterogeneous actors in the developing world is not well understood, so this paper focuses on improving the concept of boundary work so as to increase its usefulness for understanding complex, multi-level and multi-actor governance initiatives. This is important considering that little is known about how resource inequalities affect both the process and outcomes of governance. The paper also investigated how boundary work may have an impact on stakeholders’ perceptions of policy outcomes, that is, whether outcomes are perceived as salient, credible, and legitimate. Results show that boundary work is challenged by resource inequalities among the Coral Triangle countries, on the one spectrum, and among the six countries and NGOs, on the other, resulting in limited knowledge diversity, blurred boundaries between science and politics, and misaligned temporal scales. The study illustrates that resource inequalities have led to a disproportionate influence of NGOs on the CTI. The limited capacity of government officials to deconstruct policy (i.e. the unpacking of policy to reveal embedded norms and tacit values), and to share domain and country specific knowledge is a major barrier to the co-production of knowledge and sustainability. This has skewed the focus of the process toward biodiversity conservation (at the expense of food security which is the overarching goal of the CTI), and created a lack of diversity in the knowledge and the viewpoints reflected in CTI. The study also suggests that the lack of equally powerful counterparts to the NGOs risks depraving the credibility and the salience of the knowledge brought into the CTI. The study concludes that boundary work has an important temporal dimension that has often been neglected in the literature (e.g. that different actors involved in boundary work operate on different time scales, which may constrain collaboration and learning), and that literature on boundary work must provide a conceptual guide to understand tradeoffs arising as a result of stakeholders’ various strategies to engage in boundary work. In paper 3 the question of resources and actors’ capacity to engage in and influence transformative change is further elaborated, yet from another perspective, namely, their capacity to engage in value articulation. The paper focuses on actors’ capacity to influence governance by articulating narratives about ecosystems. Such narratives assign characteristics, meanings, and value to species and ecosystems and are central to understand why policies on the environment take particular shapes. While Paper 1 and Paper 2 analyzed international and national activities associated with the introduction and implementation of the CTI, Paper 3 takes a local perspective analyzing marine governance in a priority site for the CTI.

� ��

�The Mirror Never Lies, film recording in the Wakatobi National Park. Photo by the author.

III: Whose threat counts? Conservation narratives in the Wakatobi National Park The paper studied the impact of conservation narratives on coastal and marine governance in the Wakatobi National Park (WNP) in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conservation narratives describe which aspects of the marine environment should be made resilient to particular threats and with the help of particular management practices. Indeed what is considered as an environmental problem is a matter of interpretation and boundary drawing. More specifically, the study investigated narratives of central actors operating in the WNP to illustrate how narratives influence and are influenced by critical aspects of governance such as resource allocation, day-to-day management actions (e.g. surveillance and patrolling), stakeholder relations (including power dynamics and identity), and long-term ecological monitoring. The study draws on empirical fieldwork in the WNP. The results indicate that key narratives of central actors within the WNP are centered upon the high marine biodiversity and associated livelihood activities. The establishment of the WNP is often described as a success story of support from local communities where the main threat comes from illegal fishing by outsiders, thus creating an ‘us versus them’ approach to management. Defining and redefining identity seems to be a central element in these narratives, and important in terms of attracting supporters. However, the ‘us versus them’ narrative risks deflecting blame for marine degradation on the park’s ethnic minority because of their outsider status and disadvantaged political position, which restricts their ability to articulate alternative narratives. The results show that the narratives are profoundly entwined with critical aspects of governance such as resource allocation, management practices and stakeholder relations, as well as broader initiatives to develop the tourism sector. The dominant narratives also influence ecological processes by favoring the protection of some species, ecosystems and sites. In the

� ��

WNP, narratives stressing the need for coral reef conservation may impact on other ecosystems such as sea grass meadows. Sea grass meadows are not targeted under the current zonation plan, but these habitats act as important fish nurseries, meaning that unsustainable fishing in sea grass meadows may severely impact on adjacent coral reefs due to processes of ecological connectivity. The dominant narratives, which focus on coral reef fisheries, may also neglect other critical interactions in social-ecological systems such as the interaction between food security and pelagic fisheries. Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of better protecting the national park, governance of the WNP is uncoordinated among key stakeholders (e.g. fishermen, government, NGOs, researchers and tourist operators) and sometimes poorly adapted to local institutions and marine system dynamics. The paper concludes that narratives about ecosystems provide an entry point for researchers to make sense of how natural resource management operates, in particular its way of asserting itself as being logical and well-founded. As narratives may have very different policy and governance implications, those that attain precedence have direct effects on human wellbeing, equity, and ecosystem resilience. For example, the narrative describing the Bajau (i.e. an ethic minority group in the WNP) as ‘outsiders’ may downplay illegal activity by people of the dominant ethnic group and stigmatize the less powerful Bajau community. By analyzing narratives researchers may reveal controversial problems inherent in governance and explore how such conditions can be reworked to improve governance outcomes. Paper 4 has in common with Paper 3 that it focuses on marine governance in the Wakatobi, but analytically it builds on Paper 1. While Paper 1 investigated the activities of institutional entrepreneurs operating at primarily the international level, the proceeding paper aimed to analyze cross-level interaction and interplay between the local, national and international level to improve understanding of agency and institutional change. It improves the understanding of institutional change by paying more attention to the context in which institutional entrepreneurs can become innovative. Finally, it picks up the discussion on institutional capture (e.g. when dominant external actors take a leading role in defining new institutions on the basis of self-interest), a main feature of Paper 2 and Paper 3. IV: Improving stewardship of marine resources: Linking strategy to opportunity While the need for institutional change in the context of marine governance is increasing, understanding of how individuals at the local level can pursue different strategies to introduce ecosystem stewardship is lacking. Drawing on the concept of institutional entrepreneurship, the paper responds to this gap by investigating the interplay between the institutional entrepreneurs’ strategies and the broader system dynamics that shape the context in which they are working. This involves understanding how opportunities at higher institutional levels can be captured and scaled down by institutional entrepreneurs, as well as how local initiatives can be scaled up. The paper also analyzed the impacts of this interplay to improve our understanding of how institutional entrepreneurship affects local marine governance. The study was carried out in the Wakatobi in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, and based on empirical data generated through qualitative interviews. In particular, the study traced the strategies and activities of an institutional entrepreneur to unravel the larger context within which this person operates. The study shows that institutional change and the development of a new ecosystem stewardship may be accelerated by creating links between different social spheres, such as between natural

� ��

�

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Creating a new ecosystem stewardship requires radical change in present institutional frameworks that govern how we think about, interpret and use marine ecosystems (Ostrom 1990). This thesis has explored the dynamics of such change processes at an international and local level and examines how actors can initiate, catalyze and navigate transformative change across multiple levels. Here I present and discuss seven key insights generated from the four articles included this thesis. These insights serve to synthesize the results of each paper and aim to contribute to the discussion on institutional transformative change in marine governance, especially with reference to the developing world for which the CTI may work as a ‘critical case’ (Flyvbjerg 2006). Insight 1: Institutional entrepreneurs display grit, rise to challenges and work systematically The thesis supports evidence that networks of institutional entrepreneurs, and the skills they possess, play an important role in introducing and driving transformative change (Westley et al. 2011, Westley et al. 2013). Overall, it shows that institutional entrepreneurs work at the interface between different social spheres and that transformability arises from their ability to bring these spheres into contact (Paper 1 & 4). The thesis further shows that institutional entrepreneurs work in alignment with other credible individuals and organizations, fulfilling complementary roles in the institutional work required, and with an interest in enabling the same vision, but not necessarily for the same reason (Paper 1, 3 & 4) (Wijen and Ansari 2007). In developing the CTI some individuals and organizations were incentivized by anthropocentric values (e.g. the need for political stability to avoid social unrest), whereas others were driven by more biocentric or ecocentric values (e.g. the need to protect certain species or ecological processes) (Paper 1 & 2). This insight is important to take into account as it may affect the long-term impact of institutional entrepreneurship and its relationship to the broader context in which it is situated. For example, actors’ different rationale behind implementing networks of MPAs (e.g. the wish to promote tourism, protect certain species or enhance food security) may influence their view on, for example, preferred design principles and compliance mechanisms. From this observation follows that actors will have different perceptions about the legitimacy, salience and credibility of MPAs once implemented (a question elaborated in Paper 2). Moreover, the thesis suggests that institutional entrepreneurs demonstrate grit and perseverance in continuously confronting and interrogating accepted practices and beliefs that are taken for granted by the people they work with. Some of the interviewed institutional entrepreneurs testify that they have been denigrated and their efforts thwarted more than once (Paper 4). Significant grit is innate to the struggle of presenting new, challenging ideas to decision makers, CEOs or community leaders. This is why timing and in-depth knowledge about key actors’ preferences and priorities is critical for institutional entrepreneurship (Suddaby and Greenwood 2005). To achieve a common vision and spur collective action, institutional entrepreneurs have to communicate how their ideas contribute to value creation for other people, organizations and businesses (Paper 1 & 4). Or as Maguire and colleagues (2004) describe it: “crafting their project to fit the conditions of the field itself” (pp. 658). This is sometimes referred to as cross-pollination or issue-linkage (Haas 1980, Dorado 2005, Westley et al. 2013). This is important in order to provide incentives to organizations and individuals whose interests may lie in not cooperating and to overcome collective inaction (Wijen and Ansari 2007). One example is the strategy of Adhi––the institutional entrepreneur followed in Paper 4––to form the ‘School for Marine Conservation’. Its establishment was to offer a way to address the lack of trained people to

�

manage Indonesia’s expanding MPA estate, an increasing problem for the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and the Ministry of Forestry (the two ministries overseeing the management of marine reserves and national parks in Indonesia). Through this initiative, the district government could form a long-term, strategic relationship with the central government and create an impetus for a new ecosystem stewardship in the Wakatobi National Park. At the international level, the creation of the CTI points to the importance of issue-linkage between national security, regional stability and marine resource use (Paper 1) (see also Österblom et al. 2011, Hamblin 2013). From this observation follows that, beside the individual capacity of institutional entrepreneurs, the context in which they operate play a critical role in transformation (as reflected in some of the below insights)�� While previous research has emphasized that institutional entrepreneurs are visionary (Olsson et al. 2004, Olsson et al. 2007, Biggs et al. 2010), few studies have emphasized that institutional entrepreneurship requires sustained effort over time. Transformative change necessitates systematic effort over several years before collective action can be initiated (Paper 1 & 4). Insight 2: Institutional entrepreneurs are sometimes uncritical toward their own change projects An aspect that has received little attention in the literature is that institutional entrepreneurs, to some extent, are driven by self-promotional goals (like other career oriented people). In resilience research, studies of institutional entrepreneurship have focused on its positive contribution to ecosystem governance and rarely applied a critical lens to the phenomenon. This thesis indicates that institutional entrepreneurs are driven by pragmatism and are often uncritical toward the effect of their own change projects (Paper 2 & 3). While pragmatism is perhaps necessary to gain momentum and drive transformation it sometimes comes at the expense of legitimacy, credibility and salience (Paper 2). The thesis shows several examples of the less positive aspects of these actors’ work, for example that their influence is often an effect of highly unequal differences in power, but also that their influence (re)produces truths about people and the ecology that unavoidably also simplifies and misrepresents complex social-ecological interactions and relations. These actors also show an interest in orchestrating science to support particular courses of action (e.g. biodiversity conservation) and widely distribute such knowledge (Lidskog 2014). From this follows that scientific advice is not always developed independently from policy. Periodic assessments and reflexive governance emphasizing uncertainty, ambivalence about multiple goals, and distributed power (Voss et al. 2006) is therefore critical in any governance endeavor, especially in terms of learning about the conditions of its future existence and needs�� Insight 3: Behind-the-scene organizing is often a precondition for the initiation of transformative change. Shifting the process from an informal to a formal track is a major challenge The thesis shows that transformative change, especially at the international level among states, but also at the local level, is often introduced behind-the-scenes by informal networks. Secrecy serves as a basis for cooperation between, for example, government officials and NGOs, and allows for bold ideas to develop in a safe space until the right actors have been mobilized and the process has gained initial momentum (Ahrne and Brunsson 2011). An initial challenge for people involved in such shadow networks is to recast this informal process into a formal process where ideas about transformative change can be deliberated among a broader set of stakeholders and can become institutionalized. For the CTI, the shift into a formal structure was made possible by the design of a new set of governance mechanisms through which the process could continue to evolve (Paper 1). Informal networks continued to play an important role even after this shift, especially in terms of behind-the-scene organizing the transformation process in-between formal

� �

meetings (Paper 2). The importance of informal social networks has been emphasized in many studies on natural resource management and resilience (Ernstson 2008, Crona et al. 2011). However, informal social networking may come at the cost of legitimacy. Many actors in the CTI complained about the lack of transparency and found that it was very difficult to scrutinize the CTI planning process, and that informal social networking sometimes preclude open deliberation (Paper 2). This suggests that transparency is a tension point (among others) in change processes. From this is follows that transformative change will have to involve a balancing act between approaches that enable new ideas to develop in a safe space, on the one hand, and approaches that radically increase the openness of organizational process, on the other. Insight 4: A strong and compelling narrative is essential to successfully introducing and driving transformative change Before institutional entrepreneurs in informal networks can introduce transformative ideas, they will have to develop a strong narrative through which the ecosystem of interest is assigned meaning and value (Paper 3). This type of framing is a crucial bridging tactic to induce collective action among both allies and adversaries, as well as to spread knowledge about an issue to make it more familiar (Wijen and Ansari 2007). By using a narrative actors reiterate the use of certain concepts, metaphors, and principles, which often renders the narrative a self-reinforcing nature (Douglas 1986). The importance of visioning and sense making has been emphasized in previous work on natural resource management and resilience. For example, Ostrom (2005) argues that collective action is dependent on a common understanding of the problem and how it can be solved. This thesis shows that the ability to articulate and distribute a narrative, which tells a compelling story about the broader system (including its resource users), rather than just making sense of ecological knowledge or formulating visions is critical (Ernstson and Sörlin 2009, Ernstson 2012). According to Lakoff (in Crompton 2010), narratives form “mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality – and sometimes to create what we take to be reality. [T]hey structure our ideas and concepts, they shape how we reason, and they even impact how we perceive and how we act” (pp. 11, see also Bourdieu 1992). In this sense narratives may play an important role in shifting from paradigms that legitimize unsustainable resource use. This thesis contains several examples of how narratives fundamentally contribute to new marine resource management (for better or worse) by defining what types of knowledge count, steering conservation activities toward certain goals, and assigning people new identities. One example is the narrative about the need for a network of MPAs to ensure a safe future for the Coral Triangle’s inhabitants, a narrative articulated at the international level (as exemplified in the CTI Regional Plan of Action) and the local level in the Wakatobi National Park. This is an example of a narrative which has achieved to enroll large numbers of supporters and generated a diffusion process favoring collective action. As argued by Wijen and Ansari (2007), “collective action can only be successful when institutional entrepreneurs are able to enroll a large majority of actors through the process of ‘intréssement’ or alliance building (pp. 1085). Furthermore, the articulation of success stories seems to be a common strategy among NGOs to mobilize recognition for a certain narrative (Paper 3). In this sense, success stories are key components of a narrative and serve an important marketing function (Paper 1 & 4). However, drawing on Mosse (2004) there is a risk that narratives take on their own lives and impact transformation in unexpected ways, as well as the risk that the narratives are written by single actors. This is especially problematic when, as the ‘illegal-fisher-narrative’ and the representation of the Bajau in ‘The Mirror Never Lies’ illustrate (Paper 3 & 4), promotes aspects of essentialism, which is why the use of narratives may raise profound ethical issues (Crompton 2010). For example, the representation of the Bajau as inherently different from people living on the land (who hold the political power) could hinder them from contributing important ecological

� �

knowledge to the transformation process and become engaged in governance. Another example is the narrative about the ‘illegal fisher’ in the Wakatobi (Paper 3). In the WNP illegal fishing is articulated as a matter of blast and cyanide fishing and associated with ’outsiders’ from elsewhere who come to the WNP to fish. Yet, these narratives are often being conflated so that anyone from ‘outside’ is an illegal fisher, but the Indonesian constitution allows small-scale fishermen to freely fish anywhere in national waters (Gunawan and Visser 2012). The narrative of the ‘illegal fisher’ forges a strong ‘us versus them’ relation between people within and outside the WNP. From this it follows that any regulation of fishing practices should concentrate on regulating the activity of ‘outsiders’. The narrative therefore undermines efforts to account for system dynamics and multiple agencies, for example the need to manage endogenous drivers of marine decline. Insight 5: Power dynamics are constantly at play in transformation Transformative change cannot be studied without taking into account how power affects the process in which transformative change is introduced, deliberated, and implemented. In this thesis, power is understood as a relational quality, which requires at least two types of actors (e.g. those who govern and those who are governed), is obtained through access to various resources and tactics, and continuously in need of re-articulation (Rutherford 2007). As emphasized by Crona and Bodin (2010), discussions of power have been remarkably absent in resilience research. To improve understanding of transformative change, it is critical to engage more with this issue (Ernstson et al. 2008, Hornborg 2009, Crona and Bodin 2010). This thesis illustrates some of the ways in which power and resource asymmetries influence transformation processes toward new types of ecosystem governance. Most notably the papers show that power is a double-edged sword in that it both enables efficient transformation and steers it in directions that are not always publically agreed upon (Paper 1-4). In particular, differences in resources influence the credibility (i.e. perceptions about what constitutes accurate knowledge), legitimacy (i.e. perceptions about procedural fairness) and salience (i.e. perceptions about the relevance of information and actions) of change projects (Paper 2). For example, a lack of resources such as human resources, language skills, and organizational capacity may prevent actors from evaluating central concepts and assumptions and mobilizing alternative understandings (Paper 2). This is important as failure to engage with the content (through contestation and deliberation) of the CTI risks neglecting the fact that its content may not be relevant to specific national contexts and that the assumptions behind scientific evaluations may not hold equally across the six nations. Communication technology can be considered one of the many power resources that actors have access to. The opportunity to speak on behalf of the marine environment and mobilize collective action not only depends on people’s positions within networks and organizations (Busch 1997, Battilana 2006), but also their technology use. Galaz and colleagues (2010) demonstrate the clear relationship between communication technology and transformative change. Moreover, Latour (1986) argues that communication technologies, infrastructure and monitoring devises are often necessary to establish and strengthen social relations. The global information society and social media offers new ways of communicating environmental challenges and solutions, pushing the sustainability agenda, and mobilizing support for ecosystem stewardship. As the CTI is designed to govern an area that stretches over 5.7 million km² technologies are fundamental to enable knowledge exchange and collective action. This thesis shows that transformative change is mobilized by a series of emails and conference calls, social medias, photography, and film (Paper 1-4). The rapid advance of communication technology offers new ways of communicating environmental challenges and solutions, driving the sustainability agenda, and mobilizing energy for a new ecosystem stewardship. Access to communication technologies is unequally distributed

� �

among the Coral Triangle countries (Paper 2). Countries in the Southeast Asian part of the Coral Triangle enjoy greater access than in the Pacific part. This creates an information and communication deficit among key stakeholders in the Pacific, which heavily impacts on their ability to engage in the CTI (Paper 2). Moreover, in contrast to government offices, communication technologies are fully integrated into the operations of NGOs and donors, which strengthen their capacity to drive the CTI process. Yet, the co-production of the movie ‘The Mirror Never Lies’ between WWF and Wakatobi Regency is an example of a new way of interacting with stakeholders, communicating ecological knowledge and promoting ecosystem stewardship (Paper 3, 4). While increased exposure to information may raise decision makers’ and resource users’ political awareness and help them to examine values and actions, they are facing a new dilemma of being overwhelmed by too much information, not knowing which is credible and reliable. The dilemma of representation is also an issue, as skewed representation of people within social medias and film, may invoke a backlash against transformative change (Paper 3). For example, the description of the Bajau as an icon of a disappearing, exotic lifestyle (which is often equated with backwardness) instead of true political actors may impede the kind of multi-stakeholder collaboration needed to transform behaviors and marine resource governance. Focusing on these three aspects of organizational and institutional change (i.e. credibility, legitimacy and salience) provides a practical way of analyzing power, and aids in the identification of concrete actions for reworking undesirable management outcomes and process designs. Such analysis is of particular importance for resilience research that has often focused on factors and conditions that enable transformative change rather addressing how the abuse of power and asymmetrical stakeholder relations can contribute to loss of resilience. For example, this thesis shows that institutional entrepreneurship, besides its innovative and transformative capacity, involves aspects that could potentially hold off social changes. This may be so because institutional entrepreneurs often know each other beforehand and because they need to embed (or interlock) their ideas with existing interests and projects of others. This means that institutional entrepreneurship may involve forces that are transformative as well as forces that are conservative, and that the social capital of institutional entrepreneurs may also form a source that impedes transformation (Woolcock 1998). Building on the previous discussion about narratives, the thesis also shows how simple or uncritical narratives and interpretations of complex social-ecological systems are produced from power relations (Flyvbjerg 1998). For this follows that we need to analyze power relations if we want to know how these narratives come into existence and how they can be changed toward better management and governance outcomes. Looking at actors’ differential access to resources is also important considering that implementing any change, particularly divergent change, is likely to be costly (Misangyi et al. 2008). Insight 6: The capacity to drive transformative change reflects institutional entrepreneurs’ position in social networks Transformability is intimately linked to the capacity to organize existing ideas and change-makers, not only within organizations, but also outside of and between organizations. This thesis indicates that institutional entrepreneurs’ position in social networks (centralized or connecting separate networks) determines how influential one is and how well one can transform institutions (Battilana et al. 2009). In the context of this thesis, NGO’s seem to have these latter qualities. This is shown in the work of NGOs to convene informal meetings in-between formal meetings (Paper 1), enabling communication by acting as both messenger and interpreter (Paper 2), attribute certain identities to groups such as ‘the illegal fisher’ (Paper 3), and promote certain actions such as MPA management (Paper 4). In doing so, NGOs have introduced and catalyzed transformative change within the Coral Triangle countries. It also seems that NGOs are incubators of institutional entrepreneurs (Paper 1, 2, 4). This could be because NGOs are often

� �

more flexible and have more participatory organizational structures than, for example, governments in the Coral Triangle. They generally also have higher organizational capacity and access to various resources. Adhi – the institutional entrepreneur followed in Paper 4 – had a history of working in a local environmental NGO, and certainly brought a spirit of flexibility and innovation with him into the district government of Wakatobi. Ahrne and colleagues (2007) have presented several examples of NGOs that have few traditional power resources, such as economic capital, yet have been successful in getting other actors to adopt their policy objectives. In the Coral Triangle the NGOs’ capacity to do so is linked to: 1) Their decentralized organizational structure with national and field offices in the Coral Triangle countries creating platforms for action (except in Timor-Leste); 2) Their network ties to influential donors and high-level government officials (occasionally enabled through kinship such as in the Philippines where the daughter of President Arroyo works as a policy officer for WWF); 3) Funding from international donors to operate CTI activities; and 4) Their ability to transfer knowledge and opinions to decision makers at the national level, who often have very limited knowledge exchange with other experts and scientists. These qualities allowed the NGOs to bridge diverse stakeholders, disseminate both facts and values, and access dispersed sets of resources (DiMaggio et al. 2004). Crona and Bodin (2010) found similar factors when investigating links between informal power structures, knowledge sharing, and consensus building in small-scale fisheries in Kenya. Their study showed that individuals with central positions in knowledge networks are often instrumental in determining which knowledge and interpretation of ecological signals are given priority. Insight 7: Emotion is an important but neglected aspect of transformative change Scholars such as Westley (1991) have emphasized that emotional aspects are a neglected aspect of our understanding of organizational life. The fact that emotion can play a role in transformation therefore comes as no surprise. Institutional entrepreneurs who were interviewed for this thesis felt that the desire to change and care for the natural world is tightly linked to our emotions and that successful strategies speak to people’s emotions (Paper 4). In the WNP, addressing emotional aspects of marine governance was seen as particularly helpful given that the scientific jargon and arguments of conservation-based organizations often had little logical resonance among local communities. For example, the local government of Wakatobi often used the metaphor of a ‘house’ when explaining the rationale behind marine spatial planning. In communicating with the public, the government asked what would happen if married couples had to share room with other family members. The reasoning being that married couples need to have their own room to make love, and that the same principle applies to fish. That is, without safe sites for fish spawning there will not be any future fish stocks. According to the government, such metaphors were often met with laughter and played an important role in mobilizing understanding for marine spatial planning. Emotional aspects are rarely covered in the resilience literature on transformative change. Yet, there is increasing evidence that facts play only a partial role in shaping people’s judgment while emotion is often more influential (Crompton 2010). Wijen and Ansari (2007) writes that institutional entrepreneurship, especially at the international level, is more likely to become effective when invoking a sense of altruism and a feeling that this is the right thing to do. Lack of spaces where people can express strong emotions and solve conflicts associated with natural resource politics may erode support for transformative change (Christie 2004, Atkisson 2011). In the WNP, the lack of such spaces presents a key dilemma. Resilience research has a lot to gain by improving our understanding of the ways in which emotional aspects come to play in ecosystem governance and transformation.

� �

REFERENCE LIST Acciaioli, G. 2001. ‘Archipelagic culture’ as an exclusionary government discourse in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 2(1): 1–23. Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., Tamm-Hallström, K. 2007. Organizing Organizations. Organization 14: 619. Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N. 2011. Organization outside organizations: the significance of partial organization. Organization 18(1): 83-104. Alvesson, M. 1999. Beyond Now-Positivists, Romantics and Localists – A reflexive Approach to Interviews in Organizational Research. Institute of Economic Research Working Paper Series, 1999/3, Lund University. AtKisson, A. 2011. The sustainability Transformation. How to Accelerate Positive Change in Challenging Times. Erathscan: UK. Babcock, R.C., Shears, N.T., Alcala, A.T., Barret, N.S., Edgar, G.J. et al. Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. PNAS 107(43): 18256–18261. Battilana, J. 2006. Agency and Institutions: the enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization 13, 653. Battilana, J., Leca, B., Boxenbaum, E. 2009. How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1): 65–107. Bernard, H.R. 2006. Research Methods in anthropology. Qualitative and Quantitative approaches. AltaMira Press: USA. Bell J.D., Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., Nash, W.J., Keeble, G., Demmke, A., et al. 2009. Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Marine Policy 33, 64–76. Biggs, R., Westley, F.R., Carpenter, S.R. 2010. Navigating the back loop: fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society 15(2): 9. Busch, L., Juska, A. 1997 Beyond Political Economy: Actor Networks and the Globalization of Agriculture. Review of International Political Economy 4(4), 688–708. Bourdieu, P. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, UK. Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A. 2011. Reefs at risk revisited. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Chapin, III, F. S., S. R. Carpenter, G. P. Kofinas, C. Folke, N. Abel, W. C. Clark, P. Olsson, et al. 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(4): 241–249.

� �

Christie, P. 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. In Aquatic Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tools: American Fisheries Society Symposium 42; Shipley, J.B. (Ed). American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, USA, pp 155–164. Clark, W.C., Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N.M and McNie, E. 2011. Boundary Work for Sustainable Development: Natural Resource Management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). PNAS. Clifton, J. 2003. Prospects for co-management in Indonesia’s marine protected areas. Marine Policy 27(5): 389–395. Clifton, J. and C. Majors. 2012. Culture, conservation, and conflict: perspectives on marine protection among the Bajau of Southeast Asia. Society and Natural Resources 25(7): 716– 725. Christie, P. 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in southeast Asia. InAquatic Protected Areas as Fisheries Management Tools: American Fisheries Society Symposium 42; Shipley, J.B., Ed.; American Fisheries Society: Bethesda, USA; pp 155–164. Crompton, T. 2010. Common Cause. The Case for Working With or Cultural Values. WWF (The Worldwide Fund for Nature), UK. Crona, B., Bodin, Ö. 2010. Power asymmetries in small-scale fisheries: a barrier to governance transformability? Ecology and Society 15(4), 32. Crona, B., Prell, C., Ernstson, H., Reed, M., Hubacek, K. 2011. Network-related approaches and theories in resource management. In Social networks in natural resource governance; Bodin, Ö., Prell, C. (Eds). Cambridge University Press: UK. Crowder, L.B., Osherenko, G., Young, O. R., Airamé, S., Norse, E. A., Baron, N, Cay, J., et al. 2006. Resolving Mismatches in U.S Ocean Governance. Science 313, 4. CTI Secretariat. 2009. Regional Plan of Action. CTI Regional Secretariat, Jakarta, Indonesia. CTI-CFF (Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security). 2013. Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System Framework and Action Plan. United States Agency for International Development Coral Triangle Support Partnership and US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Cebu City, Philippines. CTI-CFF (Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Food Security). 2014. Four MPAs Named Flagship Sites of Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System. Coral Trinagle Currents May 2014. Accessed 2014/06/03. Available at: http://coraltriangleinitiative.org/news/four-mpas-named-flagship-sites-coral-triangle-marine-protected-area-system Davis, J. 2001. Paper Parks: Why They Happen, and What Can Be Done to Change Them International News and Analysis on Marine Protected Areas 2(11), 1–4. DiMaggio, P. 1988. Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Institutional patterns and organizations: culture and environment; L. Zuker., Ed. Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 3–22.

�

Douglas, M. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse University Press: NY, USA. Dorado, S. 2005. Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organizational Studies 26(3), 385–414. Eckert, R. 1979. The Enclosure of Ocean Resources: Economics and the Law of the Sea. Hoover Institution Press: Stanford, California. Emirbayer, M., Mische, A. 1998. What is agency? The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4): 962–1023. Enfors, E. 2013. Social–ecological traps and transformations in dryland agro-ecosystems: Using water system innovations to change the trajectory of development. Global Environmental Change 23:51–60. Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S., Elmqvist, T. 2008. Social movements and ecosystem services—the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecology and Society 13(2), 39. Ernstson, H., Sörlin, S. Weaving Protective Stories: Connective Practices to Articulate Holistic Values in the Stockholm National Urban Park. Environmental Planning A 41(6), 1460–1479. Ernstson, H. 2012. Re-translating nature in post-apartheid Cape Town: the material semiotics of people and plants at Bottom Road. In Actor-Network Theory for Development; Heeks, R (Ed.). University of Manchester Institute for Development Policy and Management Working Paper No. 4. pp 1–37. Ernstson, H. 2008. In Rhizomia: actors, networks, and resilience in urban landscapes. PhD Dissertation. Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Fairhead, J., Leach, M. 2003. Science, Society and Power: Environmental Knowledge and Policy in West Africa and the Caribbean, CUP: Cambridge, UK. Fernandes, L., Green, A., Tanzer, J., White, A., Alino, P.M., Jompa, J., Lokani, P., et al. 2012. Biophysical principles for designing resilient networks of marine protected areas to integrate fisheries, biodiversity and climate change objectives in the Coral Triangle. The Nature Conservancy for the Coral Triangle Support Partnership. Fidelman, P., et al., 2012. Governing large-scale marine commons: Contextual challenges in the Coral Triangle. Marine Policy 36(1), 42–53. Flower, K.R., Atkinson, S.R., Brainard, R., Courtney, C., Parker, B.A., Parks, J., Pomeroy, R., White, A. 2013. Toward ecosystem-based coastal area and fisheries management in the Coral Triangle: Integrated strategies and guidance. Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program: Jakarta, Indonesia. Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2): 219–245. Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. University of Chicago press: Chicago.

� �

Foale S., et al. 2013. Food security and the Coral Triangle Initiative. Marine Policy 38, 174–183. Folke, C., Chapin, S., Olsson, P. 2010. Transformation in Ecosystems Stewardship. In Stuart, C., Kofinas, G., and Folke, C. eds., Principles of Ecosystems Stewardship. Resilience-Based Natural Resource Management in a Changing World. USA: Springer. Galaz, V., Crona, B., Daw, T., Nyström, M., Bodin, Ö., Olsson, P. 2010. Can Web crawlers revolutionize ecological monitoring? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, 99–104. Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., Svedin, U., 2008, The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: Insights and emerging challenges. In Institutions and Environmental Change - Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers; O.R. Young, L. A. King, and H. Schröder (eds). The MIT Press: Cambridge, USA, pp. 147–182. Garud, R., Hardy, C., Maguire, S. 2007. Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: an introduction to the special issue. Organizational Studies 28, 957. Gelcich, S, T. P. Hughes, P. Olsson, C. Folke, O. Defeo, M. Fernández, S. Foale, L.H. Gunderson, C. Rodríguez-Sickert, M. Scheffer, R. Steneck , and J. C. Castilla. 2010. Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. PNAS, 107:16794-16799. Gillis, J. 2011. Filling the Blue Hole in Environmental History. In The future of environmental history. Needs and Opportunities; Coulter, K., Mauch, C. (Eds). Rachel Carson Institute: Munich, Germany. Grimsditch, G.D., Salm, R.V. 2006. Coral Reef Resilience and Resistance to Bleaching. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. Gunawan, B.I., Visser, L.E. 2012. Permeable boundaries: outsiders and access to fishing grounds in the Berau Marine Protected Area. Anthropological Forum 22(2): 187–207. Guston, D.H. 2001. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26(4), 399–408. Haas, E.B. 1980. Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes World Politics 32(3) 537–405. Hammersley, M., Gomm, R. 1997. Bias in Social Research. Sociological Research Online, 2, 1 Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/2.htm Hamblin, J. 2013. Arming mother nature. The birth of catastrophic environmentalism. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Hoegh-Guldberg, H., Veron, J.E.N., Green, A., Gomez, E. D., Lough, J., King, M., et al. 2009. The Coral Triangle and climate change: ecosystems, people and societies at risk. World Wild Fund: Brisbane, Australia. Hodgson, G. 2006. What are institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 1, 1–25. Holstein, J., Gubrium, J. 1995. The Active Interview. Qualitative Research Methods Series 37. Sage Publications: USA.

� �

Hornborg, A. 2009. Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world- system. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50(3–4), 237–262. Hughes, T., Bellwood, D.R., Folke, C., Steneck, R.S., Wilson, J. 2005. New paradigms for supporting the resilience in marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:380–386. Hughes, T.P. 2009. Confronting the global decline of coral reefs, In Loss of Coastal Ecosystems; Duarte, C. (Ed.); BBVA Foundation, Madrid, Spain, pp 140–166. Huitema, D. and Turnhout, E. 2009. Working at the science–policy interface: a discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics, 18:4, 576-594. IDS (Institute for Development Studies). 2006. Understanding policy processes. A review of IDS research agenda on the environment. Institute of Development Studies: Brighton. Juda, L., Hennessey, T. 2001. Governance Profiles and the Management of the Uses of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Development & International Law 32(1): 43–69. Jakarta Post, 2011a, Predicting Indonesia’s maritime boundaries. The Jakarta Post 12/22/2011. Jakarta Post, 2011b. Malaysia arrest 4 Indonesian fishermen. The Jakarta Post 10/07/2011. Jasanoff, S. 1987. Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2): 195–230. Kevin, J., Gaston, S., Jackson, F., Cantu ́-Salazar, L., Cruz Pin ̃o ́n, G. 2008. The Ecological Performance of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Ecological Evolution Systems 39, 93–113 Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C. 2008. Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy 33, 260–276. Kortschak, I. 2010. Invisible people. Poverty and empowerment in Indonesia. Jakarta: National Program for Community Development Kvale, S. Brinkmann, S. 2009. Interviews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage: US. Lakoff, G. 2009. The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to your Brain and its Politics. Penguin: London, UK. Latour, B. 1986. The powers of association. In Power, Action and Belief; Law, J. (Ed), Routledge: London, UK. Leach, M., I. Scoones, and A. Stirling. 2010. Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Global Environmental Change 20(3): 369–377. Lester S.E., et al. 2009. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: A global synthesis. MEPS 384, 33–46

� ��

Lichtenstein, B.B., Plowman, D.A. 2009. The leadership of emergence: a complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly. 20(4), 617–630. Lichtenstein, B.B., Uhl-Bien, M., Russ, M., Seers, A., Orton, J.D., Schreiber, C. 2006. Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Management Department Faculty Publications Paper 8. pp 2–12. Lidskog, R. 2014. Reprsenting and regulating nature: boundary organisations, portable representations, and science-policy interface. Environmental Politics, 2014. Maguire, S., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T. 2004. Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy Management Journal 47(5): 657–679. McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Calnan, J.M., MacNeil, M.A. 2007. Toward Pristine Biomass: Reef Fish Recovery in Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas in Kenya. Ecological Applications 17, 1055–1067. Metuzals, K., Baird, R., Pitcher, T., Sumaila, U. R., Ganapathiraju, P. 2010. One fish, two fish, IUU, and no fish: unreported fishing worldwide. In Handbook of marine fisheries conservation and management; Grafton, R.Q., Hilborn, R., Squires, D., Tait, M., Williams, M. J. (Eds), Oxford University Press: New York. pp. 165–181. Miller, C. 2001. Hybrid Management: Boundary organizations, Science Policy, and Environmental governance in the Climate Regime. Science, Technology & Human Values 26(4), 478–500. Misangyi, V.F., Weaver, G.R., Elms, H. 2008. Ending corruption: the interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review 33(3): 750–770. Mora, C., Andrèfouët, S., Costello, M.J., Kranenburg, C., Rollo, A., Veron, J., Gaston, K.J., Myers, R.A. 2006. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312, 1750–1751. Mosse, D. 2004. Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change 35(4): 639–671. Mumby, P.J., Steneck, R.S. 2008. Coral Reef Management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, 555–563. Mumby, P.J., Harborne, A.R. 2010. Marine Reserves Enhance the Recovery of Corals on Caribbean Reefs. PLoS ONE 5, e8657. Nellemann, C., Hain, S., and Alder, J. (Eds). 2008. Dead Water – Merging of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and infestations in the world’s fishing grounds. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, Norway.

� ��

Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Schultz, L. 2007. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society 12(1), 28. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hahn, T. 2004. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern Sweden. Ecology and Society 9(4), 2. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., Holling, C.S. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1):18. Olsson, P., C. Folke, and T. P. Hughes. 2008. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105:9489–9494. Orbach, M. 2002. Beyond the freedom of the seas. Ocean policy for the third millennium. Presentation for the Fourth Annual Roger Revelle Lecture, National Academy of Science, USA. Osborn, R.N., Hunt, J.G., Jauch, L.R. 2002. Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797–837. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press: Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Pandolfi, J.M., Connolly, S.R., Marshall, D.J., Cohen, A.L. 2011. Projecting Coral Reef Futures Under Global Warming and Ocean Acidification. Science 333, 418. Parker, J., Crona, B. 2012. On Being All Things to All People: Boundary Organizations & the Contemporary Research University. Research Policy. Social Studies of Science 42(2), 262–289. Rao, H., Morill, C., Zald, M. 2000. Power plays: how socal movements and collective action create new organizational forms. In R.I. Sutton., Staw, B.M. (Eds.); Research in organizational behavior, vol 22: 239–282. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Raymundo, L.J., Halford, A.R., Maypa, A.P., Kerr, A.M. 2009. Functionally Diverse Reef-Fish Communities Ameliorate Coral Disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 17067–17070. Robinson, C. J., Wallington, T. J. 2012. Boundary work: engaging knowledge systems in co-management of feral animals on Indigenous lands. Ecology and Society 17(2), 16. Rockström, J. Steffen, W. Noone. K, Persson A, et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472–475. Rutherford, S. 2007. Green Governmentality: insights and opportunities in the study of nature’s rule. Progress in Human Geography 31(3), 291–307.

� �

Schneider, A. 2009. Why do some Boundary Organizations Result in New Ideas and Practices and Other Only Meet Resistance? The American Review of Public Administration 39(1), 60–79. Sendzimir, J., C. P. Reij, and P. Magnuszewski. 2011. Rebuilding resilience in the Sahel: regreening in the Maradi and Zinder regions of Niger. Ecology and Society 16(3):1. Selig, E. R., Bruno, J.F. 2010. A Global Analysis of the Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Preventing Coral Loss. PLoS ONE 5, 7. Shackley, S., Wynne, B. 1996. Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority. Science, Technology, & Human Values 21(3), 275–302. Scheffer, M.; Westley, F. 2007. Local basis if rigidity: Locks in cells, Minds, and Society. Ecology & Society 12(2), 36. Suddaby, R.; Greenwood, R. 2005. Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly 50(1), 35–67. Sörlin, S. 1999. The articulation of territory: landscape and the constitution of regional and national identity. Norwegian Journal of Geography 53(2–3): 103–112. Uhl-Bien, M., Russ, M., McKelvey, B. 2007. Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. The Leadership Quarterly 18(4), 298–318. Veron, J.E.N. 1995. Corals in space and time: the biogeography and evolution of the Scleractinia. Cornell University Press: Ithaca, New York. Veron, J.E.N., L.M. Devantier, E. Turak, A.L. Green, S. Kininmonth. M. Stafford-Smith, and N. Peterson 2009. Delineating the Coral Triangle. Galaxea: Journal of Coral Reef Studies 11: 91–100. Voss, J-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R (Eds). 2006. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Walker, B. H., Gunderson, L. H., Kinzig, A. P., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., and Schultz, L. 2006. A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(1). Wallace, A.R. 1869. The Malay Archipelago. Macmillan: London. Werner, T.B., Allen, G.R. 1998. A rapid biodiversity assessment of the coral reefs of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 11, Conservation International, Washington, DC. Westley, F. 1991. Bob Geldof and Live Aid: The Affective Side of Global Social Innovation. Human Relation 44(10), 1011–1036. Westley, F. 2002. The devil in the dynamics: Adaptive management on the front lines. In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems; Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds). Island Press: Washington DC, pp. 333–360.

� ��

Westley, F.R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., Bodin, Ö. 2013. A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecolology Society 18(3), 27. Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., Thompson, J. et al. 2011. Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation. Ambio. 40(7), 762–780. Wjen, F., Ansari, S. 2007. Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: insights from regime theory. Organizational Studies 28(7): 1070–1100. Wilder, R., 1998. Listening to the Sea: The Politics of Improving Environmental Education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press Williams, M.J., Staples, D. 2010. Southeast Asian fisheries. In Handbook of marine fisheries conservation and management; Grafton, R.Q., Hilborn, R., Squires, D., Tait, M., Williams, M. J. (Eds), Oxford University Press: New York. pp 243-257. Woolcock, M. 1998. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society 27(2): 151–208. Young, O. 2002. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. USA: MIT PRESS. Young, O.R., 2008. Building regimes for socioecological systems. In The Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Principal Findings and Future Directions; Young, O.R., Schroeder, H. (Eds.), MIT Press: Boston, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 115–144. Österblom, H., Constable, A., Fukumi, S. 2011. Illegal fishing and the organized crime analogy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26(6), 261–262. � �

� ��

Appendix A: Interview templates Paper 1 1. Background information Location Date Name Title Gender Nationality 2. Thematic areas to be covered

• Main actors/organizations involved in the development of the CTI • The role of key individuals/organizations (who are they?) • Relational patterns of key actors • Visions for change • Key actors’ strategies • What characteristics/qualities make actors influential • Barriers to change • Links between key individuals, organizations and networks • Major drivers for change in the past and now • Enabling factors

Paper 2 1. Background information Location Date Name Title Gender Nationality 2. Thematic areas to be covered

• Key actors involved in negotiating the CTI • Contribution of key actors (How and with what do they contribute?) • Capacity of key actors • Perceptions of the CTI/Regional Plan of Action • Perceptions of multi-stakeholder collaboration • Perceptions of leadership • Perceptions of policy outcomes (relevance, trustworthiness) • Conflicts associated with the development/implementation of the CTI

� ��

Paper 3 1. Background information Location Date Name Title Gender Nationality 2. Thematic areas to be covered

• Describe present conservation strategies and management activities in the WNP • What actors are involved in management • Collaboration among different actor groups • Describe the park, its marine ecosystems • The status of marine resources • Threats to the park’s marine ecosystems • The effect of different threats • Preferred management strategies/interventions to deal with threat • Management conflicts

Paper 4 1. Background information Location Date Name Title Gender Nationality 2. Thematic areas to be covered

• Describe present conservation strategies/activities in the WNP • Impression of park management • Management barriers • Main actors involved in management/governance of the WNP • Relations between different actors • Impression of the present leadership • The role of key individuals (who are they?) • Visions for change • Key individuals’ strategies • Links between key individuals, organizations and networks • Major drivers for change in the past and now

� ��

• Opportunities for change • The role of regional conservation initiatives/actors

�