Social Capital and Implications at Lake Shkodra, Albania

147 Pages·2016·1.58 MB·English

by  Antonia Schraml

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Faculty of Life Sciences
AlbrechtDanielThaer-InstituteofAgriculturalandHorticulturalSciences
Control is Good, Trust is Better – Social Capital and
Implications at Lake Shkodra, Albania
M.Sc.ThesisintheStudyProgrammeIntegratedNaturalResourceManagement
submittedbyAntoniaSchraml
Berlin|July13,2016
1st supervisor Prof.Dr.RobertArlinghaus
Leibniz-InstituteofFreshwaterEcologyandInlandFisheries|
Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin
2nd supervisor Dr.CarstenMann
TechnischeUniversitätBerlin,CenterforTechnologyandSociety|
Humboldt-UniversitätzuBerlin
i
Abstract
Complexsocial-ecologicalsystemsarecharacterizedbyadiversityofinteractionsand
feedbacksamongtheelementsoftheecologicalandthesocialdimension. Inlandfisheries
represent such complex systems, where the reconciliation of interests between local
resourceuseandprotectionisakeyaspectofsustainability. Inordertoaccountforthe
uncertaintiesandnon-linearfeedbacksthatchallengethegovernanceofsocial-ecological
systems,flexibleandadaptiveco-managementsystemsprovideavaluableapproach. In
these management regimes, the devolution of responsibilities and the participation of
localresourceusersisofpivotalroleforachievingsocial,economicandecologicalsus-
tainabilitytargets. Thealignmentofthesocialandtheecologicaldimensionisassociated
withsomedegreeofcollectivemanagementorcooperationamongindividuals. Thecon-
figurationofsocialnetworks,relationsoftrustandtherules-in-use–attributeswhichare
includedintheconceptofsocialcapital–shapethesocialdimensioninthattheyinfluence
the actors’ ability to cooperate, provide incentives and motivations for compliance or
non-compliancewithregulationsandfacilitateknowledgeexchange. AtLakeShkodra,
abiodiversityhotspotinAlbania,informationaboutthesocialdimensionofthefishery
co-managementarescarceandparticularlylackanunderstandingofimplicationsarising
through the post-socialist context of the country. This knowledge gap was addressed
withaqualitativecasestudyapproach. 36semi-structuredinterviewswithactorsatthe
local,regionalandnationallevelacrossactorgroups,e.g. fishermen,stateauthoritiesand
environmentalorganizations,wereconductedduringfieldworkinAugustandSeptember
2015. The use of the Social-ecological Systems framework facilitated the structured
analysisofthreemicro-leveloutcomesoffishery: levelsofcompliance,thelikelihoodof
self-organizationandsocialfit. WiththeexceptionofthefishingcommunityinZogaj,
limitednetworksoftrustamongactorsandweakbonding,bridgingandlinkingtieswere
identified. Effectiveco-managementisfurtherinfluencedbycorruption,levelsofpartici-
pationandtheperceivedlegitimacyandtheexperiencesofactorsfromcommunisttimes.
The study highlighted the tight linkages and feedbacks among the elements of social
capitalandtheoutcomesassociatedwiththesocialdimensionoffishery. Investinginthe
establishmentoftrustfulrelationsthroughcommunicationandstakeholderparticipation
couldleverageadaptivecapacitiesoftheco-managementandpavethewayforlong-term
sustainability.
ii
Përmbledhje
Sistemet komplekse si peshkimi janë të karakterizuara nga një shumëllojshmëri e
ndërveprimeve sociale dhe ekologjike. Por këtu qëndrojnë në kundërshtim interesat e
përdoruesve të burimeve me interesat e atyre qe duan t‘i mbrojnë këto burime. Per t’i
kombinuarkëtotëfunditështëinevojshëmnjëmanaxhimfleksibëldheipershtatshëm.
Ne rastin e peshkimit në liqene dhe lumenj teoria e ndërveprimit kolektiv dhe hulum-
timi mbi aftesinë ripërteritëse të ekosistemeve e ka fokusin në sisteme manaxhimi të
decentralizuara,tëcilatparashikojnëndarjenepërgjegjësivendërmjetnivelitkombëtar,
rajonaldheatijlokal. Përfshirjaeaktorëvetendryshëmsidhebashkëpunimimestyre
mund të sigurojë një manaxhim të përshtatshem për resurset natyrore. Kushtet ndër
tëcilatmundësohetnebashkëpunimisuksesshëmjanëtëlidhurangushtëmeaspektet
ekologjikedhedimensioninsocialdhepërmbajnerrjetesociale,besimndërmjetaktoreve
po ashtu rregulla dhe norma, të cilat ndikojnë në sjelljen e aktorëve. Të gjitha këto
karakteristikaipërfshinkonzepti‚Kapitalisocial‘. NëliqenineShkodrës, nënjëpikë
tënxehtëbiodiversitetitënjërëndësiendërkombëtare,organizataepeshkimitmerrpër-
sipërmanaxhiminepeshkimitdhekonserviminetij. Megjithatëroliirrjeteve,besimi,
instutucionetekzistuesedheefektetetyrenëmanaxhimineliqenitteShkodrësderitani
janëpaktënjohura. Studimiimëposhtemkapërqellimtëzvogelojëhendekunedijeve
sidhetëhedhëdritëmbindikiminesfonditpost-socialistmbikapitalinsocialnelidhje
me peshkimin në liqen. Për këtë qëllim përdoret koncepti "social-ecological systems
framework"mendihmënesëcilitnëliqenineShkodrësanalizohenefektetngakapitali
social. Kyframework(kornize)mundësonndërveprimetëcilatcojnënëreagimemidis
të ndryshueshmes dhe efekteve. Baza e të dhënave, të cilat u siguruan në gusht dhe
shtatorte2015-esishin36intervistatemirëstrukturuarameaktoretënivelitlokal,rajonal
dhekombëtar. Përmespërdorimittëframeworkidentifikohenedhetrendikimetsociale:
zbatimi i rregullave, veteorganizimi dhe përshtatja sociale. Me përjashtim të fshatit të
peshkimitZogajkëtojanëndikuarngabesimiikufizuarndermjetaktorëvedhepjesërisht
ngalidhjetepaqëndrueshmemidistyrenëniveletendryshme. Ndërkohëqëpeshkatarët
biendakortpërrregulloretnëpergjithësi,ndikojnëkorrupsioni,mungesaellogaridhënies
dhe legjitimiteti negativisht në efektshmerinë e manaxhimit. Përvojat nga periudha e
komunizmitndikojnëakomanëpërceptiminepërdoruesvetëresurseve. Studiminjerrnë
pahrëndesinëedimensionitsocialnëmanaxhimineliqenittëShkodrësdhetregonse
komunikimiipërmirësuardhepjesëmarrjaeaktorëvemundtëjenënjëpikënisjepërtë
ndërtuarbesiminnevojshëmpërnëjbashkëpunimtëefektshëm.
iii
Acknowledgements
“If we let one another down, if we don’t give up our personal desires to the
common good, nothing, nothing on this barren world can save us. Human
solidarity is our only resource.”
U.K.LeGuininthenovel“TheDispossessed”(1974,p. 167)
IwouldliketothankProf. Dr. RobertArlinghausandDr. CarstenMannfirstfortheirinterest
in supervising the studyand second for their great support andvaluable feedback throughout
theprocess. Furthermore,IwouldliketothankTomaszPezoldfromIUCN,withoutwhom
thestudyinAlbaniawouldnothavebeenpossible. Iamdeeplythankfulforthesupporthe
providedfromthebeginningandespeciallythankhimforthechancetoparticipateinproject
meetingsinShkodra.
Special thanks also to the many people who provided priceless support and various contri-
butions to the thesis: the interview partners in Albania, the supportive fishermen and their
families,myinterpretersPaolaDashiandPaolaMarashi,DanielaGodoandtheINCAAlbania
team,MarieFujitaniandSophiaKochalski. Iamgratefulforthefinancialsupportprovidedby
theDAADPromosscholarship.
DuringmystudiesIlearnedtoseethe“overall”picture,whichsometimesbroughtmecloseto
despairregardingallthethingsthatsometimesseemsoutterlywronginthisworld. Discussing
thoseissues,tryingtofindsolutionsandtakingsmallstepstocontributetoshapingabetter
place I think is of great importance. I would like to thank everyone who strengthened my
abilityforthiswayofthinkinginendlessdiscussions,exchangedthoughtsandgreatmoments
ofinspiration.
iv
Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements iii
ListofFigures vi
ListofTables vii
ListofAbbreviations viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 FisheryandtheEnvironment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 GlobalandLocalChallenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 ResearchApproachandResearchQuestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 TheSocialElementofSocial-EcologicalSystems 7
2.1 CollectiveActionandFisheriesManagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.1 CharacteristicsofCommon-PoolResources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.2 TragediesandCollectiveActionTheories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3 FisheriesManagementandConservationAims . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2 SocialCapital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.1 DevelopmentandDefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.2 TrustandTrustworthiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.3 SocialNetworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2.4 Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.5 CollectiveActionandSocialCapital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.6 The“DarkSide”ofSocialCapital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 SocialCapitalinPost-SocialistCountries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4 TheSocial-EcologicalSystemsFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.4.2 N-tierVariablesandActionSituations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4.3 SocialCapitalwithintheSESFramework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3 MethodologicalApproach 34
3.1 CaseStudyDesignandPreliminaryStudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2 SESFrameworkAdaptationandApplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3 DataCollection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.1 LiteratureandDocumentReview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
v
3.3.2 StakeholderIdentificationandSelection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.3.3 QualitativeInterviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4 DataAnalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4 Social-EcologicalSystemLakeShkodra 52
4.1 Political,HistoricalandEconomicSetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2 CharacterizationoftheResourceSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3 FisheryManagementandNatureProtection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4 IntroducingtheActors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5 Analysisof(Social)Outcomes 62
5.1 Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.1.1 DescriptionofOutcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.1.2 InteractingVariables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.2 LikelihoodofSelf-organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.2.1 DescriptionofOutcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.2.2 InteractingVariables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.3 SocialFit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.3.1 DescriptionofOutcome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.3.2 InteractingVariables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.4 AccountingforEcologicalOutcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.5 SynopsisofFindingsfortheFocalActionSituation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6 Discussion 84
6.1 Trust,NetworksandInstitutionsatLakeShkodra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.2 ImplicationsofSocialCapitalforFisheriesatLakeShkodra . . . . . . . . . 93
6.3 MethodologicalConsiderations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7 ConclusionandOutlook 98
References 100
Appendix 122
A Social-ecologicalSystemsFramework 123
B MethodologicalSupplement 129
B.1 GuidelineforInterviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
B.2 QualitativeContentAnalysisSupplement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
vi
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Bonding,bridgingandlinkingnetworkties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fig. 2.2 Networksoftrust,adaptedfrom FUKUYAMA (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Fig. 2.3 StructureoftheIADframework,modifiedfrom OSTROM (2011). . . . . . . 28
Fig. 2.4 Internalstructure ofanaction situationasdeveloped intheIAD Framework
(OSTROM,2011; ANDERIES AND JANSSEN,2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Fig. 2.5 Structure of an action situation within the SES framework, adapted from
OSTROM AND COX (2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Fig. 3.1 Map of the case study region and the distribution of interviews in fishing
communitiesattheAlbaniansideofLakeShkodra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Fig. 3.2 Schematicprocedureofthequalitativecontentanalysis,followingadeductive
approach(MAYRING AND FENZL,2014,p. 550). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Fig. 4.1 OrganigramoftherelevantstructuralpartswithintheMARDWAandMoE
of Albania, January 2016(information from interviews and PEVELING et al.,
2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Fig. 5.1 Variablesinvolvedininteractionsleadingtocomplianceasmicro-levelout-
comeoftheappropriationactionsituation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Fig. 5.2 Variablesinvolvedininteractionsleadingtothelikelihoodofself-organization
asmicro-leveloutcomeoftheappropriationactionsituation. . . . . . . . . . 69
Fig. 5.3 Variablesinvolvedin interactions leadingtosocial fitasmicro-level outcome
oftheappropriationactionsituation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
vii
List of Tables
Tab. 2.1 Basicdifferentiationofgoods,following OSTROM (2005,p. 24)and VATN
(2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tab. 3.1 First-,second-,andthird-tiervariablesoftheadaptedSESframeworkwith
according working definitions. The theoretic link to the concept of social
capitalisindicatedaswellasthedatasourcefortheanalysis. . . . . . . . . 38
Tab. 3.2 Outcomes,interactionsandvariableswithintheappropriationactionsituation
atLakeShkodra. Thenomenclatureofinteractionsandvariablesisinline
withtheSESframework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Tab. 3.3 The results of the stakeholder identification and grouping as well as the
number of conducted formal interviews with different actors/actor groups
areprovided. Theacronymsareusedthroughoutthestudy. . . . . . . . . . 48
Tab. 3.4 Examplesofcodesinthecategory“Actor”asdefinedinthecodingguideline,
following MAYRING (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Tab. 4.1 Number and area (ha) of protected areas in Albania, according to IUCN
categories(AKZM,2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Tab. 4.2 RegulationsforfisheryatLakeShkodrabasedonRegulationNo. 1,FISHERY
DIRECTORATE (2005),inforceOctober2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Tab. 5.1 Prominentsecond-tiervariablesof theSESframeworkinvolvedinshaping
thesocialoutcomesthroughinteractionsandfeedbacksatLakeShkodra. . . 83
Tab. A.1 First- and second-tier variables of the SES framework (OSTROM, 2007a)
withaccordingdefinitions. Latestchangesandextensionsfrom MCGINNIS
AND OSTROM (2014)areconsidered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Tab. A.2 Diagnostic procedure for the application of the SES framework at Lake
Shkodra,following HINKEL etal.(2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Tab. B.1 Codes and definitions for the qualitative content analysis, in line with ter-
minology of SES framework. Definitions in grey color indicate additional
codesbesidestheSESterminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Tab. B.2 Codingguidelinefor thequalitative contentanalysisfollowing MAYRING
(2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
viii
List of Abbreviations
AKZM AgjenciaKombëtareeZonavetëMbrojtura
approx. approximately
EU EuropeanUnion
FAO FoodandAgricultureOrganization
FMO FisheryManagementOrganization
GDP GrossDomesticProduct
GEF GlobalEnvironmentFacility
IAD InstitutionalAnalysisandDevelopmentFramework
ITQ IndividualTransferableQuota
IUCN InternationalUnionforConservationofNature
MARDWA MinistryofAgriculture,RuralDevelopmentandWaterAdministrationAlbania
MoE MinistryofEnvironmentAlbania
MPA MarineProtectedArea
NAPA NationalAgencyforProtectedAreas
NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganization
PA ProtectedArea
REA RegionalEnvironmentalAgency
SES Social-EcologicalSystem
TAC TotalAllowableCatch
UNECE UnitedNationsEconomicComissionforEurope
UNEP UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Fishery and the Environment
Thehumanworldisdeeplyembeddedinthenaturalworldandreliesontheprocesses,goods
and services that nature provides for all parts of every-day life (MILLENIUM ECOSYSTEM
ASSESSMENT,2005). The complexity ofthis relationconsists ofthe processes andfeedbacks
amongthe social andtheecological systemthatexhibit non-linear feedbacks,surprisesand
uncertainty (LIU et al., 2007; ANDERIES, 2014). Acknowledging and understanding the
tight relations and dynamics between the human and the environmental system by a social-
ecologicalsystemsperspectiveiscrucialinordertoovercomesomeofthemajordifficulties
society faces today (FISCHER et al., 2015), ranging from impacts of climate change to
agricultural production and food security as well as the conservation of biodiversity at the
local and global scale (ADGER, 2010; MCCLANAHAN et al., 2009; CINNER et al., 2009b;
CHEUNG etal.,2013).
Among the diversity of human-environment interactions, fisheries take an essential part:
worldwide, marine and inland fisheries represent an important industrial sector, involving
in the primary sector about 58 million people in capture fisheries and aquaculture in 2012
and yielding a total catch of 93.7 million tonnes in capture fisheries alone (FAO, 2014).
Inland fisheries, which to a large part consist of small-scale fisheries (WELCOMME et al.,
2010), contribute substantially to local and regional food security and income generation
for millions of people worldwide (COOKE et al., 2016; LYNCH et al., 2016) and deliver
multiplenon-usevalues,e.g. culturalvaluesandrecreation(HUNT etal.,2013; ARLINGHAUS
et al., 2002). However, increasing pressure on aquatic resources (e.g. through population
growth), uncertainty regarding the state of fish stocks (e.g. through under- or unreported
catchesfromsubsistenceorillegalfisheries),anddecliningcatchratesareattributedtoboth
inland and marine fisheries (FAO, 2014; PAULY AND ZELLER, 2016; COSTELLO et al.,
2012; WELCOMME etal.,2010). Againstthisbackground,implicationsoffisheriesarefound
for the social as well as the ecological system. For example, the race for fish impacts the
socioeconomicsituationoflocalresourceusers(CINTI etal.,2010),whereasattheecological
scalefishingactivitiesmightleadtoalterationsinthespeciescompositionandthestructureof
thefoodweb,orovercapitalizationmightcausethecollapseoftargetedfishstocks(PAULY et
al.,2002;BERKES ET AL.,2006). Challengesarisingthroughinteractionsofthesocialandthe
ecologicalsystemareevenmorecomplexinfreshwaterecosystems,whereavarietyofhuman-
inducedinteractionsbesidesfishingactivitiesinfluencethesystem,e.g. diffusepollutionfrom
agriculturalfields,water extraction orconstructionsforfloodprotection (WELCOMME etal.,
2010; COOKE etal.,2016).