1 23

Regional Environmental Change ISSN 1436-3798 Reg Environ ChangeDOI 10.1007/s10113-015-0775-4

Power and politics of social–ecologicalregime shifts in the Chilika lagoon, Indiaand Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam

Prateep Kumar Nayak, Derek Armitage& Mark Andrachuk

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Springer-

Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts in the Chilikalagoon, India and Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam

Prateep Kumar Nayak • Derek Armitage •

Mark Andrachuk

Received: 4 December 2013 / Accepted: 15 February 2015

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract Analyses of ecological regime shifts primarily

focus on abrupt, long-term and significant changes that

trigger fundamental reorganisation in ecosystem structure

and function. There remains limited empirical work on the

relationship between regime shifts and social inequities,

power imbalances, and social and environmental injustices.

Inadequate attention to this social context restricts our

ability to predict and avert impending regime shifts, or to

effectively navigate where thresholds have been crossed. In

this paper, we offer an initial empirical assessment of

politics and power in two coastal lagoons in India and

Vietnam experiencing abrupt change. We adopt a realist

view of power to: (1) assess the social relations structuring

human–environment interactions in both lagoons; (2)

characterise the dominant framings and narratives that in-

fluence if and how regime shifts are understood; (3) con-

sider who wins and loses if and when regime shifts and

other forms of rapid environmental change take place; and

(4) reflect on the implications of power and politics for the

governance of regime shifts in linked human–ocean

settings.

Keywords Adaptation � Environment � Coastal-marine �Governance � Power � Politics � Regime shift

Introduction

Scholars use a variety of terms to describe rapid envi-

ronmental change. Some of the frequently used terms and

concepts include critical transition (Lambin 2005),

threshold change (Walker and Meyers 2004), loss of re-

silience (Walker et al. 2004) and ecological regime shifts

(Scheffer and Carpenter 2003). There are similarities

amongst these terms to the extent they all seek to discern

the drivers and outcomes of rapid change in social and

ecological systems. However, the differences in the ap-

proaches they take to explain and/or predict change offer

distinct analytical perspectives. In this paper, we use the

concept of regime shifts as a general perspective to un-

derstand the processes of social–ecological change in two

coastal lagoons of India and Vietnam, and to consider the

profound challenges they pose for governance.

Regime shifts are abrupt, long-term and often irre-

versible changes in social–ecological system structure and

function, with possibly considerable adverse impacts for

human well-being and ecosystem processes (Biggs et al.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of thisarticle (doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0775-4) contains supplementarymaterial, which is available to authorized users.

P. K. Nayak (&)

School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University

of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo,

ON N2L 3G1, Canada

e-mail: pnayak@uwaterloo.ca

P. K. Nayak � D. Armitage � M. Andrachuk

Environmental Change and Governance Group, University

of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo,

ON N2L 3G1, Canada

e-mail: derek.armitage@uwaterloo.ca

M. Andrachuk

e-mail: mandrach@uwaterloo.ca

D. Armitage

Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo,

200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada

M. Andrachuk

Geography and Environmental Management, University

of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo,

ON N2L 3G1, Canada

123

Reg Environ Change

DOI 10.1007/s10113-015-0775-4

Author's personal copy

2009; Scheffer and Carpenter 2003). Analysis of regime

shifts has mainly focused on ecological drivers of change

and the implications for reorganisation in ecosystems

(Mayer et al. 2006; Karunanithi et al. 2008). More recently,

strategies to consider linked ecological and social aspects

of regime shifts have emerged (Hughes et al. 2013) with

the recognition that limited attention to social dimensions

restricts our ability to predict and avert impending regime

shifts, or to effectively navigate where thresholds have

been crossed. For example, Crepin et al. (2012) point to the

importance of understanding the politics of regime shifts.

Still, there is little empirical work in this regard and an

ongoing need to better conceptualise and empirically ex-

amine these social dimensions.

The emergence of regime shifts in coastal-marine so-

cial–ecological systems is real, and they constitute a pro-

found challenge for governance (Lees et al. 2006; Kraberg

and Wiltshire 2014). Under conditions of rapid change,

existing social inequities, power imbalances, and social and

environmental injustices can become increasingly pro-

nounced, particularly in situations where thresholds in key

system attributes (availability of fish, water quality,

breakdown of institutions, loss of fishing livelihoods) are

being crossed at multiple spatial and temporal scales.

These social inequities, power imbalances, and injustices

are themselves often key drivers of rapid change and

regime shifts. Here, we draw on experiences in the Chilika

lagoon on the eastern coast of India and the Tam Giang

lagoon in Central Vietnam to offer an initial empirical

assessment of the political dimensions and relations of

power that influence opportunities to understand and

navigate apparent regime shifts.

We illustrate first the importance of incorporating power

concerns into the study of regime shifts, and outline the

conceptual basis for our analysis. Second, we present the

two coastal lagoon case studies as the empirical context in

which to examine politics and power of regime shifts.

Third, we examine the significance of understanding

regime shifts using this lens and its critical role high-

lighting key issues, such as who wins and who loses, and

whose definitions and narratives count, in the context of

rapid social–ecological change. We then reflect on selected

governance implications of regime shifts and, finally, draw

some conclusions for further research and practice.

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

The impacts of regime shifts are not limited to ecosystems

alone. They are also determined by, and can have corre-

spondingly adverse impacts on, human well-being. Recent

work recognises the need to understand regime shifts in

their social context (see Walker and Meyers 2004; Lenton

2013; Armitage et al. 2012), and Crepin et al. (2012) have

drawn particular attention to the importance of social re-

lations of power in framing how regime shifts are

perceived.

Adding a social perspective to the concept of ecosystem

regime shifts provides an integrative framework for ana-

lysis of conditions that cause threshold changes, and helps

to place the core of analysis in the realm of social–eco-

logical systems. Various components of the social (e.g.

political, economic and cultural) and the ecological (e.g.

biophysical, geological and hydrological) subsystems of

lagoons are integrally linked (Berkes and Folke 1998;

Ommer et al. 2011). They influence each other and act

together to exert an impact on the system, catalysing

change (Nayak 2014: 1). A social–ecological systems’

perspective emphasises an integrated concept of humans in

nature and a shift away from an artificial and arbitrary

delineation between the social and the ecological (Berkes

and Folke 1998). Thus, a social and ecological lens offers a

more inclusive approach to examine various factors and

consequences of regime shifts in which social outcomes are

shaped by ecological dynamics and vice versa (Folke et al.

2005; Berkes 2011). Better recognition of social dimen-

sions increases attention to concerns about power, justice

and equity (see Zerner 2000) in the analysis of regime

shifts. Analytical linkages of this type are subsequently

important in the development of innovative mechanisms to

deal effectively with outcomes of rapid social–ecological

change.

Power is central to understanding processes and struc-

tures associated with resource and environmental gover-

nance (Scott 2001; Raik et al. 2008). Despite its

importance, there remains limited empirical attention to the

actual workings of power in environmental settings, and

particularly with regards to conditions of abrupt change or

regime shifts (i.e. lack of attention to the complex and

dynamic social, historical, cultural and political conditions)

(see Raik and Wilson 2006; Raik et al. 2008; Njaya et al.

2012; Crepin et al. 2012). A limited attention to empirical

analysis of power is also apparent in fisheries and coastal

management. In this context, power is an understated and

understudied issue, and there remains little discussion on

what it means and how it manifests (Sinclair and Ommer

2006; Jentoft et al. 2007).

As noted, the construct of power is largely absent in the

theorisation and empirical analysis of social–ecological

regime shifts despite its importance. Scholarship on regime

shifts is largely driven by insights from the biological and

ecological sciences, and suggestions for management re-

flect a largely technocratic and instrumental view. How-

ever, we recognise that power is a difficult concept to

characterise (see Jentoft et al. 2007; Raik et al. 2008), and

its application to better understand natural resource

P. K. Nayak et al.

123

Author's personal copy

management contexts is contested and takes many different

forms (Njaya et al. 2012). There is no single ‘correct’ lens

with which to understand power and its implications. Here,

we consider a variety of perspectives of power and draw

some insights from a selected literature to explore key di-

mensions of power that can be relevant in understanding

social–ecological regime shifts (see Table 1).

We start with the idea of ‘‘in the power of power’’ of-

fered by Jentoft et al. (2007) as it draws attention to the

multiple domains or views (e.g. internal, external) and

drivers (e.g. poverty, institutional arrangements) from

which to understand the mechanisms of power. For ex-

ample, the emic view (inside-in perspective) helps define

the problem from within by those that are privy to a

specific resource governance context. The meanings, pro-

cesses and mechanisms of power are seen as internal to the

dynamics of the system. In contrast, the etic view (outside-

in perspective) considers externalities, ranging from

prevalent political, economic, social and ecological con-

ditions to the influence of broader social theory, in defining

power within a specific context. Lastly, the generative view

(inside-out perspective) amplifies the potential of fisheries

Table 1 Overview of various perspectives to understand power and politics of regime shifts

Views on

power

Main argument What they focus on? Literature

In the power

of power

Emic perspective Power defined from the ‘‘inside-in’’ viewpoint:

understanding power from within individuals/groups and

the insiders’ point of view

Morris et al. (1999),

Jentoft et al. (2007)

Etic perspective Power defined from the ‘‘outside-in’’ viewpoint: (1)

understanding power from the perspective of broader

social theory in terms of ideas, observations and research

questions; (2) linking power to external, antecedent

factors, such as economic or ecological conditions, that

may not be salient to cultural insiders

Generative perspective Power defined from ‘‘inside-out’’ viewpoint: drawing

general lesson on power from specific case studies that

will contribute to social theory on power

Agent-

centred

Power as coercion

Power as constraint

Power as something that some individuals and entities have

and other do not

Involves the description of one person’s power over another

Bachrach and Baratz

(1970), Lukes (2005),

Raik et al. (2008)

Power is exercised by one to restrict the action or possible

actions of another

Structural Power as consent production Understanding power as forces above and external to the

individual; power emanating from structural forces

instead of the individual

Cleg (1989), Raik et al.

(2008)

Structuration Power as outcome of individual and

society interaction

Social structures as medium of human

activities

Structures of

legitimation

Institutions (norms, rules, customs,

practices, traditions, etc.) that regulate

social interaction and enforce conformity

Giddens (1984), Pelling

and Manuel-Navarrete

(2011)

Structures of

domination

Control over mechanisms determining

resource distribution and centres of

authority

Structures of

signification

Produce interpretations and meanings to

make sense of experience

Power cube Power in relation to space (arena,

process or mechanism within which

power is exercised) and place (levels

at which power rests)

Visible power Actors explicitly hold power to influence

or shape processes

Gaventa (2006), Gujit

(2005), VeneKlasen

and Miller (2002),

Njaya et al. (2012)Hidden

power

Actors driven by predetermined or

concealed agenda to achieve objectives

through use of power, often to the

exclusion and detriment of others

Invisible

power

Power is socially and culturally embedded,

and centres around norms, values, beliefs

knowledge, ideology, worldviews, and

perceptions that condition or influence

individuals’ or groups’ exercise of power

Realist Power as outcome of agency–structure

relationship

Power as real Exercise of power within preconditioned,

structured social relations

Raik et al. (2008)

Source: Adapted from Jentoft et al. (2007), Raik et al. (2008), Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete (2011), Njaya et al. (2012)

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

123

Author's personal copy

and coastal management in providing an empirical basis for

power analysis and theory building. It offers an opportunity

to learn general lessons with regard to power from em-

pirical data and help explore the potential to generate

grounded theory. The etic view is synonymous with de-

ductive reasoning (from the more general to the more

specific), and the generative view parallels an inductive

reasoning method (from specific observations to broader

generalisations and theories). However, the notion that the

mechanisms of power are shaped by combinations of ‘in-

side’ and ‘outside’ perspectives is useful for understanding

regime shifts as they draw attention to a number of im-

portant questions: Who should define power? Whose per-

spective matters? What are some of the key externalities

influencing power? And what implications does power

have on management and governance structures and pro-

cesses designed to respond to regime shifts?

Raik et al. (2008) provide examples of three major tra-

ditions to understand and operationalise power. According

to an agent-centred view, power rests with the individual or

a group that then exercises it over another. Human agency

plays an active role through which power manifests either

as coercion or constraint. In one instance, an individual or

group holds the power to manipulate others’ behaviours. In

another instance, power can be used to exclude items and

ideas (e.g. through agenda setting) in ways that deliberately

constrain the actions of others (Raik et al. 2008). However,

there is limited emphasis in the agent-centred view to so-

cial–political conditions in which individuals operate and

structural processes that shape human relations and inter-

ests. A structural view of power addresses this inadequacy

by placing power outside the individual and closely asso-

ciating it with existing structural forces (Cleg 1989; Winter

1996). A structural view recognises that individuals exer-

cise power over others because of their position in society

(Raik et al. 2008). However, a focus on social structure

downplays the role for agency which renders it an in-

complete view.

Both agent-based and structural approaches have

strengths and weaknesses. Individual agency and social

structure can be considered in tandem (sensu Giddens

1984), however, and thus reflect a ‘‘realist’’ view of power

(see Raik et al. 2008). Although not always referred to as

such, interdisciplinary scholars of environmental change

often draw on various elements of a realist view. For ex-

ample, Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete (2011) draw on the

work of Giddens (1984) to present three kinds of structures

(e.g. structures of legitimation, domination and significa-

tion) that frame their analysis and yet are the product of

agency in relation to power (see Table 1). Similarly, Njaya

et al. (2012) combine the work by Gaventa (2006), Gujit

(2005) and VeneKlasen and Miller (2002) to suggest that

within the spaces and places where power rests and is

exercised, structural and agent-centred power can be visi-

ble, hidden and invisible (Table 1). Each of these analyses

extends a realist view to understand and analyse the

workings of power in particular contexts.

As Raik et al. (2008: 736–737) conclude: ‘‘The realist

view may provide a framework for analysis that goes be-

yond the agency/structure dualism present in the other

views of power. Through the realist view, both the social

structure and the agent emerge as units of analysis that

interact and depend upon one another. The realist view is

based on identifying enduring structural preconditions that

shape contingent human interaction’’. We draw four in-

sights from the preceding discussion for our analysis of

power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts in our

two case studies:

1. Reflecting on social relations of power is necessary to

understand the social conditions structuring human

activities in the process of regime shifts, and it helps to

identify how existing social relations of power and

politics influence social and ecological outcomes

associated with regime shifts. Social relations of power

(i.e. its imbalance and negative dynamics) also act as a

conduit for intensifying distributional inequities asso-

ciated with regime shifts (as driver and outcome) and

influence the extent to which certain people, groups

and communities are vulnerable to change (Kurtz

2003; Adger et al. 2006a). The benefits and costs

associated with environmental change (e.g. especially

rapid and surprising change such as regime shifts) are

often contingent on social relations of power that may

consolidate or exacerbate inequities (see Walker and

Bulkeley 2006). Analyses of social relations of power

can also help to uncover unjust decision-making

processes and unfair procedures (see Young 1990;

Anand 2001; Williams and Mawdsley 2006) that may

serve to exacerbate the negative consequences of

regime shifts, such as a loss of access to ecosystem

services. Ultimately, an understanding of the power

and politics of regime shifts requires an examination of

several key attributes: structural power and power as

constraint for coercion; issues of rights, identity,

recognition and representation; and concerns over

livelihoods and marginalisation (Schlosberg 2004;

Sachs 2005; Agyeman et al. 2003; Okereke 2006;

McCusker and Carr 2006; Raik et al. 2008). In this

context, a realist view that combines elements of

existing perspectives on power helps to emphasise the

importance of social relationships in structuring hu-

man–environment interactions. Social structures can

thus constrain or enable human agency, while simul-

taneously being produced by human agency (Raik

et al. 2008), and therefore, it is necessary to consider

P. K. Nayak et al.

123

Author's personal copy

how power can constrain, but also contribute to

positive outcomes (e.g. the power of government to

ensure vulnerable communities maintain access to

needed resources).

2. Attention to dominant framings and narratives of

change highlights a need to examine discourses,

constructs, stories, images and particular histories that

influence if and how regime shifts are considered.

Divergent views on how a given social–ecological

system should be managed and who gets to decide on

the essential features of the system are crucial social

science questions (see Pelling and Manuel-Navarrete

2011) with important consequences for how we think

about regime shifts. Discourses around impending

ecological crises and collapse or conversely around

transformations (see Grove 2013) that challenge the

status quo can be picked up by powerful groups and

co-opted to suit their interests (Crona and Bodin 2010).

Similar analyses of framing and narratives have been

undertaken to understand poverty, marginalisation and

social–ecological change in a diversity of contexts

(Roe 1991; Fairhead and Leach 1995; Narayan et al.

2000; Nayak and Berkes 2010). Therefore, in the

subsequent sections of this paper, we consider the role

of power and politics in shaping the dominant framings

and narratives of change.

3. The notion of who benefits and who loses is an

important consideration if and when regime shifts and

other forms of rapid environmental change take place.

The fact that regime shifts can benefit some actors and

adversely impact others entails complex politics and

intense power dynamics. Even though there may be

exceptions, those who benefit materially from change

may try to protect their self-interest (e.g. through

coercion or constraint) by allowing the social–eco-

logical system to cross critical thresholds. Others who

perceive adverse impacts from regime shifts may resist

further modifications to the system’s core functions,

structures and processes in order to avoid major

changes.

4. It is important to consider the implications of power

and politics for governance which refers here to the

social processes and institutions through which soci-

eties make decisions (Oakerson 1992). Because regime

shifts are multi-scaled, governance arrangements de-

veloped to address specific components of a particular

social–ecological subsystem may fail to address

approaching thresholds (Galaz et al. 2011). In such

situations, identification of socially and ecologically

suitable governance targets and strategies (i.e. improv-

ing governance ‘fit’) becomes particularly difficult

(Young 2002). In conditions of increasing complexity,

a shift to more adaptive and multi-level forms of

governance may be needed, but these too create

numerous challenges with regards to accountability

and power sharing across jurisdictional levels (Ar-

mitage et al. 2009).

Case context and methodology

We consider two coastal lagoon cases in this paper which

reflect apparent regime shifts—Chilika in India and Tam

Giang in Vietnam (see supplementary material). Our par-

ticular focus is on (a) presenting some of the more sig-

nificant, abrupt as well as long-term changes (similar to

regime shifts) that have taken place in the lagoons over the

past several decades, and (b) to capture examples of power

and political dynamics, who drives the change process,

who is gaining and who is losing from social–ecological

change, and the resulting implications for institutions and

governance.

Chilika lagoon near the Bay of Bengal, on the eastern

coast of India, is the largest Ramsar wetland in Asia with a

size of about 1200 km2. Approximately 400,000 fishers

depend on the lagoon biodiversity for their livelihood

needs. Over the past four decades, there has been an in-

crease in the rate of environmental and social change,

leading to a further disconnect between the lagoon and its

fishers (Nayak and Berkes 2014; Nayak 2014).

The Tam Giang lagoon stretches over 220 km2 along the

coast of the South China Sea in Central Vietnam. High

biological productivity in the lagoon provides direct sup-

port to at least 100,000 individuals living in and around the

lagoon (Tuyen et al. 2010). Significant ecological and so-

cial–economic change in the lagoon over the past several

decades includes rapid increases in aquaculture production,

intensification of resource use and intensification of con-

flict. These changes prompted the introduction of collective

management and emergence of new forms of use rights to

lagoon space (Marschke et al. 2012).

Our analysis is based on participatory field research in

both sites using a mix of qualitative and quantitative

methods. The studies reflect our understanding of the

evolution of the lagoon social–ecological systems includ-

ing key changes, their drivers and impacts. The data re-

ported here come from ongoing longitudinal studies in

Chilika (since 2007) and Tam Giang (since 2006). A va-

riety of research methods were used in both case study

contexts (Table 2; see also supplementary information),

although in each case the specific approach was different.

We are using the data from the longitudinal studies in an

exploratory manner. We did not set out to assess the power

and politics of regime shifts in either lagoon context.

However, the rapid changes we have observed in both

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

123

Author's personal copy

lagoons suggest that a particular focus on the social and

political aspects of social–ecological change is crucial for

integrated understanding and effective responses.

Results and discussion

Both cases offer evidence of an apparent regime shift

catalysed by changes in key social–ecological system at-

tributes, the cumulative effects of which have led to abrupt,

significant and persistent modifications in lagoon system

structure and dynamics. We outline below the main ele-

ments of these changes, as well as key insights on the

politics and social relations of power associated with these

changes.

Social–ecological change in the lagoon cases

Chilika lagoon, Bay of Bengal, India

The Chilika case study highlights a series of crosscutting

events, their impacts and the resulting changes in the so-

cial–ecological system of the lagoon during the last six

decades (Table 3). The first and one of the important events

was the opening of international shrimp market in the

1970s that led to a growing demand for export of tiger

shrimp (Marshall 2001; Pradhan and Flaherty 2008). India

caught on to this global demand after its official acceptance

of economic liberalisation as a growth model in 1991, but

many suitable locations for farming of tiger shrimp within

the country came under intensive aquaculture as early as

1980. Chilika was no exception. A predominantly cus-

tomary caste-based capture fishery system quickly changed

into an intensive and semi-intensive system of shrimp

aquaculture, thereby replacing an already established

common management through village-level fishery coop-

erative institutions. Until this time, fishing was looked

upon as a lowly activity limited to the fisher castes alone,

and seen as a deviation, leading to social ostracism if the

higher-caste nonfishers engaged in fishing. However, the

rules of the game (caste norms around fishing) changed

with the onset of intensive aquaculture. With the growth of

aquaculture, encroachment of customary fishing grounds

(affecting as many as 91 % of villages with fishing areas on

annual lease from the government) by the nonfisher higher

caste and local elites gained momentum. By 2013, an es-

timated 60 % (unofficially) of the lagoon fishing area

continues to be under both direct and indirect influence of

aquaculture causing serious issues around fishers’ access

and entitlements rights. Corresponding changes in state

policies on lagoon management were quick to follow, once

in 1991 and again in 2001, and these changes help promote

aquaculture in the lagoon. Massive protests by fisher or-

ganisations mean these policies have not become law and

they continue to be debated in the state legislative

assembly.

A second major impact came from a 2001 techno-

logically driven hydrological intervention by the state

government, whereby a sea mouth with the Bay of Bengal

was dredged out to address the siltation problem in the

lagoon. Despite good intentions, the opening of the sea

mouth had unintended negative consequences, including

hydrological changes and subsequent implications for

biodiversity and fisher livelihoods (see also Table 3). The

cumulative impact of both shrimp aquaculture and the new

sea mouth was estimated through a household survey in

2008–2009 and interviews in 2013 that revealed key

habitats of major lagoon species of fish, shrimp, Irrawaddy

Table 2 Research methods

Case Description of methods Time frame

Chilika lagoon, India Literature review 2006 and 2011

Household survey in two villages (N = 157) 2007–2009

General village survey (N = 140) 2008–2009

Household livelihood monitoring (N = 30) 18 months during 2008–2010

Semi-structured interviews (N = 192) 2007–2009, 2011 and 2013

Focus groups (N = 32) 2008, 2011 and 2013

State-level policy workshops (N = 3) 2008, 2011 and 2013

Tam Giang-Cau Hue lagoon, Vietnam Literature review 2006–2012

Stakeholder workshops (N = 12)

Key informant interviews (N = 66)

2006–2009

2007–2011 and 2012

Household surveys in three communes (N = 87)

Focus groups (N = 9) and follow-up surveys

2009

2012

Governance stakeholder surveys (N = 73)

Semi-structured interviews (N = 59)

2013

2013

P. K. Nayak et al.

123

Author's personal copy

Table 3 Timeline of key events, their impacts and significant changes in Chilika lagoon SES

Timeline of events

Nature of Impacts Key changes in Lagoon SES

Wildlife (Bird) Sanctuary, 1974

Excluded four fisher villages that held exclusive customary fishing rights to this area, and resulted in major changes in fishing dependent livelihoods of these villages.

Restricted 1553 hectares of lagoon area for purposes of strict conservation and protection of migratory birds that brought about drastic changes in management practices.

• Local Subsistence, livelihood and domestic market focused fish economy changed to an export oriented fish production system.

• An established system of customary rights and commons regime changed to a mix of privatised and state property regime.

• A system of multi-gear and multi-season lagoon capture fishery taken over by single species aquaculture.

• Intensification of social and resource conflicts in society historically divided on the basis of caste and political affiliations.

• Major change in institutional and governance regime from a system of institutional diversity to top-down institutional uniformity.

• Changes in basic lagoon profile: salinity regime and freshwater-salt water balance, tidal inflow and outflow, depth profile, sea and lagoon species composition, food web, loss of habitat.

• Loss of fish production and local fisher livelihoods

Aquaculture starting, 1980

Encroachment of customary fishing areas and their conversion in aquaculture farms leading to serious issues around access and entitlement rights.

Large-scale loss of fishing-based livelihoods and significant numbers of out-migration.

Wetland (water quality and habitat) destruction.

Multi-species fish stock and lagoon biodiversity impacted through a practice of monoculture.

Creation of state level institutions –FISHFED, 1991 and CDA, 1992

Important changes in the decision-making structures especially at the local village and regional levels with ground-up institutional processes replaced by top-down authority.

Policy changes–Lease policy, 1991 and Chilika Bill, 2001

Promoted the practice of aquaculture in the lagoon through attempts to divert customary capture fishing areas to non-fishers and corporations.

Division of fishing area between customary fishers and non-fishers at a ration 70:30.

Sea mouth with Bay of Bengal, 2001

Key ecological attributes of the lagoon were impacted including fluctuations in the water regime with salinity imbalance, irregularities in water inflow and outflow, infestation of sand and sea creatures such as barnacles, and an increase in the speed, intensity and uncertainties associated with the lagoon’s interaction with the Bay of Bengal.

Cyclone Phailin, 2013

Stretches of mangroves and Casuarina forests on the sand bar uprooted further exposing the lagoon to the impacts of the Bay of Bengal.

Lagoon adjacent land area inundated with sea water impacting the soil and making it unsuitable for vegetation and farming activities by local communities.

Impacts on fish habitats and water salinity balance.

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

123

Author's personal copy

dolphins and migratory birds had deteriorated, at least 11

lagoon fish species were reportedly extirpated and missing

from fishers’ catch basket, and there was close to a 90 %

reduction in seasonal fish production and high occupational

displacement with 35 % of adult fishers opting to migrate

out. From a political standpoint, a section of the civil so-

ciety (including local communities and NGOs) and aca-

demia saw the opening of the new sea mouth as a strategic

intervention to facilitate improved conditions (e.g. water

inflow and outflow, increase in water spread area, avail-

ability of shrimp postlarvae and food for shrimp farms.) for

shrimp aquaculture within the lagoon (this opinion was

recorded during the policy workshops in 2008 and 2013).

Historically, multi-level fisher institutions and or-

ganisations provided the foundation for management and

governance of the fisheries (e.g. village fish cooperatives,

local fish marketing societies/unions, a regional fisher

federation, and caste panchayats or juries of elders of a

particular caste that may be organised at local or regional

levels). Institutional modifications in the early 1990s,

especially at the higher levels involving the state, added to

the ongoing processes of social and ecological change in

the lagoon. Significant among those were the creation of

FISHFED (State Fishermen Cooperative Federation) in

1991 and the Chilika Development Authority (CDA) in

1992 which brought in centralised institutional structures to

regulate fishing area lease (by FISHFED) and lagoon

management and conservation (by CDA). These develop-

ments resulted in ecosystem degradation due to misman-

agement of lagoon resources because decision-making

authority was taken away from fishers’ institutions and left

them largely dysfunctional. A section of the Chilika society

(as expressed during community and policy workshops in

2008, 2011 and 2013) is of the view that such institution-

al/governance changes were largely influenced by the

aquaculture lobby and their political and bureaucratic

proponents.

Earlier changes (i.e. changes preaquaculture, sea mouth

construction and emergence of state-level institutions) in-

clude the 1974 declaration of 1553 ha of lagoon area into a

bird sanctuary under the Indian Wildlife Protection Act that

completely took away customary fishing grounds of four

caste-based fisher villages and displaced about 500 fisher

families from their traditional source of food and liveli-

hoods. It also implemented a strict conservation-oriented

approach to lagoon management by restricting any human

interaction with the lagoon area under the sanctuary.

Moreover, the declaration of the sanctuary and consequent

displacement of fishers from the area has created appre-

hension among fishing communities about similar inter-

ventions by the government. Fishers now talk about

concealed plans of the government to bring more of the

lagoon area under protected area status for conservation of

Irrawaddy dolphins and migratory birds, creating in the

process the real possibility that more villages might be

forced out of their customary fishing grounds and lagoon-

based livelihoods.

In Chilika, key ecological changes have included a loss

of species biodiversity and multi-species profile, and

changes in the lagoon water regime, including salinity

levels. The main social changes included modifications in

cultural and caste dynamics, the loss of access, entitlement

and livelihoods resulting in high levels of out-migration of

fishers, breakdown of local fishery cooperatives and deci-

sion-making structures, and increase in conflicts. These

changes together contributed to a long-term and sig-

nificantly disempowering process for the fishers through

permanent modifications in the local fish economy, prop-

erty rights regime, fishing regimen and related institutions.

Tam Giang lagoon, South China Sea, Vietnam

The main drivers of change in the lagoon are associated

with growth of aquaculture and intensification of fishing

effort (Table 4). Vietnam’s Doi Moi policy (1986) set the

country on the course for a semi-open market economy.

Aquaculture was introduced in the early 1990s, although

early adopters in the lagoon did not experience significant

success and the practice did not immediately spread.

Aquaculture farmers and fixed gear fishers were able to

establish de facto property rights, while the poorest mobile

fishers were further marginalised to the diminishing open

access areas of the lagoon (Ta and Berkes 2011).

At the same time, new types of nets were becoming

available for fixed and mobile fishing gears (e.g. synthetics

with smaller mesh sizes). In 1999, the Thua Thien-Hue

province experienced a large flood event, with rivers car-

rying excess water from the surrounding hillsides into the

lagoon and forcing a wider opening from the lagoon to the

South China Sea. In the short term, livelihoods were im-

pacted by damage to fixed gear (e.g. fish corrals), while

longer-term changes were set in motion by the larger sea

mouth opening. Salinity is unevenly distributed throughout

the lagoon, but has generally increased since 1999. Salinity

directly influences the ecological subsystem by supporting

a different assemblage of sea grass, seaweed, crab, shrimp

and fish. These changes have ripple effects on the liveli-

hood subsystem as well. Brackish water species tend to

grow larger and have greater market value (e.g. especially

shrimp and hard shell crab). Mobile and fixed gear fishers

were able to use the same gear but after 1999 began har-

vesting these new species. Aquaculture thrived and rapidly

expanded under the new ecosystem conditions (Marschke

et al. 2012).

Two other factors supported the aquaculture expansion:

(1) within the governance subsystem, a new law was

P. K. Nayak et al.

123

Author's personal copy

passed in 1999 that allowed rice fields adjacent to the la-

goon to be converted into the aquaculture ponds; and (2)

external to the lagoon system, national and international

demand for shrimp was at historical highs and provided

relatively huge profit potential for aquaculture farmers.

However, semi-intensive monoculture production of

shrimp also had negative feedbacks for the lagoon eco-

logical subsystem (Marschke et al. 2012). With a lack of

Table 4 Timeline of key events, their impacts and significant changes in Tam Giang (Cau Hai) lagoon SES

Timeline of events

Nature of Impacts Key changes in Lagoon SES

Introduction of modern catch-intensive gears beginning in 1980s

Overfishing and unsustainable fishing practices eventual leading to decrease in total yield and fisher income.

Depletion of fish stock and decrease in the size of fish, shrimp and crab. • Subsistence

livelihoods changed to production for nearby Hue city (limited export outside of province).

• An established system of customary rights and commons regime changed to a mix of privatized and state property regime

• Intensification of social and resource conflicts in an area with historically low intensity resource use

• Changes in basic lagoon profile: salinity regime and freshwater-salt water balance, sea and lagoon species composition, loss of habitat and fish biodiversity.

Doi Moi Policy, 1986

The “renovation” economic policy re-oriented Vietnam towards open markets. Great emphasis placed on exports, including fishery and aquaculture products. The Doi Moi Policy created space and momentum for introduction of aquaculture and intensification of resource use in the lagoon.

Aquaculture starting 1980s

Limited uptake of aquaculture through 1990s, with the exception of key areas close to sea mouth openings.

Flood of 1999 and widening of Tu Hien opening

Large storm and flood widened the sea mouth in the Cau Hai region of the lagoon. Wider, permanent opening to the South China Sea shifted the water regime to a more brackish water environment, supporting new species. The aftermath of the flood was also a clean lagoon environment due to build-up of contaminants being flushed out to sea.

Rapid expansion of aquaculture, 2000 – 2003

Land Conversion Policy 1999 by the Thua Thien-Hue province allowed conversion of rice field adjacent to the lagoon into aquaculture ponds.

Combination of new environmental conditions and changes in property rights policy contributed to aquaculture boom. Led to households with land converting their assets into aquaculture production and promoted a culture of aquaculture-based livelihood opportunities.

Conflict and onset of aquaculture disease, 2003 -2005, ongoing in selected areas

Treatment of the water surface as a commons reached a climax due to competition for space and conflict between different fishing gear users.

Simultaneously, aquaculture economy advance more rapidly than government could regulate, resulting in widespread disease outbreaks in monoculture ponds and pollution of lagoon water.

Creation of territory-based user rights for fishers, 2008 and ongoing

With the support of international and domestic researchers, pilot projects were set up based on territorial user rights for fishers. Fishers formed Fishers Associations (FAs) and were granted bundles of rights and responsibilities. Successful in some communes, but has yet to be widely replicated due to dependence on development NGOs for capacity building and support.

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

123

Author's personal copy

regulations and standards for shrimp breeders, diseases

appeared in the lagoon by 2004 and wiped out entire ponds.

Contaminated water was often returned back to the lagoon,

with detrimental impacts on ecological conditions and

capture fishers. At this time, fish corrals dominated the

surface of many parts of the lagoon (e.g. especially in the

south), and the high density of nets decreased water flow

and further exacerbated disease-prone conditions.

The lagoon also has a complicated property rights

regime that has contributed much uncertainty as new

fishing and aquaculture technologies have been introduced

faster than institutions can evolve. In addition to the water

quality issues associated with the fish corrals, conflicts

between fixed and mobile gear fishers over lagoon space

were becoming more intense. Thus, the changes in the

salinity were a precursor to larger changes in multiple

subsystems. In the light of all of these conditions, the Thua

Thien-Hue government became more amenable to new

approaches for regulating activities in the lagoon. Fisher

Associations and Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries

(TURFS) were established as a means of linking fishers to

management planning and provide a resource for resolving

conflicts (Armitage et al. 2011). Fishers have talked about

how in the past there was ‘‘no regulation’’ on fisheries (i.e.

they were unaware of any laws even though they existed).

In the last few years, the government has now been able to

re-arrange all of the fish corrals (stake net traps) in the

lagoon, which provides allocated space to the mobile

fishers (who are the poorest and have been historically

marginalised). For instance, there are now established rules

for where mobile fishers can fish in relation to the corrals

(Marschke et al. 2012). The establishment of TURFs and

relocation of fish corrals have alleviated some disparities

among different groups since mobile fishers now have

access to more open-water areas for navigation and fishing.

However, the TURFs have also placed a new constraint on

mobile fishers, because they previously moved freely

around the lagoon in pursuit of ideal conditions. They are

now subject to Fisher Association fees or risk paying fines

if they are caught in other Fisher Associations’ zones.

In turn, the provincial government is currently working

towards new regulations for limiting the number of nets

that mobile fishers can use (e.g. in Cau Hai region of the

lagoon ‘‘lu’’ nets number over 100,000). There is also talk

of developing more regulations related to aquaculture in

the future, which will also occur via the Fisher Asso-

ciations and TURFs. Decentralising some management

activities (e.g. monitoring for illegal fishing) to Fisher

Associations will help the governance system respond

more quickly to future impacts although most of the FAs

do not yet have boats for monitoring and are constrained by

funding limitations. Formation of the new governance

regime was much slower compared to the ecosystem and

livelihood subsystems. With guidance from the first phase

of an IDRC-funded project, the first Fisher Association to

receive its TURF rights allocation was Vinh Giang in 2009.

Other Fisher Associations that have received guidance and

support from other internationally funded projects have

now also been receiving allocations from 2009 to present.

Interviews with government officials in 2012–2013 also

highlighted an interest in diversifying livelihoods (e.g.

ecotourism) to provide fishers with alternative income

sources. Efforts to date have only been effective in slowing

down impacts in the lagoon.

Studying social–ecological change and shifts (small-

and large-scale, slow and abrupt) in both lagoon cases can

provide important insights with respect to detecting and

navigating regime shifts. Crucially, this includes a better

understanding of their associated politics and dimensions

of social power.

Social relations of power

Questions about winners and losers from regime shifts

involve the complex politics of social interactions and re-

lationships of power. As discussed earlier, power is defined

as the exercise of action and knowledge to control the al-

location and/or the access to resources and further interests

(Few 2002; Adger et al. 2006b; Raik et al. 2008). Thus,

those in positions of power can be instrumental in delib-

erately steering the social–ecological system towards or

away from a regime shift. Their actions are often supported

by scale, position and place advantages (Lebel et al. 2005;

Gujit 2005; Njaya et al. 2012). In Chilika, villages near the

sea mouth on the south-eastern region of the lagoon were

severely impacted by the new opening with the Bay of

Bengal compared to the villages on its northern sector.

Coincidentally, the fisher groups residing in these two areas

of the lagoon have considerably different, at times oppos-

ing, caste and political party affiliations. Consequently,

opposition to the new sea mouth was vehement in the

south-eastern region, whereas villages in the northern

sector thought that the results of the sea mouth were

beneficial. Such divergent opinions on the impacts of the

sea mouth led to intense politics among caste and political

groups around the lagoon, the outcomes of which remain

unsettled. As an outcome of this intense politics, the fisher

society in Chilika has been further divided which has im-

pacted their collective decision-making processes and their

unity to fight back external drivers of change. For example,

the fishers’ federation (a collective of all the 150 fisher

villages) now stands divided into seven breakaway groups.

In Tam Giang, land owners who owned rice fields ad-

jacent to the lagoon were able to accrue benefits from

converting it to aquaculture ponds under the 1999 Land

Conversion Policy of Thua Thien-Hue Province. These

P. K. Nayak et al.

123

Author's personal copy

farming households tended to already have better economic

status than fishing households (Tuyen et al. 2010) and were

now able to further take advantage of the aquaculture op-

portunities. However, the landless and those without the

ability to construct net enclosures were deprived of higher

economic benefits from aquaculture, and at times they

represented a voice of dissent against rapid expansion of

aquaculture.

A power lens helps reveal how outcomes of regime

shifts may have disproportionate impact on the poor, dis-

empowered and other marginalised communities through a

process of uneven distribution of benefits and impacts

(Camacho 1998; Walker and Bulkeley 2006). Moreover, it

is clearly evident in these two lagoon cases how the key

drivers of change can be traced back to the structurally

embedded inequities in power among different groups.

This reflects the imperative of thinking through social re-

lations of power and regime shifts just as the underlying

variables of ecological or biophysical change are em-

pirically categorised. Inattention to these relations of power

and the role of various actors in coercing certain actions

and constraining others inhibits the integrative social–e-

cological perspective required to mitigate or adapt to rapid

change. Lastly, manipulation of social–ecological change

by people in power and with the capacity to frame political

debates in Chilika and Tam Giang is a further outcome of

existing social relations of power. These conditions have

been referred to earlier (Nayak and Berkes 2010, 2014;

Armitage et al. 2011) and are further outlined below.

Dominant framings and narratives of change

In socially and economically stratified societies such as

Chilika and Tam Giang, rapid changes in social–ecological

conditions can create new opportunities and upward social

and economic mobility for some but exclude others at the

same time. Those who remain ‘trapped’ in particular

livelihood and economic circumstances may be margin-

alised, and those who stand to benefit from the change

processes become advocates of it. In this context, it is

important to examine how changes are ‘framed’ by certain

groups as significant or not, and to what extent that framing

can be used to ignore, anticipate and respond (or not) in

ways that sustain ecosystem processes and human well-

being.

For example, production changes in Tam Giang lagoon

were framed through a national policy (Doi moi 1986) that

favoured intensification approaches to lagoon development

and created governmental support for aquaculture growth.

The framing at the national level was reinforced by the

provincial government by way of a Land Conversion Pol-

icy (1999) that enabled the conversion of rice fields adja-

cent to the lagoon into aquaculture ponds (see Tuyen et al.

2010). Whether intended or not, it created new opportu-

nities for land owners who could benefit from new policy

conditions. Interviews with district- and provincial-level

officials tend to confirm support for framing of changes in

the lagoon as contributing to development and broader

economic policy goals. However, the poor and those who

could not invest the required physical and financial capital

in aquaculture, such as small-scale mobile gear fishers,

have been disproportionately affected and frame the

change in terms of ecological decline and loss of

livelihoods.

As another example, the emergence of TURFs has been

framed as an opportunity to address conflicts between

fishers and to establish more cooperative forms of man-

agement among lagoon users. However, the manner in

which TURFs have been established does not actually

address some structural inequalities among user groups.

Mobile fishers appreciate less conflict with fish corral

fishers but they have less ability to shift their areas during

different seasons when salinity and temperature shift. As

conditions at the scale of the lagoon system become in-

creasingly uncertain and dynamic, this will likely become a

greater concern. Similarly, most fish corral fishers were

forced to reduce the size of their nets and did not feel like

they had a voice in relocations. Moving forward, we can

see significant disparities in how changes and responses to

those changes are framed within the leadership groups of

Fisher Associations, and among the voices that are actually

heard to help frame the problems and solutions. Mobile

fishers tend to be the least educated and are not well rep-

resented within leadership. Even when they are involved,

there are biases around social standing and capacity that

inevitably limit their ability to fully participate and advo-

cate for their needs within governance efforts.

Similarly, in Chilika, the reported marginalisation of the

small-scale fishers and their physical (e.g. occupational

displacement, outmigration) and psychological (e.g. fishers

who are not fishing anymore think they have lost their caste

identity, which is defined by their regular engagement in

fishing activities and occupations) disconnection from

‘‘mother Chilika’’ has not been recognised in the main-

stream discourse on human development which portrays a

situation of increasing fish production and higher income

levels of the fishers, especially after the sea mouth inter-

vention (Nayak and Berkes 2010: 564). The dominant

narrative of change is propagated by none other than the

state agencies. The aquaculture proponents subscribe, and

indirectly strengthen, such alternate framings around so-

cial–ecological change in the lagoon. Fisher leaders com-

mented in a state-level policy workshop (2013) that

acceptance of the marginalisation narrative by the state and

its affiliates would mean their expensive hydrological in-

tervention to open a sea mouth—and a key driver of change

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

123

Author's personal copy

in the lagoon regime—has in fact failed. Moreover, it will

also force the state to accept the longstanding claim that a

significant part of the lagoon is currently under illegal

shrimp aquaculture—a practice that was banned by both

the state and the federal courts way back in the early 1990s.

From their position of being disempowered and margin-

alised, it is challenging for the fishers to either disclaim the

dominant narrative or re-enact their own. Such contested

narratives offer evidence of the intense politics and power

dynamics that are in play in framing major social–eco-

logical changes (regime shifts).

Who benefits and who loses

Explicit recognition of ‘winners and losers’ in the context

of rapid changes is important because static views on

power and politics are inadequate for effective assessment

of potential interventions. In Chilika, a shift from capture

fishery to aquaculture that has been a central feature of the

apparent social–ecological regime shift proved beneficial

to aquaculture owners (higher caste and other elite class)

but constituted a loss for customary fishers in terms of their

access rights, fishing incomes and livelihoods forcing at

least one-third of them to migrate out (Nayak and Berkes

2011). In Tam Giang, the aquaculture boom has reduced

the available water area for mobile gear fishers. For ex-

ample, more than 80 % of the Sam Chuon region of the

lagoon was privatised and converted into aquaculture areas,

including earth ponds and net enclosures. Mobile gear

fishers have been excluded from their previous fishing

grounds, and they have become increasingly disadvantaged

and poorer (Ta and Berkes 2011) in the context of the

changes taking place. The experiences in these lagoons

reinforce our theoretical understanding of the ways that

regime shifts often perpetuate uneven power distributions.

Both Chilika and Tam Giang lagoons highlight charac-

teristics of uneven distribution of benefits and impacts from

the ongoing processes of rapid social–ecological change.

Simultaneously, regime shifts can disproportionately im-

pact poor, disempowered and other marginalised groups

while creating conditions in which certain groups are able

to adapt more effectively and benefit from rapid social–

ecological change. Experience in both cases underscores

the importance of clearly identifying who benefits and who

loses under different forms of change that may range from

slow and gradual to rapid and abrupt. Crafting effective

governance responses to dynamic and multi-scale changes

thus requires specific attention to equity, justice and power

dimensions of change. In this regard, governance solutions

and approaches (e.g. social learning, knowledge sharing

and reformulating property rights) are necessary that

recognise and aim to deal with ongoing mismatches be-

tween social–institutional systems and biophysical systems

(i.e. problem of ‘fit’) that are inherent with regime shifts

(see Galaz et al. 2008).

Power and its implications for governance

Regime shifts are multi-scaled, and governance arrange-

ments developed to address specific changes at different

levels of the social–ecological system may fail to address

approaching thresholds due to the cumulative impact of all

changes. Inversely, higher-level governance approaches

that are designed to deal with significant changes (i.e. large

modifications in the structures and dynamics of the SES)

may prove inadequate for governance challenges resulting

from changes at smaller scales or local levels. Experiences

in the Chilika and Tam Giang lagoon cases illustrate the

challenges associated with potential regime shifts and the

corresponding questions and issues for governance that

must be considered (Table 5).

As we indicate in Table 5, there are many questions

relevant to issues of governance, but few easy answers or

panaceas for conditions of abrupt change. Multi-level and

adaptive governance approaches are likely necessary to

respond to uncertain conditions. This includes a commit-

ment to connect individuals and organisations vertically

and horizontally, to create networks that foster learning and

knowledge exchange, and to monitor feedback (Folke et al.

2005; Armitage et al. 2009). However, as we note above,

understanding of regime shifts is contingent on the fram-

ings and narratives of social–ecological change by different

groups, the dynamics of power among those groups, and

the material consequences that influence who benefits and

who loses from rapid social–ecological change. The

dominant and powerful narratives of change that often

represent the views of elites and other influential groups

tend to be privileged in the design and implementation of

governance arrangements, including changes in property

rights or the development of co-management (Crona and

Bodin 2010; Nayak and Berkes 2011). Such approaches

run the risk of excluding a significant group of governance

actors whose voices can potentially strengthen decision-

making and intervention strategies to deal with regime

shifts. A governance arrangement that is based on the

dominant narratives of change put forward by particular

groups and people in power (i.e. higher-caste aquaculture

owners supported by political leaders in Chilika) may be

quite different from a narrative that represents the voices of

the poor and socially marginalised. A real challenge for

governance theory and practice is to appropriately weigh

both these views in order to develop consensus and pos-

sible collaborations to deal with regime shifts.

Insights from an emerging literature on deliberative

transformations and socio-technical transitions are helpful

in this regard (see, e.g. Foxon et al. 2009; Gelcich et al.

P. K. Nayak et al.

123

Author's personal copy

2010; Armitage et al. 2011; O’Brien 2012). This literature

points to the importance of theorising power more explic-

itly in studies of rapid environmental change, and a need

for more comprehensive consideration of the linked eco-

logical and social dimensions of regime shifts. As our

analysis of both lagoon cases reveals, at the core of man-

agement and governance of regime shifts is the need to

consider how to accommodate divergent views about SES

change, how the benefits and consequences of regime shifts

should be distributed, and who should participate in deci-

sion making about what features of social–ecological

change to accommodate and what to contest (sensu

O’Brien 2012).

Conclusions

We have outlined the important role of equity and justice

as illustrated through a realist view of power in dealing

with key issues critical for early detection, forecasting and

navigation of regime shifts: who benefits and who loses,

dominant framings and narratives of change, and social

power and control. These concerns link to a broader

challenge of ‘fit’ (Young 2002; Crowder et al. 2006; Galaz

et al. 2008) as a way to address regime shifts by alerting us

to the mismatch between social–institutional and bio-

physical systems that either result from regimes shifts or

that may trigger regime shifts.

Our analysis of power and politics further helps to em-

phasise that the ‘social’ is not detached from the

‘ecological’. Governance arrangements are more likely to

succeed when interrelated aspects of the social–ecological

system are addressed coherently (Berkes 2011). This

means social issues such as discrepancies in power and

cultural differences will ultimately determine the institu-

tional interventions that are required to navigate rapid so-

cial–ecological change.

Under conditions of rapid change, and in situations

where thresholds in key system attributes (habitats, avail-

ability of fish, water quality, livelihoods, institutions) are

being crossed at multiple spatial and temporal scales, the

identification of socially and ecologically suitable gover-

nance approaches becomes particularly complex. To ad-

dress the variability, uncertainty and unpredictability

associated with regime shifts in social–ecological system,

much greater understanding of their social context is re-

quired. Failure to consider social relationships of power

and politics in periods of abrupt coastal and marine change

will adversely affect ongoing efforts to predict and navi-

gate changes to the benefit of ecosystems and human well-

being.

Acknowledgments This research is funded by the Social Sciences

and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada grants to P.

K. Nayak and D. Armitage. Additional funding has been provided by

the University of Waterloo through the Office of the Provost and the

Canada Excellence Research Chair (CERC) in Ecohydrology.

M. Andrachuk’s work in Tam Giang is further supported through a

Doctoral Research Award from International Development Research

Center (IDRC) and SSHRC doctoral award. We wish to express our

appreciation to the special issue editor Alida Bundy and two anony-

mous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Table 5 Key questions for governance in the context of regime shifts

Social dimensions of RS Governance questions

Social relations of power How to minimise complex politics and relationships of power between the winners and losers from RS?

How to create equal opportunities to share scale, position and place advantages?

How to minimise the risk of exclusion of certain groups of actors from designing governance approaches

and intervention strategies to deal with RS?

What can ensure representation of the voices of the poor and socially marginalised?

How to appropriately weigh contentious and conflicting views on extreme change in order to develop

consensus and possible collaborations to deal with RS

Who participates in decision making around what key features of the SES need to be maintained?

Dominant framings and narratives

of change

How to interpret different framings and narratives on extreme change and derive meanings to anticipate and

respond to RS?

How to recognise and accommodate differing values and cultural interpretations of change?

How to accommodate divergent views on ways in which a given SES should be managed?

Who benefits who loses How to develop understanding of smaller-scale and microlevel dynamics within a SES?

How to address uneven distribution of benefits and impacts of RS with attention to poor, disempowered and

other marginalised groups?

How to create negotiations between those for whom outcomes of RS are beneficial and those who are

adversely affected?

How to respond to questions on equity, justice and power dimensions of extreme change?

How to enable hybrid governance approaches to deal with the problem of ‘fit’ inherent with regime shifts?

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

123

Author's personal copy

References

Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S (2006a) Towards justice in adaptation to

climate change. In: Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ (eds)

Fairness in adaptation to climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge,

pp 1–19

Adger WN, Brown K, Tompkins EL (2006b) The political economy

of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecol Soc

10(2):9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art9/

Agyeman J, Bullard RD, Evan B (eds) (2003) Just sustainability:

development in an unequal world. Earthscan, London

Anand P (2001) Procedural fairness in economic and social choices:

evidence from a survey of voters. J Econ Psychol 22:247–270.

doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00031-9

Armitage D, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur R, Charles A, Davidson-

Hunt I, Diduck A, Doubleday N, Johnson D, Marschke M,

McConney P, Pinkerton E, Wollenberg L (2009) Adaptive co-

management for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol En-

viron 7(2):95–102. doi:10.1890/070089

Armitage D, Marschke M, Tuyen T (2011) Early-stage transformation

of coastal marine governance in Vietnam. Mar Policy

35:703–711. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.02.011

Armitage D, Bene C, Charles T, Johnson D, Allison EH (2012) The

interplay of wellbeing and resilience concepts in applying a

social–ecological systems perspective. Ecol Soc 17(4):15.

doi:10.5751/ES-04940-170415

Bachrach P, Baratz MS (1970) Power and poverty: theory and

practice. Oxford University, New York

Berkes F (2011) Restoring unity: the concept of marine social–

ecological systems. In: Ommer R, Perry I, Cochrane K, Cury P

(eds) World fisheries: a social–ecological analysis. Wiley,

Oxford, pp 9–28. doi:10.1002/9781444392241

Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (1998) Linking social and ecological systems:

management practices and social mechanisms for building

resilience. Cambridge University Press, London

Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Brock WA (2009) Turning back from the

brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it.

Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:826–831. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811729106

Camacho DE (ed) (1998) Environmental injustices, political strug-

gles: race, class, and the environment. Duke University Press,

Durham

Cleg SR (1989) Frameworks of power. Sage, London

Crepin AS, Biggs R, Polasky S, Troell M, Zeeuw AD (2012) Regime

shifts and management. Ecol Econ 84:15–22

Crona B, Bodin O (2010) Power asymmetries in small-scale fisheries:

a barrier to governance transformability? Ecol Soc 15(4):32.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art32/

Crowder L, Osherenko G, Young O et al (2006) Resolving

mismatches in US ocean governance. Science 313:617–618.

doi:10.1126/science.1129706

Fairhead J, Leach M (1995) False forest history, complicit social

analysis: rethinking some West African environmental narra-

tives. World Dev 23(6):1023–1035. doi:10.1016/0305-

750X(95)00026-9

Few R (2002) Researching actor power: analyzing mechanisms of

interaction in negotiations over space. Area 34:29–38. doi:10.

1111/1475-4762.00054

Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of

social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour

30:441–473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

Foxon T, Reed M, Stringer L (2009) Governing long-term socio-

ecological change: what can resilience and transitions approach-

es learn from each other? Environ Policy Gov 19:3–20. doi:10.

1002/eet.496

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: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (eds)

Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, appli-

cations, and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge,

pp 147–186

Galaz V, Moberg F, Olsson EK, Paglia E, Parker C (2011)

Institutional and political leadership dimensions of cascading

ecological crises. Public Adm 89(2):361–380. doi:10.1111/j.

1467-9299.2010.01883.x

Gaventa J (2006) Finding the spaces for change: a power analysis.

IDS Bulletin 37.6. Institute of Development Studies, UK

Gelcich S, Hughes T, Olsson P, Folke C, Defeo O, Fernandez M,

Foale S, Gunderson L, Rodrıguez-Sickert C, Scheffer M,

Steneck R, Castilla JC (2010) Navigating transformations in

governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. PNAS

107(39):16794–16799. doi:10.1073/pnas.1012021107

Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society. University of

California Press, Berkeley

Grove K (2013) On resilience politics: from transformation to

subversion. Resil Int Policies Pract Discourses. doi:10.1080/

21693293.2013.804661Gujit I (2005) Assessing civil society participation as supported in-

country. Synthesis report. Randwijk, Dordrecht

Hughes TP, Linares C, Dakos V, van de Leemput IA, van Nes EH

(2013) Living dangerously on borrowed time during slow,

unrecognized regime shifts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:149–155.

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.022

Jentoft S et al (2007) In the power of power: the understated aspect of

fisheries and coastal management. Hum Organ 66:426–436

Karunanithi AT, Cabezas H, Frieden BR, Pawlowski CW (2008)

Detection and assessment of ecosystem regime shifts from fisher

information. Ecol Soc 13:22. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/

vol13/iss1/art22/

Kraberg AC, Wiltshire KH (2014) Regime shifts in the marine

environment: how do they affect ecosystem services? In:

Goffredo S, Dubinsky Z (eds) The Mediterranean Sea: its

history and present challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 499–504.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6704-1

Kurtz H (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames: constructing

the problem of environmental injustice. Polit Geogr 22:887–916.

doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2003.09.001

Lambin EF (2005) Conditions for sustainability of human–environ-

ment systems: information, motivation, and capacity. Glob

Environ Change 15:177–180. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.06.

002

Lebel L, Garden P, Imamura M (2005). The politics of scale, position,

and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong

region. Ecol Soc 10(2):18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/

vol10/iss2/art18/

Lees K, Pitois S, Scott C, Frid C, Mackinson S (2006) Characterizing

regime shifts in the marine environment. Fish Fish 7:104–127.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00215.x

Lenton TM (2013) Environmental tipping points. Annu Rev Environ

Resour 38:1–129. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102511-084654

Lukes S (2005) Power: a radical view, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan,

Great Britain

Marschke M, Armitage D, An LV, Tuyen TV, Mallee H (2012) Do

collective rights make sense? Insights into property rights from

central Vietnam. Int J Commons 6:1–27

Marshall J (2001) Landlords, leaseholders, and sweat equity:

changing property regimes in aquaculture. Mar Policy

25:335–352. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(01)00020-3

P. K. Nayak et al.

123

Author's personal copy

Mayer AL, Pawlowski CW, Cabezas HH (2006) Fisher information

and dynamic regime changes in ecological systems. Ecol Model

195:72–82. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.11.011

McCusker B, Carr ER (2006) The co-production of livelihoods and

land use change: case studies from South Africa and Ghana.

Geoforum 37:790–804. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.09.007

Morris MW, Leung K, Ames D, Lickel B (1999) Views from inside

and outside: integrating emic and etic insights about culture and

justice judgement. Acad Manag Rev 24(4):781–796

Narayan D, Chambers R, Shah MK, Petesch P (2000) Voices of the

poor: crying out for change. Oxford University Press, New York.

doi:10.1596/0-1952-1602-4

Nayak PK (2011) Change and marginalisation: livelihoods, commons

institutions and environmental justice in Chilika lagoon, India.

Dissertation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB. http://

mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/1993/5032/1/NAYAK%

20PRATEEP_%20Doctoral%20Thesis.pdf

Nayak PK (2014) The Chilika lagoon social–ecological system: an

historical analysis. Ecol Soc 19(1):1. doi:10.5751/ES-05978-

190101

Nayak PK, Berkes F (2010) Whose marginalisation? Politics around

environmental injustices in India’s Chilika lagoon. Local

Environ 15:553–567. doi:10.1080/13549839.2010.487527

Nayak PK, Berkes F (2011) Commonisation and decommonisation:

understanding the processes of change in Chilika lagoon, India.

Conserv Soc 9:132–145. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.83723

Nayak PK, Berkes F (2014) Linking global drivers with local and

regional change: a social–ecological system approach in Chilika

lagoon, Bay of Bengal. Reg Environ Change 14:2067–2078.

doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0369-3

Njaya F, Donda P, Bene C (2012) Analysis of power in fisheries co-

management: experiences from Malawi. Soc Nat Resour

25:652–666. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.627912

Oakerson RJ (1992) Analyzing the commons: a framework. In:

Bromley D (ed) Making the commons work: theory, practice and

policy. ICS Press, San Fransisco, pp 41–59

O’Brien K (2012) Global environmental change II: from adaptation to

deliberate transformation. Prog Hum Geogr 36:667–676. doi:10.

1177/0309132511425767

Okereke C (2006) Global environmental sustainability: intra-gen-

erational equity and conceptions of justice in multilateral

environmental justice. Geoforum 37:725–738. doi:10.1016/j.

geoforum.2005.10.005

Ommer R, Perry I, Cochrane K, Cury P (eds) (2011) World fisheries:

a social–ecological analysis. Wiley, Oxford. doi:10.1002/

9781444392241

Pelling M, Manuel-Navarrete D (2011) From resilience to transfor-

mation: the adaptive cycle in two Mexican urban centers. Ecol

Soc 16(2). http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art11/

Pradhan D, Flaherty M (2008) National initiatives, local effects: trade,

liberalization, shrimp aquaculture, and coastal communities in

Orissa, India. Soc Nat Resour 21:63–76. doi:10.1080/

08941920701655734

Raik DB, Wilson AL (2006) Planning in collaborative wildlife

management: a critical perspective. J Environ Plan Manag

49(3):321–336. doi:10.1080/09640560600598304

Raik DB, Wilson AL, Decker DJ (2008) Power in natural resources

management: an application of theory. Soc Nat Resour

21:729–739. doi:10.1080/08941920801905195

Roe E (1991) ‘‘Development narratives’’ or making the best of

development blueprints. World Dev 19(4):287–300

Sachs JD (2005) The End of poverty: economic possibilities for our

time. The Penguin Press, New York

Scheffer M, Carpenter SR (2003) Catastrophic regime shifts in

ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evol

18:648–656. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.002

Schlosberg D (2004) Preconceiving environmental justice: global

movements and political theory. Politics 13:517–540. doi:10.

1080/0964401042000229025

Scott J (2001) Power. Polity Press, Cambridge

Sinclair PR, Ommer RE (eds) (2006) Power and restructuring:

Canada’s coastal society and environment. ISER Books, St.

John’s

Ta TTH, Berkes F (2011) Diversity of resource use and property

rights in Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Int J Commons 5:130–149

Tuyen TV, Armitage D, Marschke M (2010) Livelihoods and co-

management in the Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Ocean Coast

Manag 53:327–335. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.001

VeneKlasen L, Miller V (2002) A new weave of power, people and

politics: the action guide for advocacy and citizen participation.

World Neighbors, Oklahoma City

Walker G, Bulkeley H (2006) Geographies of environmental justice.

Geoforum 37:655–659. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.12.002

Walker B, Meyers JA (2004) Thresholds in ecological and social–

ecological systems: a developing database. Ecol Soc 9:3. http://

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3/

Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience,

adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems.

Ecol Soc 9:5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5

Williams G, Mawdsley E (2006) Postcolonial environmental justice:

government and governance in India. Geoforum 37:660–670.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.08.003

Winter SL (1996) The ‘‘power’’ thing. Va Law Rev 82(5):721–835Young IM (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton

University Press, Princeton

Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental

change: fit, interplay, and scale. The MIT Press, Cambridge

Zerner C (ed) (2000) People, plants, and justice: the politics of nature

conservation. Columbia University Press, New York. http://

www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/zern10810

Power and politics of social–ecological regime shifts

123

Author's personal copy