Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems

Ecosystems are complex adaptive systems that require flexible governance with the ability to respond to environmental feedback. We present, through examples from Sweden and Canada, the development of adaptive comanagement systems, showing how local groups self-organize, learn, and actively adapt to and shape change with social networks that connect institutions and organizations across levels and scales and that facilitate information flows. The development took place through a sequence of responses to environmental events that widened the scope of local management from a particular issue or resource to a broad set of issues related to ecosystem processes across scales and from individual actors, to group of actors to multiple-actor processes. The results suggest that the institutional and organizational landscapes should be approached as carefully as the ecological in order to clarify features that contribute to the resilience of social–ecological systems. These include the following: vision, leadership, and trust; enabling legislation that creates social space for ecosystem management; funds for responding to environmental change and for remedial action; capacity for monitoring and responding to environmental feedback; information flow through social networks; the combination of various sources of information and knowledge; and sense-making and arenas of collaborative learning for ecosystem management. We propose that the self-organizing process of adaptive comanagement development, facilitated by rules and incentives of higher levels, has the potential to expand desirable stability domains of a region and make social–ecological systems more robust to change.Published online     

Misunderstanding the “Nature” of Co-Management: A Geography of Regulatory Science and Indigenous Knowledges (IK)

Governments, NGOs, and natural scientists have increased research and policy-making collaborations with Indigenous peoples for governing natural resources, including official co-management regimes. However, there is continuing dissatisfaction with such collaborations, and calls for better communication and mutual learning to create more “adaptive” co-management regimes. This, however, requires that both Western and Indigenous knowledge systems be equal participants in the “co-production” of regulatory data. In this article, I examine the power dynamics of one co-management regulatory regime, conducting a multi-sited ethnography of the practices of researching and managing one transnational migratory species, greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons frontalis), who nest where Koyukon Athabascans in Alaska, USA, practice subsistence. Analyzing the ethnographic data through the literatures of critical geography, science studies and Indigenous Studies, I describe how the practice of researching for co-management can produce conflict. “Scaling” the data for the co-management regime can marginalize Indigenous understandings of human–environment relations. While Enlightenment-based practices in wildlife biology avoid “anthropomorphism,” Indigenous Studies describes identities that operate through non-modern, deeply imbricated human–nonhuman identities that do not separate “nature” and “society” in making knowledge. Thus, misunderstanding the “nature” of their collaborations causes biologists and managers to measure and research the system in ways that erase how subsistence-based Indigenous groups already “manage” wildlife: by living through their ethical commitments to their fellow beings. At the end of the article, I discuss how managers might learn from these ontological and epistemological differences to better “co-produce” data for co-management.     

Co-management: concepts and methodological implications

Co-management, or the joint management of the commons, is often formulated in terms of some arrangement of power sharing between the State and a community of resource users. In reality, there often are multiple local interests and multiple government agencies at play, and co-management can hardly be understood as the interaction of a unitary State and a homogeneous community. An approach focusing on the legal aspects of co-management, and emphasizing the formal structure of arrangements (how governance is configured) runs the risk of neglecting the functional side of co-management. An alternative approach is to start from the assumption that co-management is a continuous problem-solving process, rather than a fixed state, involving extensive deliberation, negotiation and joint learning within problem-solving networks. This presumption implies that co-management research should preferably focus on how different management tasks are organized and distributed concentrating on the function, rather than the structure, of the system. Such an approach has the effect of highlighting that power sharing is the result, and not the starting point, of the process. This kind of research approach might employ the steps of (1) defining the social-ecological system under focus; (2) mapping the essential management tasks and problems to be solved; (3) clarifying the participants in the problem-solving processes; (4) analyzing linkages in the system, in particular across levels of organization and across geographical space; (5) evaluating capacity-building needs for enhancing the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at various levels; and (6) prescribing ways to improve policy making and problem-solving.     

Monitoring in adaptive co-management: Toward a learning based approach

The recognition of complexity and uncertainty in natural resource management has lead to the development of a wealth of conceptual frameworks aimed at integrated assessment and complex systems monitoring. Relatively less attention has however been given to methodological approaches that might facilitate learning as part of the monitoring process. This paper reviews the monitoring literature relevant to adaptive co-management, with a focus on the synergies between existing monitoring frameworks, collaborative monitoring approaches and social learning. The paper discusses the role of monitoring in environmental management in general, and the challenges posed by scale and complexity when monitoring in adaptive co-management. Existing conceptual frameworks for monitoring relevant to adaptive co-management are reviewed, as are lessons from experiences with collaborative monitoring. The paper concludes by offering a methodological approach to monitoring that actively seeks to engender reflexive learning as a means to deal with uncertainty in natural resource management.     

Is adaptive co-management ethical?

‘Good’ governance and adaptive co-management hold broad appeal due to their positive connotations and ‘noble ethical claims’. This paper poses a fundamental question: is adaptive co-management ethical? In pursuing an answer to this question, the concept of adaptive co-management is succinctly summarized and three ethical perspectives (deontology, teleology and existentialism) are explored. The case of adaptive co-management in Cambodia is described and subsequently considered through the lens of ethical triangulation. The case illuminates important ethical considerations and directs attention towards the need for meditative thinking which increases the value of tradition, ecology, and culture. Giving ethics a central position makes clear the potential for adaptive co-management to be an agent for governance, which is good, right and authentic as well as an arena to embrace uncertainty.     

Parsing participation: models of engagement for outcomes monitoring in urban stewardship

Few urban environmental stewardship, or civic ecology, practices monitor their impacts on local communities and ecosystems. This lack of monitoring prevents lay stewards from adapting their practices based on outcomes. For those that do collect data on their practices, we see different forms of practitioner engagement in outcomes monitoring. We categorise these different forms of engagement according to five published models of public participation in scientific research, revealing different strategies for collecting and analysing data towards adaptive co-management in urban ecosystems. We propose two broad strategies for expanding outcomes monitoring in these contexts: creating openly accessible tools and protocols for do-it-yourself inquiry and supporting more resource-intensive partnerships between practitioners and scientists for more complex forms of outcomes monitoring.     

Constructing and justifying risk and accountability after extreme events: public administration and stakeholders’ responses to a wildfire disaster

ABSTRACT

The impacts of extreme weather events, causing severe storms and wildfires, cascade across administrative borders within a country, challenging the steering capacity of governance networks at different political scales. This paper examines how accountability and risk were constructed and negotiated in the aftermath of Sweden’s largest wildfire. It draws on results from an interview study with executives of organizations and landowners involved, and an analysis of government reports about the wildfire’s cause and consequences. Although the fire was human-caused, public administrative bodies paid considerable attention to the local emergency services and their poor handling of the wildfire, caused by lack of knowledge of forest fire behavior. The study confirms many of the challenges associated with governance networks. It finds that issues about who to hold accountable, in what forum and for what issue are not fully addressed, being overwhelmed by demands for better knowledge of forest fire prevention and improved coordination and collaboration. To conclude, the paper calls for a better-informed public administration, forest sector and interrelated networks that take responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.     

Evaluation Criteria for Participatory Research: Insights from Coastal Uruguay

Participatory research in which experts and non-experts are co-researchers in addressing local concerns (also known as participatory action research or community-based research) can be a valuable approach for dealing with the uncertainty of social–ecological systems because it fosters learning among stakeholders and co-production of knowledge. Despite its increased application in the context of natural resources and environmental management, evaluation of participatory research has received little attention. The objectives of this research were to define criteria to evaluate participatory research processes and outcomes, from the literature on participation evaluation, and to apply them in a case study in an artisanal fishery in coastal Uruguay. Process evaluation criteria (e.g., problem to be addressed of key interest to local and additional stakeholders; involvement of interested stakeholder groups in every research stage; collective decision making through deliberation; and adaptability through iterative cycles) should be considered as conditions to promote empowering participatory research. Our research contributes to knowledge on evaluation of participatory research, while also providing evidence of the positive outcomes of this approach, such as co-production of knowledge, learning, strengthened social networks, and conflict resolution.     

Strategies for Rebuilding Closer Links between Local Indigenous Communities and Their Customary Fisheries in Aotearoa/New Zealand

There is a growing recognition that knowledge of indigenous communities, based on accumulated observations and experience over time, is significant for sustainable environmental management in collaboration with modern scientific knowledge. A number of innovative policy initiatives are currently being implemented in New Zealand to enable indigenous Maori tribes and sub-tribes to rehabilitate and manage their local fisheries in accordance with customary values and practices. These policies are an important milestone from an historical perspective as they are meant to recognise and empower the role of Maori as Treaty partners. The fisheries management regime in New Zealand now provides for Maori representation at the local level within a co-management framework that enables local Maori communities to exercise their customary rights. These institutional arrangements have been crafted to facilitate Maori input, based on customary values and practices, to complement modern Western management practices for sustainable harvesting of marine resources. Nevertheless, the degree to which these initiatives constitute an adequate response to Maori Treaty aspirations is debatable. A major constraint in this respect is that the government is compelled to recognise the needs of other, economically and politically more dominant, non-Maori user-groups in allocating and managing access to fishery resources and the marine environment.     

Adaptive co-management and network learning in the Room for the River programme

Adaptive co-management and learning are paramount for integrated flood risk management. Relevant literature focuses on adaptation at the level of physical and societal systems. The level of projects and programmes is largely overlooked, but they comprise interventions that adapt our physical systems and they provide opportunities for learning to contribute to transitions of societal systems. This paper aims to increase understanding on how learning takes place and can be stimulated within a programme. The mixed-method case study of Room for the River, a €2.3 billion programme for flood risk management, shows that a programme can be organised using various governance arrangements to stimulate learning and be a means for adaptive co-management to deliver upon environmental objectives.     

Strategies for Rebuilding Closer Links between Local Indigenous Communities and Their Customary Fisheries in Aotearoa/New Zealand

There is a growing recognition that knowledge of indigenous communities, based on accumulated observations and experience over time, is significant for sustainable environmental management in collaboration with modern scientific knowledge. A number of innovative policy initiatives are currently being implemented in New Zealand to enable indigenous Maori tribes and sub-tribes to rehabilitate and manage their local fisheries in accordance with customary values and practices. These policies are an important milestone from an historical perspective as they are meant to recognise and empower the role of Maori as Treaty partners. The fisheries management regime in New Zealand now provides for Maori representation at the local level within a co-management framework that enables local Maori communities to exercise their customary rights. These institutional arrangements have been crafted to facilitate Maori input, based on customary values and practices, to complement modern Western management practices for sustainable harvesting of marine resources. Nevertheless, the degree to which these initiatives constitute an adequate response to Maori Treaty aspirations is debatable. A major constraint in this respect is that the government is compelled to recognise the needs of other, economically and politically more dominant, non-Maori user-groups in allocating and managing access to fishery resources and the marine environment.     

Building Co-Management as a Process: Problem Solving Through Partnerships in Aboriginal Country, Australia

Collaborative problem solving has increasingly become important in the face of the complexities in the management of resources, including protected areas. The strategy undertaken by Girringun Aboriginal Corporation in north tropical Queensland, Australia, for developing co-management demonstrates the potential for a problem solving approach involving sequential initiatives, as an alternative to the more familiar negotiated agreements for co-management. Our longitudinal case study focuses on the development of indigenous ranger units as a strategic mechanism for the involvement of traditional owners in managing their country in collaboration with government and other interested parties. This was followed by Australia's first traditional use of marine resources agreement, and development of a multi-jurisdictional, land to sea, indigenous protected area. In using a relationship building approach to develop regional scale co-management, Girringun has been strengthening its capabilities as collaborator and regional service provider, thus, bringing customary decision-making structures into play to 'care for country'. From this evolving process we have identified the key components of a relationship building strategy, 'the pillars of co-management'. This approach includes learning-by-doing, the building of respect and rapport, sorting out responsibilities, practical engagement, and capacity-building.     

Managing water through change and uncertainty: comparing lessons from the adaptive co-management literature to recent policy developments in England

Water management is set to become increasingly variable and unpredictable, in particular because of climate change. This paper investigates the extent to which water policy in England provides an enabling environment for ‘adaptive co-management’, which its proponents claim can achieve the dual objective of ecosystem protection and livelihood sustainability under conditions of change and uncertainty. Five policy categories are derived from a literature review, and are used to conduct a directed content analysis of seven key water policy documents. The findings reveal that although, in part, English water policy serves as an enabling environment for adaptive co-management, there is a level of discrepancy between substantive aspects of the five policy categories and water policy in England. Addressing these discrepancies will be important if English water policy is to allow for the emergence of processes, like adaptive co-management, that are capable of coping with the challenges that lie ahead.     

Exploring co-management theory: prospects for sociobiology and reciprocal altruism

Co-management has gained prominence due to the sustained interest in participatory forms of natural resource management. While theoretical development posed an initial challenge, it has become an integral part of the co-management literature. This paper comprehensively explores co-management theory. It begins with an investigation of theory itself. The major elements of theory (concepts, variables and relational propositions) are described and a typology of theoretical statements (formats) is conceptualized. Co-management theory is subsequently charted according to the four schemes (modelling, propositional, analytical and meta-theoretical) which make up the typology. Given the maturing nature of the co-management literature and the absence of any meta-theoretical schemes, we examine the central and underlying assumption of co-operation through the science of sociobiology. Reciprocal altruism is pursued to explain why non-kin co-operate, and is adapted to elucidate the potentials and pitfalls of co-management. This meta-theory enriches understanding of co-management, provides guidance to the other theoretical schemes, and offers a foundational basis upon which construction of subtle predications is possible.     

Managing climate change vulnerabilities: formal institutions and knowledge use as determinants of adaptive capacity at the local level in Sweden

Though managing vulnerabilities posed by climate change calls for effective strategies and measures, its challenges have hitherto not been fully understood. In Sweden, municipalities have recently started incorporating vulnerability management into their political and administrative agendas. This study discusses such experiences and explores how institutional determinants may influence adaptive capacity within a local case study area, to illustrate emerging challenges and opportunities for Swedish municipalities in managing climate vulnerabilities. Specifically, formal institutional structure and the use of knowledge are analysed, concluding that vulnerability management often is focused on technical and reactive fixes, due to limited co-operation between local sector organisations, lack of local co-ordination, and an absence of methods and traditions to build institutional knowledge. Even so, opportunities, such as a high capacity to examine risks to technical systems and important establishments which in turn facilitates protection of technical infrastructure exposed to climate variability and change, also exist.     

Diffusion of Policy Discourse into Rural Spheres Through Co-Management of State Forestlands: Two Cases from West Java,Indonesia

In the context of state forestland management in tropical regions, the implementation of a co-management approach has been widely advocated in order to include the voices of local people and accommodate their interests in management decision-making. Most co-management literatures, however, underestimate the significance of statutory authority held by state to control forestlands and resources. By clarifying the implications of state ownership of forestland, this article aims to critically examine co-management processes with reference to Foucault's notion of power and subject. Case studies were conducted at two co-management pilot sites in Gunung Halimun-Salak National Park, West Java, Indonesia. Findings demonstrate that co-management processes actually materialize shared decision-making arrangements between state forest bureaucracy and rural people through the application of equity approaches, such as deliberation, negotiation, and experimentation. At the same time, these processes can also function to diffuse state policy discourse in rural spheres, which makes rural subjects who accept and practice the policy discourse. The research also reveals that the diffusion process is complex and does not necessarily make a durable subject unless they are pertinently organized. The results of this research indicate that co-management of state forestlands is a double-edged process for local people who risk becoming a proxy of state bureaucracy in the implementation of state policy. Proponents of co-management should, therefore, critically examine whether new institutional arrangements, which are developed through co-management, truly reflect values and needs of local people and assist them to develop a pertinent subject to deal with it.     

Social learning in a policy-mandated collaboration: community wildfire protection planning in the eastern United States

Policies such as the US Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) mandate collaboration in planning to create benefits such as social learning and shared understanding among partners. However, some question the ability of top-down policy to foster successful local collaboration. Through in-depth interviews and document analysis, this paper investigates social learning and transformative learning in three case studies of Community Wildfire Protection Planning (CWPP), a policy-mandated collaboration under HFRA. Not all CWPP groups engaged in social learning. Those that did learned most about organisational priorities and values through communicative learning. Few participants gained new skills or knowledge through instrumental learning. CWPP groups had to commit to learning, but the design of the collaborative-mandate influenced the type of learning that was most likely to occur. This research suggests a potential role for top-down policy in setting the structural context for learning at the local level, but also confirms the importance of collaborative context and process in fostering social learning.     

Community-based climate change adaptation: a review of academic literature

The focus on climate change adaptation, rather than mitigation, has become more prominent since the turn of the century. Given this, it is important to consider what has been achieved so far, particularly community-based approaches which have become the resolve for practitioners and donor agencies working in the sector. This review of 128 publications on community-based climate change adaptation, identified through a systematic database search, follows the development of this body of work in the academic literature. Commencing in the early 2000s, the literature detailed the emergence of community-based adaptation (CBA), driven by a number of factors: recognition of the human dimensions of changes; appreciation of the role of local knowledge for strengthening adaptive capacity; and a push to focus on the scale at which impacts are felt and link this action with pro-poor development outcomes. A more substantial body of work emerged in the literature from 2010 onwards, defining a series of key enablers for effective CBA, which included: use participatory approaches; recognise that adaptation is a social process; and support CBA at multiple scales. More recently, there has been a growing emphasis in the literature to re-conceptualise CBA, which will require focusing on innovation, learning and multi-sectoral approaches.     

Administrative Co-management: The Case of Special-Use Forest Conservation in Vietnam

Special-use forests (SUFs) are nature protected areas in Vietnam used to conserve nature and its biodiversity. While the Vietnamese government has managed to increase the size and number of SUFs, biodiversity within these areas continues to decline. To improve protection of these SUFs, co-management has been advocated in Vietnam. Successfully implementing co-management requires decentralization of authority and a certain extent of public involvement in management activities. This paper assesses how and to what extent the governance of Vietnam’s SUFs have taken up the challenge of shifting from conventional government-based management to co-management. Current practices of (co-) management were investigated in 105 of the 143 SUFs. The results show that the type of co-management varies little between different categories of SUFs. Nevertheless, a national ‘style’ of Vietnamese co-management could be identified, labelled ‘administrative’ co-management; fostering interaction between a variety of actors, but final decision-making power on management remaining strongly in the hands of the provincial government.