INTERDISCIPLINARITY: SPANNING ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES

There are a variety of definitions, and strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to disciplinary boundaries (Table 1). For each proposal there are assorted justifications, particularly for interdisciplinarity. One argument for interdisciplinarity is that multidisciplinarity is insufficient, for it fails to truly synthesize disciplinary contributions; a more profound cross-disciplinary fusion is necessary to overcome the often incommensurate perspectives of relevant disciplines (Hirsch Hadorn et al. Reference Hirsch Hadorn, Hoffmann-Riem, Biber-Klemm, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Joye, Pohl and Wiesmann2008). A related justification stems from historical reviews of past attempts at interdisciplinarity that failed to take hold (Balsiger Reference Balsiger2004; Klein Reference Klein2004). Here the argument is that with growing environmental problems, the time is ripe for interdisciplinarity. Further, such statements argue that it is time to set aside disciplinary chauvinism, whatever the institutional rewards. More moderate statements suggest that interdisciplinarity does not imply the erasure of disciplines, but that the two must coexist to address environmental problems (Giri Reference Giri2002; Harriss Reference Harriss2002). Another line of argument is that research on environmental threats must be problem-oriented, not discipline-oriented. Nearly all discussions of interdisciplinarity stress this point, but it has been particularly emphasized in discussions of policy-oriented research (Brewer Reference Brewer1999), as with climate change (Shine Reference Shine2009). A final rationale for interdisciplinarity arises from debates over reductive versus holistic strategies for achieving a synthesis among the arts and sciences. Whereas reductive arguments posit that the natural sciences should serve as the model for other disciplines (Wilson Reference Wilson1998), the holistic view asserts that an interdisciplinary synthesis requires contributions from multiple corners of academia (Costanza Reference Costanza1999, Reference Costanza2003).

Table 1 Definitions, strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to disciplinary boundaries.

These rationales have stimulated research on strategies for interdisciplinarity. Such work provides a corrective to merely celebratory accounts. Young scholars are indeed willing and prepared to accept the professional risks of interdisciplinary work in order to more effectively address real-world problems (Rhoten & Parker Reference Rhoten and Parker2004). However, there is also evidence that interdisciplinary training and research are more effective if built to complement disciplinary foundations (Graybill et al. Reference Graybill, Dooling, Shandas, Withey, Greve and Simon2006; Kainer et al. Reference Kainer, Schmink, Covert, Stepp, Bruna, Dain, Espinosa and Humphries2006; Rhoten et al. Reference Rhoten, O'Connor and Hackett2009).

Beyond such statements is literature about strategic practices for effective interdisciplinary research (Lélé & Norgaard Reference Lélé and Norgaard2005). We identified seven practices for overcoming challenges to various forms of boundary crossing (Table 2). Recipes and sequencing for the practices simplifies reality insofar as challenges arise repeatedly and practices must be sustained in order to be effective; this is particularly true of practices to address politics due to inequalities (Table 2, item 2) and uncertainty due to surprises (Table 2, item 7).

Table 2 Strategic practices for crossing disciplinary, organizational and international boundaries. Practices presented in the order in which they become important in the process of collaboration across boundaries.

For purposes of discussing interdisciplinarity, we highlight strategic practices especially salient in the literature on interdisciplinarity: effective communication and joint learning (Table 2, item 1), collaborative framing of the problem and theoretical approach (Table 2, item 3), establishing network structures for coordination (Table 2, item 5) and standardizing data collection to facilitate data integration for analysis (Table 2, item 4). We then turn to practices to address politics and uncertainty.

Communication is a key means for overcoming cultural barriers among disciplines (Heemskerk et al. Reference Heemskerk, Wilson and Pavao-Zuckerman2003; Pennington Reference Pennington2008; Monteiro & Keating Reference Monteiro and Keating2009). Discussing problems and underlying conceptual models identifies implicit disciplinary assumptions that otherwise cause confusion and yield frustration. This implies that effective communication takes time, especially among first-time collaborators. Helpful to the process of achieving effective communication is joint learning, whereby participants suggest theoretical and methodological contributions from various disciplines, which the group then critically evaluates as a step toward a synthesis. Central to such discussions is the challenge of achieving disciplinary enlightenment, namely the willingness of a given participant to delineate the limitations of their home discipline as a motivation to learn more from others (Heemskerk et al. Reference Heemskerk, Wilson and Pavao-Zuckerman2003; Pennington Reference Pennington2008).

Effective communication and joint learning support the practice of collaboratively framing the problem and developing an integrative theoretical approach. The way a problem is framed invokes specific concepts and theoretical propositions, often from one discipline (Oughton & Bracken Reference Oughton and Bracken2009). The challenge is to move beyond theories forged in a single disciplinary crucible. A disciplinary perspective will direct the conversation down a path previously taken, with predictably ineffective results for achieving a novel synthesis. One strategy for transcending disciplinary trappings involves heuristics (Nicholson et al. Reference Nicholson, Starfield, Kofinas and Kruse2002; Abbott Reference Abbott2004). Working with heuristics means explicitly treating established concepts experimentally and applying them to new problems to see if they contribute new insights. This requires critiques of heuristics, both from within its origin discipline and also with regard to possible applications, with modifications, to interdisciplinary problems.

Interdisciplinary practice also demands effective coordination among collaborators (Pohl Reference Pohl2005; Hirsch Hadorn et al. Reference Hirsch Hadorn, Hoffmann-Riem, Biber-Klemm, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Joye, Pohl and Wiesmann2008). This involves a careful balancing act between recognizing specialists who assume leadership roles for certain tasks and ensuring a high level coordination necessary to allow integration at each stage of a research effort. Interdisciplinarity requires the constitution of dense networks of participants, including facilitators who in effect specialize at integration (Pohl Reference Pohl2005). Regular meetings are thus necessary to sustain coordination. Effective coordination is an issue we discuss further in the section on interorganizational networking.

Interdisciplinary practice also compels standardization of data collection to allow integration for analysis. This brings up methodological issues, particularly concerning research design, sampling and measurement. Design of environmental research often involves multiple scales. Environmental research not only involves observation of small and large spatial units, but also on different temporal scales, which necessitates small time steps and large timeframes in monitoring efforts. Multi-scale design provides a flexible means of addressing scale mismatches in the social and biophysical units under scrutiny, for such design allows analysis at multiple scales to assess scale effects on the results (Cumming et al. Reference Cumming, Cumming and Redman2006). Sampling is challenging because units of observation are not neatly nested within each other, and exhibit complex overlaps through space and time. This makes standardization of sampling and measurement crucial but difficult (Policansky Reference Policansky1999; Wesselink Reference Wesselink2009). Standardized sampling and measurement affords greater reliability and allows more comparisons and applications to other study sites.

Aside from practices emphasized in the interdisciplinarity literature, we focus on politics and uncertainty, because they are prominent in all forms of boundary crossing for environmental science and management. Regarding politics (Table 2, item 2), power inequalities among disciplines constitute a stumbling block to effective interdisciplinary practice (Schoenberger Reference Schoenberger2001; MacMynowski Reference MacMynowski2007). When such inequalities become manifest via the behaviour of individuals who seek to impose disciplinary problem frames and theoretical approaches, they can be addressed via critical group discussion. However, other inequalities are evident in the institutional structures of academia, where certain departments garner more prestige and thus greater resources. A discipline-based system of institutional rewards in universities is not readily compatible with problem-driven science, which is sometimes characterized as fashionable and temporary. In this context, disciplinary boundary-crossing becomes a political act, for it does not necessarily occur with the sanction of authorities from the relevant departments. Indeed, appropriation of ideas often serves disciplinary interests rather than interdisciplinarity, as it is frequently pursued via ‘trespassing’ of more powerful disciplines upon others (Portes Reference Portes1995). As imperialism, trespassing can reinforce disciplinary boundaries, but if trespassing is driven instead by new areas of study, it can become a subaltern movement against discipline-based reward systems to advance interdisciplinarity.

A second abiding challenge to interdisciplinarity and other boundary crossing is the problem of uncertainty due to surprise (Table 2, item 7), as via unexpected methodological problems and research findings. Some discussions of interdisciplinarity highlight uncertainty (Gunderson & Holling Reference Gunderson and Holling2002) and vice versa (Bammer et al. Reference Bammer and Smithson2009), and both argue that interdisciplinary practices can help address the problem of uncertainty. Interdisciplinary teams encompass more perspectives and are better able to address scale mismatches in data and creatively interpret unanticipated findings. This has nonetheless prompted academics to look beyond universities for broader modes of collaboration. This search is driven by concern to render interdisciplinary science more relevant to policymakers and stakeholders (Lubchenco Reference Lubchenco1998) as via transdisciplinarity (Hirsch Hadorn et al. Reference Hirsch Hadorn, Hoffmann-Riem, Biber-Klemm, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Joye, Pohl and Wiesmann2008). Such aspirations raise additional issues when crossing boundaries from academia to stakeholder groups and among different types of organizations.

INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY AND INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS

Foundational discussions of institutional models for environmental management highlighted one type of institution or organization. Hardin's (Reference Hardin1968) ‘tragedy of the commons’ indicted open access for the inability of individuals operating in their self-interest to sustainably manage resources. Some took this to imply that private exclusive resource tenure constituted the only other option, an interpretation that resonated with the property rights literature (Alchion & Demsetz Reference Alchion and Demsetz1973) and suggested an institutional mechanism for sustainable resource management (Stroup & Goodman Reference Stroup and Goodman1992). Others differentiated between open access and community management, thereby critiquing private property as the sole or best mechanism available, and suggested management mechanisms involving various types of institutions and organizations (McKay & Acheson Reference McKay and Acheson1987; Berkes Reference Berkes1989; Ostrom Reference Ostrom1990).

Similarly, state-based as well as market-oriented approaches to environmental management also incurred criticism, giving rise to the governance literature (Durant et al. Reference Durant, Fiorino and O'Leary2004; Kanie & Haas Reference Kanie and Haas2004). Whereas command-and-control legislation provoked adversarial relations between states and stakeholders, market mechanisms by themselves have failed to provide systemic stability or environmental sustainability. The result has been to argue for governance beyond governments and market mechanisms. Such ‘third way’ approaches (Giddens Reference Giddens2001) highlight broader inclusion of stakeholders, democratic deliberation, management via cooperation, and public accountability for results (Cohen & Sabel Reference Cohen and Sabel1997; Karkkainen et al. Reference Karkkainen, Fung and Sabel2000; DeBurca & Scott Reference De Burca and Scott2005).

Such approaches endorse collaboration among diverse types of organizations and with multiple stakeholder groups to deal with environmental problems. In the USA, ‘civic environmentalism’ emerged out of debates over command-and-control legislation (DeWitt Reference DeWitt1994), offering an inclusive, deliberative model for environmental action (Shutkin Reference Shutkin2000), as in ‘collaborative conservation’ (Brick et al. Reference Brick, Snow and Van de Wetering2001). Similarly, declarations of the ‘death of environmentalism’ served to motivate proposals to integrate environmental organizations with other social movements (Schellenberger & Nordhaus Reference Schellenberger and Nordhaus2004; Werbach Reference Werbach2004).

In many developing countries, democratization and neoliberal policies opened political spaces which were occupied by NGOs and social movement organizations (SMOs) in the vacuum left by governmental organizations (GOs) that incurred budget cuts under structural adjustment plans (Bebbington & Thiele Reference Bebbington and Thiele1993; Jasanoff Reference Jasanoff1997). This included environmental NGOs and SMOs, both the big international NGOs (BINGOs) who established subsidiaries around the world, as well as emerging domestic organizations.

This circumstance diversified the organizations at play concerning environmental conservation. In contrast to GOs, NGOs and SMOs afforded the advantages of greater flexibility and responsiveness to local constituencies, and a combination of interest group advocacy with service provision (Meyer Reference Meyer1999). To the extent that they secured funds from external donors, NGOs could pursue environmental management without having to appease rent-seeking elites or wait for state bureaucracies (Meyer Reference Meyer1999; Barrett et al. Reference Barrett, Brandon, Gibson and Gjertsen2001; Aldaba Reference Aldaba2002). However, institutional diversification has also constituted new challenges. NGOs (particularly BINGOs) have been criticized for their autocratic decision making and for failing to sustain engagement with local stakeholders (Chapin Reference Chapin2004; M. Dourojeanni, personal communication 2005). This leaves open questions of the varied degree and effectiveness of collaboration between NGOs and local peoples (Bray & Anderson Reference Bray and Anderson2005).

Beyond NGOs are local communities, which have also been recognized as experienced environmental stewards, long neglected by policymakers (Berkes Reference Berkes1989; Western & Wright Reference Western and Wright1994). However, more recent appraisals feature important emendations of the community-based model, as analysts have cast doubt on community cohesion and management capacity, and questioned whether communities necessarily avoid destroying the resources on which they depend (Agrawal & Gibson Reference Agrawal and Gibson1999; Barrett et al. Reference Barrett, Brandon, Gibson and Gjertsen2001). This has prompted calls for systematic comparisons of community-based management outcomes (Agrawal Reference Agrawal2001), but multi-case empirical studies have yielded mixed findings (Hillborn et al. Reference Hillborn, Orensanz and Parma2005; Pagdee et al. Reference Pagdee, Kim and Daugherty2006; Thompson et al. Reference Thompson, Sultana and Islam2003).

Literature on organizations and stakeholders interfaces with work on multi-stakeholder collaboration (Poncelet Reference Poncelet2004). The development studies literature includes calls for more participatory approaches (Cernea Reference Cernea1992; Chambers Reference Chambers1997). A parallel literature focuses on stakeholder participation in collaborative resource management (Wondolleck & Yaffee Reference Wondolleck and Yaffee2000). Both critically evaluate the extent of community participation alongside organizations engaged in environmental management. A particular focus has been on requirements for true collaboration: incorporation of all relevant stakeholders, structuring of the process, clarification of procedures, and management of trust in coalitions with unequal players.

Literature on stakeholder participation parallels work on transdisciplinarity (Gibbons et al. Reference Gibbons, Limoge, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott and Trow1994; Hirsch Hadorn et al. Reference Hirsch Hadorn, Hoffmann-Riem, Biber-Klemm, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Joye, Pohl and Wiesmann2008). There are numerous examples of collaboration between scientists and stakeholders to address environmental problems. The ‘popular epidemiology’ literature highlights collaborative monitoring of pollution hazards (Brown Reference Brown1997; Senier et al. Reference Senier, Hudson, Fort, Hoover, Tillson and Brown2008). Scientist collaboration with stakeholders is also evident in the environmental justice literature (Frickel Reference Frickel2004), and in the context of ecosystem management (Frame et al. Reference Frame, Gunton and Day2004; Curtin Reference Curtin2007; Flitcroft et al. Reference Flitcroft, Dedrick, Smith, Thieman and Bolte2009).

The underlying rationale for such collaboration is the notion of ‘collaborative advantage’ from the administrative science literature (Lasker et al. Reference Lasker, Weiss and Miller2001; Huxham & Vangen Reference Huxham and Vangen2004). The advantage of collaboration resides in the ability of partnerships to expand the effective capacity of partners to achieve their goals. Via exchanges of complementary resources, information, perspectives and other comparative advantages, each partner offsets the limitations of the others. While economies of scale yield efficiencies for competing organizations, collaboration begets advantages stemming from differences among partners. According to collaborative advantage theory, complementarity facilitates social learning and adoption of system-wide perspectives to identify new opportunities for action (Huxham & Vangen Reference Huxham and Vangen2004).

The notion of collaborative advantage has driven research on organizational partnerships. Prominent in the social movements literature have been local-global alliances, usually between local communities and international NGOs, resulting in transnational advocacy networks (Keck & Sikkink Reference Keck and Sikkink1998; Johnson & Almeida Reference Johnson and Almeida2006). Such partnerships, whether consisting of dyads or alliances among a handful of players, have facilitated local action with outside support.

Beyond alliances with a few organizations and stakeholders has been attention to larger interorganizational networks (Manring Reference Manring2007). While networks involve greater complexity, they are often necessary to take on large-scale environmental problems in a coordinated fashion. The advantages of networks reside in their decentralized structure around multiple leaders, which expands connectivity that facilitates large-scale information transmission and greater flexibility in allocating resources. Networks also afford broader input among network participants for extensive social learning that can build capacities among numerous partners.

One question concerning interorganizational networks is how they emerge (Gulati & Gargiulo Reference Gulati and Gargiulo1999; Powell et al. Reference Powell, White, Koput and Owen-Smith2005). Social actors employ multiple strategies to initiate affiliations that provide the basis for enduring alliances. While enlightened self-interest along the lines of collaborative advantage plays an important role, past experiences in alliances also matter, as well as the balance of power in the structure of an emerging network.

Beyond network formation is the central issue of sustaining interorganizational networks for environmental management (Manring Reference Manring2007; Nhkata, et al. 2008). Key to sustaining networks are ‘net brokers’ (Manring Reference Manring2007), who constitute central players in sustaining networks and whose strategic practices span those presented in Table 2 (items 1–7). Networks have the same requirements as smaller alliances (such as trust and common commitments), but the size of interorganizational networks places bigger responsibilities on net brokers who facilitate network ties (Miles & Snow Reference Miles and Snow1986; Manring Reference Manring2007). Net brokers play ‘matchmaker’ by brokering organizational courtships and marriages, thereby expanding and maintaining networks. Net brokers also facilitate interorganizational communication, which builds trust and capacity among organizations, especially by diffusing new perspectives and innovative ideas. A key role of net brokers is to question assumptions and thereby demand rethinking by all partners, part of the process of ‘generative learning’ (Argyris & Schon Reference Argyris and Schon1996) which, in a network, inculcates systemic organizational learning (Senge Reference Senge1990; Easterby-Smith et al. Reference Easterby-Smith, Crossan and Nicolini2000). Through these strategic practices, net brokers constitute ‘servant leaders’ who sustain networks (Olssen et al. Reference Olssen, Folke and Hahn2004).

The work of net brokers to facilitate network adjustments becomes all the more important when viewed in light of the challenges posed by uncertainty (Longstaff & Yang Reference Longstaff and Yang2008; Pahl-Wostl et al. Reference Pahl-Wostl, Sendzimir and Jeffrey2009). The adaptive management literature has long provided accounts of how collaboration among organizations via policy experiments affords a systematic means of gathering data to adjust environmental management to optimize multiple goals (Holling Reference Holling1978; Walters Reference Walters1986; Lee Reference Lee1993). Recent work highlights the importance of collaboration in adaptive management (Buck et al. Reference Buck, Geisler, Schelhas and Wollenberg2001; Colfer Reference Colfer2005). In the presence of considerable uncertainty about ecosystem changes (Gunderson & Holling Reference Gunderson and Holling2002), adaptive management may prove unworkable, as it assumes that information is available to plan adjustments in management on predefined timescales. Instead, scenario planning has been suggested as a means of managing uncertainty by considering alternative futures (Peterson et al. Reference Peterson, Cumming and Carpenter2003; Kok et al. Reference Kok, Biggs and Zurek2007). However, in contexts of very rapid change, particularly due to large-scale environmental change or political instability, adaptive management and scenario planning may prove insufficient as adjustment mechanisms. In such times of chaos, ‘muddling through’ becomes the only viable option (Wollenberg et al. Reference Wollenberg, Iwan, Limberg, Moeliono, Rhee and Sudana2007). Muddling through is an established management strategy (Lindblom Reference Lindblom1959) premised on limited information due to rapid change and low predictability. Such circumstances demand intensified communications among collaborators and organizational hyperflexibility to minimize response time (Wollenberg et al. Reference Wollenberg, Iwan, Limberg, Moeliono, Rhee and Sudana2007), demands which net brokers are well-positioned to address (Manring Reference Manring2007).

The issue of political uncertainty raises questions of power in interorganizational networks, where partnerships generally involve inequalities (Mandell Reference Mandell2001; Manring Reference Manring2007). More powerful participants, especially for-profit firms, GOs and BINGOs, often dominate initial negotiations to frame problems and delineate strategic practices for management (Phillips et al. Reference Phillips, Lawrence and Hardy2000). Such dominant ‘institutional fields’ obstruct collaborative advantages and interorganizational learning, which can generate conflicts and impede consideration of alternative management options. Inequalities must therefore be explicitly considered from the outset when constituting interorganizational partnerships (Edmunds & Wollenberg Reference Edmunds and Wollenberg2001). Discussions of partner inequality are particularly important with local stakeholders to avoid their becoming ‘secondary’ partners (Stewart & Gray Reference Stewart and Gray2006). Respect for local partners extends to traditional knowledge, which can challenge dominant frames, stimulate social learning and facilitate shifts in management strategies (Velasquez Runk Reference Velasquez Runk2009). Here net brokers constitute crucial multilateral interlocutors, especially by questioning assumptions and demanding rethinking.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: CROSSING NATIONAL BOUNDARIES

International cooperation presents its own challenges. National frontiers divide ecosystems defined more by gradients than boundaries. Management of transboundary ecosystems thus requires operating in multiple countries with differing languages, cultures and histories. Countries also have diverse bureaucratic systems and institutions that must be navigated. Legal frameworks for organizations, banking regulations on movements of funds and migration protocols are all nationally defined and complicate transboundary collaboration. Further, political differences among countries pose challenges to crossing national boundaries. States have mandates to control their territories, so national frontiers are often regions in tension insofar as the countries at hand are economically unequal or have governments with policy differences.

Literature on international cooperation often features the institutional aspects of public policies for intergovernmental cooperation (Gaillard Reference Gaillard1994). We view transboundary environmental management as involving work among GOs as well as NGOs and stakeholders. Cross-border collaboration for environmental management requires attention to both diplomatic relations among governments as well as relations of states with non-state actors. Further, where environmental problems cross boundaries between neighbouring countries, transboundary management initiatives must acknowledge regional needs as well as national government imperatives to demonstrate sovereignty via territorial control (Table 2).

We focus on global north-south boundary crossing, since this highlights issues stemming from international inequalities that affect international collaboration (Gaillard Reference Gaillard1994). ‘Northern’ country partners often dominate the framing of problems and the delineation of response strategies, which can cause conflicts and foreclose on certain management options (Phillips et al. Reference Phillips, Lawrence and Hardy2000; Stewart & Gray Reference Stewart and Gray2006). This makes collaborative definition of objectives a priority, as well as emphasis on equitable capacity building.

Some work on international collaboration relevant to environmental management focuses on scientific research efforts (Gaillard Reference Gaillard1994; Engels & Ruschenberg Reference Engels and Ruschenberg2008). A key issue concerns the unequal division of labour among tasks. Northern partners often dominate the problem framing while southern partners are often saddled with mundane implementation responsibilities. For partnerships to become more mutually beneficial, there must be equitable contributions to all tasks. This not only encourages joint learning, but also makes possible sustained international cooperation.

Recent statements on international collaborative research for conservation highlight academics working with local stakeholders, and features complementarity in scientific and local knowledge (Duchelle et al. Reference Duchelle, Biedenweg, Lucas, Virapongse, Radachowsky, Wojcik, Londres, Bartels, Alvira and Kainer2009; Kainer et al. Reference Kainer, DiGiano, Duchelle, Wadt, Bruna and Dain2009; Shanley & Lopez Reference Shanley and Lopez2009). This provides the basis for mutual learning by beginning with information dissemination, but continuing to knowledge exchange and collaborative knowledge generation. Collaboration that includes stakeholders beyond formal organizations therefore requires acknowledgment of the expectations of local peoples. Partner organizations can play the net broker role by making implicitly held assumptions and expectations among stakeholders explicit to foreign partners, thereby facilitating communication about what a given activity will accomplish and the benefits it will and will not yield.

Beyond research, there is attention to issues of international collaboration for environmental management (Shackleton et al. Reference Shackleton, Cundill and Knight2009; Wollenberg et al. Reference Wollenberg, Campbell, Dounias, Gunarso, Moeliono and Sheil2009), including transboundary management (Raadgever et al. Reference Raadgever, Mostert, Kranz, Interwies and Timmerman2009), where uncertainties are rife. International collaboration can complement centralized state planning by being more sensitive to local needs and more interactive with local stakeholders. The limitations of relying on state-based management also become evident in transboundary management; a government cannot manage ecosystems across borders without treaties with other governments. That said, non-state networking across borders presents daunting management challenges due to the complexity of collaborating with partners operating in different legal frameworks and political environments. There is considerable potential for surprises stemming from controversies over transboundary resources since they are shared among countries with frequently conflicting interests. Here the network literature is relevant, for net brokers and generative learning are vital for expanding and adjusting networks on the scale required for transboundary management initiatives.

CROSSING MULTIPLE BOUNDARIES: THE MAP FRONTIER

The discussion thus far begs questions about simultaneously crossing multiple boundaries, which we illustrate using the case of the MAP frontier in the south-western Amazon. There, we are coordinators of three projects that cross multiple boundaries. The first involves universities in Bolivia, Brazil, Peru and the USA in an interdisciplinary environmental science effort to evaluate the social and ecological impacts of paving the Inter-Oceanic Highway. The other two projects involve consortia of collaborating universities, NGOs and GOs from the same four countries, seeking collaborative environmental management via development of watershed management plans and road impact mitigation plans as well as capacity building of local organizations and stakeholders. These projects thus cross multiple boundaries simultaneously, and consequently face serious challenges particularly as regards politics and uncertainties.

Crossing multiple boundaries simultaneously compounds the challenges of interdisciplinarity, interorganizational networking and international cooperation. The first project stemmed from an interdisciplinary synthesis involving the concepts of connectivity and resilience, applied to the case of alterations in regional transport networks and the implications for social and ecological change (Cumming et al. Reference Cumming, Barnes, Perz, Schmink, Sieving, Southworth, Binford, Holt, Stickler and Van Holt2005). This theoretical framework proved a challenge to convey to university partners across disciplines as well as stakeholders across countries, a daunting task owing to the need for elucidating concepts while translating across languages. Communicating project goals clearly was important to ensure standardized data collection for downstream data integration and analysis. Here practices such as framing the approach and conveying goals encountered methodological issues like scale mismatches among different types of data. In addition, participation of stakeholder groups included discussions of their expectations concerning the project, which varied across the MAP frontier. The days of scientific fieldwork without data returns are over in the MAP frontier; stakeholders in many places were tired of researchers, especially foreigners, who were unprepared to return findings as a minimal courtesy. We therefore prioritized production of pamphlets, posters and reports for stakeholders before writing up results for scholarly journals; we also innovated methods of data returns to scale up dissemination (Mendoza et al. Reference Mendoza, Perz, Aguilar, Alarcón, Brown, Carballo, Chavez, Chavez, Cullman, de los Rios, Duchelle, Dueñas, Ehringhaus, Luzar, Marsik, Mayna, Muñante, Reis and van Oosten2007b).

Issues especially salient in the second and third projects concern organizational diversity across national boundaries. One challenge has been to coordinate activities among partners with different organizational assets and limitations, as affected by their differing national political contexts. In these projects, NGOs have proven to be more agile in handling funds and implementing activities, but they depend on full-time dedicated staff; though universities and GOs often have greater overall capacity, they face heavier procedural burdens and can only afford part-time staff commitments, which prolongs implementation time. Our experience has been that such contrasts hamper coordination and cause frustration that foster organizational stereotypes: NGOs and USA-based partners are purely self-interested and collaborate only to exploit others; GOs are corrupt and only act on political opportunities tied to upcoming elections; universities are encumbered by internal systems of patronage to unproductive senior faculty. Organizational stereotypes can be compounded by cultural stereotypes associated with national identity, especially if the countries are politically unequal or have conflicts. While stereotypes are often inaccurate, they may hamper collaboration if not acknowledged and addressed. Even if organizations collaborating across countries trust each other, collaboration may be difficult owing to suspicions harboured by authorities. We have relied on net brokers to navigate such difficulties (Manring Reference Manring2007). In our experience, net brokers have legitimacy to call out stereotypes and encourage rethinking in terms of collaborative advantages. Net brokers also serve as important interlocutors with authorities, whose distrust often stems from a lack of direct communication.

In our projects, the challenges of organizational and cultural diversity were compounded by the disparate institutional systems of different countries. In the first project, research permits were more time-consuming to obtain in some countries than others, which prevented coordinated timing of data collection. In the other projects, there were diplomatic implications of devising organizational networks that involved NGOs and crossed national boundaries. Desires to secure national borders and concerns about ‘internationalization’ of the Amazon are key geopolitical foci of the countries sharing the basin (Ribeiro Reference Ribeiro2005; Toledo Reference Toledo2006). In this context, transboundary environmental management by networks of NGOs not controlled by a state bureaucracy can be misunderstood as subverting state authority. This becomes more likely when management activities are interdisciplinary and span the mandates of multiple state agencies. Indeed, the second and third projects were once one tri-national consortium, which had to be divided to respect sovereignty concerns.

Given these political complexities, crossing disciplinary, organizational and national boundaries in our projects required extended ‘courtships’ among potential partners. Our courtships were greatly affected by who initiated the conversation; requests from foreign entities and more powerful partners often required a longer courtship in order to allow time for everyone to feel comfortable in speaking their mind. Our most successful courtships involve multiple participants from each partner organization. This allows substitution of participants as necessary, which builds interorganizational resilience to political shifts.

Crossing multiple boundaries compounds the challenges presented by uncertainty. The Amazon drought event in 2005 prompted fires set by farmers for land management to escape control, burning at least 300 000 ha of mature forest in Acre (Brazil) (Marengo et al. Reference Marengo, Nobre, Tomasella, Oyama, Sampaio de Oliveira, de Oliveira, Camargo, Alves and Brown2008). We now support responses to environmental emergencies including fires and floods. Such support necessitated mid-course corrections in the focus and approach of our management activities. This required partners to prioritize a focus on climate change, water management and civil defence. Such adjustments in turn demanded a shift from adaptive management to ‘muddling through’ (Wollenberg et al. Reference Wollenberg, Iwan, Limberg, Moeliono, Rhee and Sudana2007) to allow for more rapid social learning and improved preparedness for further environmental emergencies.

However, most of the major changes punctuating our collaborations in the MAP frontier have involved political shifts, including not only periodic elections, but also unforeseen legal actions, strikes and political violence. Our experience has been that cascading surprises cause headaches but also generate unexpected opportunities. Regional governments have on several occasions solicited our network collaborators for input and programme models to implement policies for environmental management. The ensuing political process of policy implementation necessitated mid-course corrections and modified our network of partnerships. When political violence in Madre de Dios (Peru) in July 2008 resulted in the burning down of the entire regional government compound, at a moment when a GO partner was to be subsumed into the regional government, the GO's partners suddenly found themselves receiving requests from the regional government to recover data, build new capacity for zoning plans and otherwise support environmental management. This was a notable shift, for previous regional governments in Madre de Dios had been unreceptive to collaboration. In contrast, political violence in Pando (Bolivia) in September 2008 resulted in replacement of regional government leaders who had been receptive with political appointees from outside Pando who were more distant, especially to collaboration with USA-based organizations, a reflection of diplomatic tensions between Bolivia and the USA. In both cases, political volatility required more courtships, but new partners also created opportunities for revisiting project goals and existing partnerships. Uncertainties and politics in the MAP frontier have thus been taxing but functional for reshaping our network of collaborators.