|
Abstract:
|
"Governance networks play an increasingly important role in ecosystem management. The
collaboration within these governance networks can be formalized or informal, top-down or bottom-up,
and designed or self-organized. Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if
a variety of stakeholders are involved, but at the same time, accountability becomes blurred when decisions
are taken. Basically, democratic accountability refers to ways in which citizens can control their government
and the mechanisms for doing so. Scholars in ecosystem management are generally positive to policy/
governance networks and emphasize its potential for enhancing social learning, adaptability, and resilience
in social-ecological systems. Political scientists, on the other hand, have emphasized the risk that the public
interest may be threatened by governance networks. I describe and analyze the multilevel governance
network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve (KVBR) in Southern Sweden, with the aim of
understanding whether and how accountability is secured in the governance network and its relation to
representative democracy. The analysis suggests that the governance network of KVBR complements
representative democracy. It deals mainly with 'low politics'; the learning and policy directions are
developed in the governance network, but the decisions are embedded in representative democratic
structures. Because several organizations and agencies co-own the process and are committed to the
outcomes, there is a shared or extended accountability. A recent large investment in KVBR caused a major
crisis at the municipal level, fueled by the financial crisis. The higher levels of the governance network,
however, served as a social memory and enhanced resilience of the present biosphere development
trajectory. For self-organized networks, legitimacy is the bridge between adaptability and accountability;
accountability is secured as long as the adaptive governance network performs well, i.e., is perceived as
legitimate. Governing and ensuring accountability of governance networks, without hampering their
flexibility, adaptability, and innovativeness, represents a new challenge for the modern state."
|