Do governance networks build collaborative capacity for sustainable development? Insights from Solomon Islands.

To build capacity for addressing complex sustainable development challenges, governments, development agencies, and non-governmental organizations are making substantial investments in governance networks. Yet, enthusiasm for establishing governance networks is not always matched by empirical evidence on their effectiveness. This gap challenges these groups to know whether investing in governance networks is worth their time and effort; a weighing-up that is particularly critical in contexts of limited resources. Through a qualitative case study in Solomon Islands, we evaluate the extent to which a governance network, called the Malaita Provincial Partners for Development, contributed to four dimensions of collaborative governance capacity: individual, relational, organizational, and institutional. We find that the network made moderate contributions to individual, relational and organizational capacity, while institutional capacity remained low despite the presence of the network. Based on these findings, we argue that governance networks are not a panacea. Continued efforts are needed to establish when, how, and in what contexts collaborative networks are effective for building collaborative capacity for sustainable development.

Unpacking pathways to diversified livelihoods from projects in Pacific Island coastal fisheries.

Livelihood diversification has become an integral focus of policies and investments aiming to reduce poverty, vulnerability, and pressure on fishery resources in coastal communities around the globe. In this regard, coastal fisheries in the Pacific Islands have long been a sector where livelihood diversification has featured prominently. Yet, despite the widespread promotion and international investment in this strategy, the ability of externally funded livelihood diversification projects to facilitate improved resource management and rural development outcomes often remains inconsistent. We argue these inconsistencies can be attributed to a conceptual ambiguity stemming from a lack of attention and awareness to the complexity of livelihood diversification. There is still much to learn about the process of livelihood diversification, both in its theoretical conceptualizations and its practical applications. Herein, we utilize a common diversity framework to clarify some of this ambiguity by distinguishing three diversification pathways. These pathways are illustrated using an ideal-typical Pacific Island coastal household and supported by examples provided in the literature that detail livelihood diversification projects in the Pacific. Through this perspective, we seek a more nuanced understanding of what is meant within the policy and practice goal of livelihood diversification. Thereby enabling more targeted and deliberate planning for development investments that facilitates outcomes in support of sustainable livelihoods.

Livelihoods and Fisheries Governance in a Contemporary Pacific Island Setting.

Inshore marine resources play an important role in the livelihoods of Pacific Island coastal communities. However, such reliance can be detrimental to inshore marine ecosystems. Understanding the livelihoods of coastal communities is important for devising relevant and effective fisheries management strategies. Semi-structured household interviews were conducted with householders in Langalanga Lagoon, Solomon Islands, to understand household livelihoods and resource governance in fishing-dependent communities. Households were engaged in a diverse range of livelihoods. Fishing, shell money production and gardening were the most important livelihoods. Proximity to an urban centre influenced how households accessed some livelihoods. Perceptions of management rules varied and different reasons were cited for why rules were broken, the most common reason being to meet livelihood needs. Current models of inshore small-scale fisheries management that are based on the notion of community-based resource management may not work in locations where customary management systems are weak and livelihoods are heavily reliant on marine resources. An important step for fisheries management in such locations should include elucidating community priorities through participatory development planning, taking into consideration livelihoods as well as governance and development aspirations.