WG3 Minutes 2021-01-14

Presentation

EMDAD presented a Guiding Document summarizing the ideas discussed at the first meeting of the Working Group.

Emdad reinforced the need to define “policy” and “governance”, and to work out the distinctions between these two concepts. There can be a “public policy” definition, focusing on identifying actors or stakeholders, whereby every policy addresses an emerging issue or problem in the public interest. Alternatively, a “pluralistic governance” approach emphasizes decision-making among diverse actors, at all levels. Emdad emphasized the need to deepen stock-taking in the policy and governance sphere. Emdad also recalled Ratana’s point regarding the need for target outputs to guide the work of the Working Group, for which the MARE conference panel could play an important role.

Discussion

DEREK: The point about stock-taking in relation to the dried fish sector is welcome. This is not often an explicit target of governance or development, so much as a peripheral area of interest. It is positive that Emdad mentioned the MARE conference; we need to get that proposal together quickly. Capacity-building is also important; we need to consider the kinds of focus that are desired in the team. Finally, we need to think about how to operationalize all this: What kinds of support can we provide to other teams?

PRATEEP: This is a very clear document, helping to connect three distinct areas (policy, governance, and development). We must think about how to look at these areas, and their sequence. Can the idea of “policy” be broadened, to look beyond state policy? Communities and other organizations also have policies. Community processes are also captured through development and governance; however, we should analyze this in policy as well.

MADU: It seems like we are jumping into the solutions phase, whereas we may need to spend more time in the problems phase. It can help to think about the key issues and problems, based on what we know about the dried fish sector at this time. There are issues such as fish feed, well-being, and the like. Also, we can look at cultural norms / social practices as a context for policy and governance, in addition to the laws / legal context. Possible areas of study include loans and access to credit; normative texts such as the SSF guidelines or SDGs; and market-based mechanisms, especially looking at cross-border trade.

HIMANI: Logistically, an option is to take time periods and use those as a constant across all the countries, to do a comparative study of governance and policy as snapshots. Note that governments will support policies in part based on which party proposed them, for example, by  higher levels of governance. Further to Prateep's point, we can see that local-level governments are sometimes powerful.

PRATEEP: We have started generating questions. Who answers them? What are the boundaries of this Working Group? Do we draft questions and bring them to the Research Teams?

DEREK: Ideally WG3 should be in conversation with the country-level Research Teams. But we could also fund a student to work with WG3 and generate data specific to the Working Group.

PRATEEP: In V2V we are learning how effective online work can be. We have created two sets of webinars -- thematic and project. Anything to be communicated at the project level is done through a webinar. This can also help with capacity building.

DEREK: That model makes sense. At some point, WG3 could present its findings to the larger DFM team with suggestions on how they could influence the broader work.

EMDAD: This discussion is about institutional analysis. Local customs, norms, etc. don't fit within governance in the literature we are starting with (though we could draw on Ostrom). If we want to do policy analysis, the focus must be on the State and its sub-units, legislative processes. Looking more pluralistically, as Prateep suggests, we can use our own definitions. But we can't analyze policy otherwise.

PRATEEP: Nonetheless, as policies often are mismatched to reality, we need to understand the pluralistic reality.

EMDAD: That is normative analysis -- the way things should be. We must start with what the existing policies, and what is missing.

DEREK: All of the research teams have done policy surveys as part of their Scoping work; some of these documents are starting to come out and can be put to use in analytic work.

MADU: Have we decided on a model, such as Interactive Governance, as the best theoretical fit?

DEREK: I'm reluctant to endorse a specific model. We can take inspiration from Interactive Governance, but also from political anthropology. We should be open-minded.

JENIA: We are more interested in the intersections. This has material, relational, and symbolic dimensions. In the Sundarabans, for example -- one of our key research sites -- empirical insights will be very enriching if we look at the intersection of policy, governance, and development. This is a complex site, drawing attention from international stakeholders due to climate change and land submergence. Policy provisions are mainly dealing with global environmental change. But there are also clashes between local and global stories of the anthropocene. We have fishers -- mainly small-scale but also dry fish producers in the Northern part of the Sundarabans -- and forest fringe hamlets where people are involved in both fishing and forestry. How are forestry policies affecting people who are involved in fishing? The ecology/physicality of this site needs to provide a backdrop for the social questions and dimensions. We are also targeting a major dried fish market (Medinipur), where the physical environment is very different. So what is the relationship between multi-sector governance? How are the various legal frameworks affecting fishers and people with other livelihoods? We are trying to map all the actors, agencies, and institutions in the sites where we are doing research. We assume that every block has its own narrative. The Southern blocks are remote and isolated, for example, whereas the Northern blocks are closer to Kolkata, and therefore subject to different policies and resources.

HIMANI: I completely agree. We need to have a common mechanism for policy mapping. But we must not miss out on the regional specificities.

PRATEEP: Two levels of work could be done here. One is analysis of state policy, which most teams are doing, and for which we could provide a template. The other is to look at “local” (non-government) activities that have a policy link, and we could ask for empirical case studies. And third, Emdad is already presenting what amounts to a kind of theoretical model that engages the connections between policy, governance, and development.

JENIA: There is a lot of debate between natural and social scientists, and everyone is looking for “compassionate convergence”. We can explore (philosophically) the differences between models, theories, approaches, frameworks, and paradigms.

DEREK: These issues take meaning in the context of different scales.

EMDAD: I identify three areas of work.

1. State policies, fisheries and implications for dried fish.
2. Local governance, issues, policies, problems.
3. Contextuality -- mapping the landscapes, stakeholders and their interactions, including geography, ecology, and all other aspects. The normative approach suggested by Prateep is a critical one.

DEREK: Moving on to practicalities: How do we institutionalize this momentum? Where can we go in terms of outputs and structural supports?

EMDAD: Look at point 5, in the document from the previous meeting. Six different areas for intervention: Conceptual knowledge; clarifying what governance is / co-learning; expert knowledge; comparative analysis of governance and policy; and pilot sub-projects. Now we need to transform these points into different ideas for implementation.

PRATEEP: Some of these can be turned into a template or guideline for teams. We should not try to do this work ourselves, since we lack the capacity.

EMDAD: Perhaps each of the teams can come up with their own research plans, based on this set of guidelines.

DEREK: We should not outsource everything to the Research Teams. There is work that the WG can do that will strengthen the project as a whole. For example, this framing of the different terms, as discussed today, brings dedicated attention to these topics that can bring coherence to the Research Teams and provide guidance to them. There should be specific outputs from the Working Group that support the others.

EMDAD: I can take the lead in a team that will synthesize the country/regional policy analysis. We can start with a technical report then build solid publications. (HIMANI expresses strong interest.) The other two may depend on what the local teams provide. We can provide methodological supports. Start with what is already done -- the existing reports -- and develop questions on that basis.

DEREK: Prateep’s idea of  a “template” might be a working paper that might, eventually, result in a paper. I would also like a contribution at MARE conference -- one or two papers, within a larger DFM panel.

EMDAD: Can we get support from a Research Assistant to help get things ready for the MARE conference?

DEREK: Certainly.

PRATEEP: We could do a "survey" type of study, where we send out a questionnaire and get everyone to tell us what they already know, and we compile that information.

EMDAD: What is the status of our governance reviews?

DEREK: We have close to a full set. We can twist arms to get these submitted soon.

Action items

• Derek and Emdad will meet to discuss next steps in RA-supported work.
• Eric will get status updates on outstanding governance reviews from the Research Teams and request urgent submission. The governance reviews will support a synthesis study by the Working Group.
• Derek will formalize a plan for MARE contributions and solicit comments by email.
• Prateep will develop a survey to be sent out to Research Teams, intended to gather data supporting a MARE conference contribution on policy, governance, and development.
• The Working Group will reconvene in a month or so.