Adaptive management, in the context of parks, climate change and trans-boundary initiatives

Talk given to SADC / GIZ TFCA Climate Change Adaptation: Process Moderators Workshop 1-6 June 2014

Rhodes University, 4th June 2014

Harry BiggsWith contributions from Freek Venter, Piet Theron, Danie

Pienaar and Stefanie Freitag

Why Adaptive Management?

- A response to the realisation that the systems we deal with are complex and adaptive

- There are various definitions but let us say adaptive management , at least the way we would like to practice it,

is a purposeful yet flexible strategy to navigate changing circumstances adequately and thoughtfully

So let’s look first at a few slides about foundation principles or beliefs

Evolving Paradigms

“Balance of Nature” – “Orderly succession” – Linear (or at least unimodal) processes – Constructive interference, more or less any time, at any scale.

which

… gave way (largely, but not entirely) through a series of graded changes over several decades …

to

“Complexity” ( = complicatedness) – “Multiple states and transitions” – “Nonlinearlity” – Feedbacks – Time lags – interactions – “emergent properties” – intervention very time and scale dependent – “resilience”

__________________________

We use a mixture, but our approach aims at being biased to the latter, yet often seems constrained by the former

KnownCause-effect obvious

Best practiceFeudal leadership

KnowableCause-effect discoverable

Good practiceOligarchic leadership

ComplexCause-effect coherent in

retrospectPattern managementEmergent leadership

ChaoticNo perceivable cause-effect

Crisis management Charismatic/dictatorial

leadership

= ‘complicated’

= ‘simple’

Business guru David Snowden, has a sense-making framework, which helps -

Enough of stating the problem, how might we work towards a way forward (i.e. are there any “good enough” solutions?)

To gain more insight, it is very helpful to consider the difference between COMPLICATED (like a jet aircraft or an electronic circuit board; = ‘knowable’ of Snowden) and COMPLEX (like an ecosystem)

Graphics from Rowan-Martin presentation

Pollard’s three diagnostic questionsWill the intervention have the intended effect? Will it be durable? What about unintended side-effects?

Einstein: “you cannot solve a problem with the thinking that created it”

Holling (2001) asserts that “there is requisite level of simplicity behind the complexity that, if identified, can lead to an understanding that is rigorously developed but can be communicated lucidly.”

1

2

3

Idea gets over-complicatedand utility stagnates

Idea is simplified and utility improves

New detail improve utility again

Develop idea to deliver utility

Functional utility

Det

ail

4

5

1

2

3

Idea gets over-complicatedand utility stagnates

Idea is simplified and utility improves

New detail improve utility again

Develop idea to deliver utility

Functional utility

Det

ail

4

5

Adapted from Ward

Key concept of a requisite simplicity -

Adjacent to

We were very influenced by a personal visit from Helen Allison of Science and Policy in Natural Resource Management Helen E. Allison, Richard J. Hobbs. She combines systems

dynamics and SES

Park, Sth Afr

Strategy For use in

Command-and-control Predictable systems;externalities often carried at next scale up

Optimisation Maximises production with trade-offs against resilience

Strategic adaptive management

Complex systems; maximises heterogeneity and resilience

Complexity: just one road……..Know your problem and use the appropriate methods to understand and manage it

And there are more constructs for the complexity paradigm …e.g. state-and-transition models; bowl-and-cusp models

(well-aired scientifically for last 20 years, and in practice the last 10+)

So if we accept complexity as a dominant paradigm …

Then we know the best way to deal with it is appropriate* adaptive management (*almost any serious current variant, though we learn from all)

KEY STEPS:• Set a vision with an objectives tree below it• Based on system drivers, design endpoints to the objectives, based

zones of acceptability• Institutionalise

A B

* B’s position

by the time we get there

plan

reality

“The desired future condition should represent a jointly crafted vision based on articulated values of all stakeholders, following a fair process”

In our case expressed as an objectives tree

A key starting concept ….

… across (and up and down all these levels of) these stakeholders …

The changing and properly interacting social network we need and usually don’t have …

Biodiversity Values for SANParks

The following four value statements define the decision space for all

SANPArks activities that involve, or influence, biodiversity custodianship.

We adopt a complex systems view of the world while striving to ensure the natural functioning and long term persistence of the ecosystems under our care.

We aim at persistent achievement of biodiversity representivity and complementarity to promote resilience and ensure ecosystem integrity.

We can intervene in ecosystems responsibly and sustainably, but we focus management on complementing natural processes under a "minimum interference" philosophy.

We accept with humility the mandate of custodianship of biodiversity for future generations while recognising that both natural and social systems change over time.

Adaptive Planning Process

OPERATING PRINCIPLES

List vital attributes

Determinants of attributes

Evaluate attributes

Objectives

Prioritize Objectives

Measures

VISION

CONTEXTRoots of the decision making environment

Understanding the “V - STEEP” system to be managed V = values; S = social T = tech-nological; E=environmental; E = economic; P = politico-legal

Where we want to go in practice

Fig 9

AN OBJECTIVES HIERARCHY

Vision

Objective 1 Objective nObjective 2

Sub-objective 1 Sub-objective 2 Sub-objective n

Etc. Etc.

Tourism goals

Biodiversity goals

Societal values

Specific outcomes

Cooperation building goals

Operations goals

We are explicit about making these thresholds, so-called Thresholds of Potential Concern (TPCs) Source : Kevin Rogers

Source : Chapter 4 of “The Kruger Experience” Island Press

Terrestrial vegetation dynamics Elephants : as agents of

change

Rationale : Elephants modify woody species density, cover and population structure. They should be managed as agents of heterogeneity gen eration in

two high and two low density experimental management zones.Indicator and measure Within zone TPC Whole- park TPC

Woody canopy cover (%) community (100km2) scale

80% decline within a community in any one management zone

30% decline within a community over whole

park

Vegetation structure using size classes of indicator woody species

Rare or sensitive woody species. Population structure assessed by pv model

Fire

River flow, geomorphology, fish, riparian vegetation, etc

Birds, mammals, etc

A brief example of some older or earlierTPCs to show the way the thinking grew

Their actual wording technically strenuous !Source : Rogers

Fluvial geomorphology and riparian vegetation: Flow and sediment as agents of

changeRationale: Increased sediment storage causes alluviation, loss of habitat diversity from bedrock influence and reduction in diversity of woody species regeneration niches.

Indicators Measurement TPC

Bedrock dominated geomorphic units (4 of 14) in representative reaches of bedrock channel types (5 of 9)

Aerial extent. Every 5 years and after floods/ droughts >1:25 yrs. 20x20m grid square

E.G. Pool-rapid reaches; point and lateral bars >20% cover; pools >15%

Population structure of key woody species in each of 6 vegetation assemblages

Size class frequency distribution every 3 yrs and events >1:25 yrs in selected representative reaches

E.G. Breonadia salicina: loss of negative J population structure in pool rapid reachesSource : Rogers

Although there is more detail to the various points, what has been presented here is the overall way in which we try to manage variation using thresholds…

To conclude, the suite of thresholds represents a set of adaptive management goals and endpoints, each of which is:

• a worry level to monitor• a hypothesis to examine• a traceback to a particular agent of ecosystem change (a driver)• an achievable environmental goal• one dimension of the composite desired envelope represented by all objectives together.

VISIONSet desired future state

OBJECTIVES+ sub-objectives

OPTIONS to achieve these

PREDICToutcomes of

options

EVALUATEAcceptability of

outcomes

SELECTCombination of

options

OPERATIONALISEPlan &

implement

1

3

2

Were the predicted outcomes correct, if not why?

Has intended operation materialised?

Was the outcome actually acceptable?

4

6

Check have the selected options been appropriate?

Even if the predicted outcomes are correct, are the objectives & vision being met?

Evaluate and learn

5 MonitoringIs the monitoring

programme • adequate, • cost-effective

and • feasible

7 Be prepared for surprise

What is influence of unforeseen events on vision, objectives and actions?

The key concept of FEEDBACKS

Source : Pollard & du Toit

Max-Neef level Component of Adaptive initiative Who is typically involvedValue

values

ethics

philosophyNormative

planning

design

politics

lawPurposive / Pragmatic

engineering

agriculture

commerce

foresty

conservation

industry

tourism

water mgt

etcEmpirical

phyics / chemistry

geology

ecology

etc

Adaptive Governance

Agreement on setup and ongoing adjustments to ‘rules of the game’

Adaptive PlanningMission setting in full appreciation of context (biophysical, socio-political etc) filtered through vital attributes and risks giving clear objectives and measures

Adaptive Management

With objectives as basis, scope options, assess acceptability, choose best combination, operationalise and implement

Adap

tive

Eval

uatio

n (fe

edba

cks)

wide group of stakeholders, horizontally and vertically linked as appropriate. see Fig. 3

planners

managers

researchers

selected stakeholder representatives

managers

researhers

actively partnering stakeholdersmonito

ring

reflection1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Source : own, with help from Roux & Kingsford

Change

Doubt

Und

erst

andi

ng

Fear Caution Paralysis

Resentment Skepticism Resistance

Anxiety Confusion Unproductive

Anticipation Creative Energetic

Confidence Pragmatism Productive

Satisfaction Focus Generous

The Change Cycle

Dan

ger

zone

Brock L R and Salerno M A (1998) The secret to getting through life’s difficult changes. Bridge Builder Media, Washington DC/Durban RSA

Wrong Monitoring and Evaluation can stifle everything! Think how to use both of these appropriately

Risk associated with failure of …

Chance that risk realises in next 15 years ( rated 0-4)

Impact on park vision and mission if it does ( rated 0-4)

“raw score” is product of chance X impact (0-16)

How effective are current actions in controlling this risk and what resources are used to do so?

Is this level of risk control deemed acceptablei.e.“within park risk appetite” (yes or no)

How effective could risk abatement be if improved? What would this take in resourcing?

Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

etc …

Comparative Risk assessment

Source : Gaylard & Ferreira

Single, double and triple loop learning

Source : Chapin et al

The Climate Change context

Adaptive management, as just explained, is all about dealing with uncertainty and change in an ongoing, thoughtful, structured yet sufficiently flexible way so ….

It is interesting that for some folk, the first time they started dealing with change was when confronted with climate change demands yet…

…./

yet… It is no surprise that Adaptive Management philosophies have taken root as part of Climate Change, or for that matter, “Global Environmental Change” as has become popular. Don’t be put off at all by standard approaches in CC, such as vulnerability assessments and risk disaster management, you will …

be able to easily apply the principles of adaptive management (certainly the variant Strategic Adaptive Management) to any CC or GEC context, remembering that multiple scaling in time and space are very relevant

and ….

You will find more overlap between concepts in the different fields, for instance “no regrets measures” in CC jargon are very similar in nature to “generalised resilience measures” in resilience theory applied to AM

Far trickier is the trans-boundary context ….

Let’s start with the idea that Adaptive Management was first seen (1980s and early 90s, for some folk, still today!) as a more scientific activity (run by technical people)

However…

Soon it was realised that most environmental issues are intrinsically multi-stakeholder in nature – so quite quickly adaptive management became set up as (and called names like) collaborative adaptive resource management, in various forms such as integrated catchment management, to give a common example.

……./

So let’s understand this multi-stakeholder notion, and make it appropriate to each context,

without acting “dismissively” (which many PA managers often try to do, to actually avoid stakeholder influence, or simply “tick it off”)

Sometimes the scope of involvement is limited to say park managers and scientists, but more commonly there is some (and sometimes necessarily detailed and influential) involvement of other stakeholders such as surrounding communities and various other interested and affected parties. Use your good judgement

So now, moving from multi-stakeholder (in say a limited or non trans-boundary sense), to transboundary multi-stakeholder, which in some contexts, we absolutely will have to embrace if AM is going to work across international boundaries in a NRM (eg conservation) context …../

Trans-boundary (in any geographical sense) settings are far more challenging ….

If we talk about boundaries between say Kruger and adjacent provincial or private reserves to the west, then there are already barriers – yet there have been some successes e.g. with associations of Private reserves having joint management arrangements with each other and with Kruger. Also, PA stakeholders in the region have formed a network co-ordinating unit partly under the auspices of the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere

On two slides ahead, we discuss what the basics are that these new arrangements have got right, which might help adaptive planning and management.

BUT when we get to an international setting we have extra (or accentuated) issues -

……/

Those extra (or accentuated) issues -

- Legal differences- Cultural differences- Sovereignty issues- Differential capacity, countries at different stages of

development*- Barriers to information-sharing e.g. trust issues around

monitoring - Scale mismatches

*Two adjacent areas can practice widely differing levels of sophistication provided both are fundamentally adaptive – important to remember

So what is it that trans-boundary participants on both sides have to achieve, and a few have in fact got right?

(actually the same as what anyone in collaborative adaptive NRM has to achieve)

- People need to get to talk to each other, also (very important) informally. This brings out the real issues and build trust

- The parties need to agree, at least sufficiently, on the issue(s)

- They need to accept joint responsibility (difficult in a world where they either say “leave it to me” or “that’s not my problem”)

- Something actually has to start happening. With existing time pressures and commitments on the two sides, one way to do this is start small. Then as it begins working, make sure the joint team practices together regularly. All this can be assisted by a leadership which helps enable people to enjoy working together and feel it is rewarding

/…. more

…/ more about

what trans-boundary participants on both sides have to achieve, and a few have in fact got right?

WE STRESS AGAIN that this is nothing more than what anyone in collaborative adaptive NRM has to achieve)

continuing then …

- Make sure the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems on one or both sides don’t destroy the joint initiative

- Everyone has to be realistically cognizant of the real power issues

- In short, ADEQUATE (PERHAPS ENORMOUS) time and commitment will ultimately be needed, and a joint will to actually change, learning as one moves along.

- Drawing in willing participants is not a prescriptive activity but ultimately a voluntary one – so inviting, enthusing, and sharing enthusiasm in communities of practice is as important as setting up formal structures.

So if it’s so tough across international boundaries, have we achieved anything?

Yes, at least some measure of adaptive planning has been achieved in eg. GLTFCA- for instance, harmonisation of adjacent zones

There are some small day-to-day management “joint adaptations” worth noting e.g.- Richtersveld canoe eco-tourism – joint operations assisted by joint radio- Babatwa fire management by San (Kwe?) elders in the Caprivi who determine burning patches and timing (early season) to protect fruiting trees . Practices

spreading into Angola in a joint sense- Kaza aerial elephant surveys done as compatibly as feasible by all countries –

this is more just effective joint monitoring

SO YES we have to own up, that for every small success there are a larger number of non-successes. We can perhaps share some of each in discussion time.

An area where trans-boundary NRM (internationally) has been widely trialled is in river governace and management, there is considerable literature. Some successes. Worth reading further about in one is passionate about transboundary NRM.

Institutional Arrangements - GLTP

JPMC 1: Mozambique /

ZimbabweJPMC 2: Mozambique / South Africa /

Zimbabwe

JPMC 3: Mozambique /

South Africa

So here are some practical changes scheduled to take place in the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Park (and wider) Conservation Area

Source : Theron

Institutional Arrangements - GLTFCATFCA Forum: Zimbabwe -

GNP / Chiredzi

TFCA Forum: Zimbabwe – Beitbridge /

Chiredzi

TFCA Forum: Mozambique -

LNP / Gaza

TFCA Forum: South Africa -

Southern KNP / Mpumalanga

TFCA Forum: Mozambique - GNP Buffer / Massangena

TFCA Forum: South Africa –

Makuleke / KNP

TFCA Forum: Mozambique – GLC / Maputo

Source : Theron

Institutional Arrangements - GLTP

JPMC 1 (3 each of National

Implementing Authority1 Safety & Security

Person1 other of choice of

each Party)

JPMC 3(3 each of National

Implementing Authority1 Safety & Security

Person1 other of choice of

each Party)

JPMC 2 (3 each of National

Implementing Authority1 Safety & Security

Person1 other of choice of

each Party)

Trilateral Ministerial Committee(As per Treaty)

Joint Management Board(As per Treaty)

Coordinating Party

(As per Treaty)

Nat

iona

l TFC

A In

ter-

Dep

artm

enta

l Co

ordi

nati

on

Com

mit

tee

Source : Theron

Apart from what has already been mentioned … potential developments to watch (and possibly collaborate with)

AHEAD = Animal Health for Environment and Development (they use “One Health” concept) (esp in my experience AHEAD-GLTFCA and perhaps now AHEAD-KAZA, others …?)

(though they are still more in awareness-shaping and build-up phase)http://www.wcs-ahead.org/

RESILIM (= Resilience in the Limpopo Basin)There is a basin-wide RESILIM-B (focussing on broad governance in the 4 member states)http://www.bing.com/search?q=RESILIM+B+FACT+SHEET&form=IE10TR&src=IE10TR&pc=MALNJS

and a detailed RESILIM-O (Olifants sub-catchment which falls in RSA & Mocambique) adhering very much to collaborative strategic adaptive management of important joint practices (a practice would be e.g. delivery of instream flow requirements in both countries, or e.g. the joint use of conservation planning and management tools such as systematic conservation planning, and access and benefit sharing protocols in both countries)http://www.award.org.za/project/resilience-in-the-limpopo-basin

WATCH THESE CLOSELY, AND CONSIDER JOINING THEM TO LEARN!

Some further reading

Special edition of Koedoe on Strategic Adaptive Management: Lead Article: Roux D J and Foxcroft L C, 2011. The development and application of strategic adaptive management within South African National Parks. Koedoe 53 (2) Art. #1049, 5 pages. doi:10.4102/koedoe.v5312.1049. [From there you may want to explore the whole issue]

Kingsford R T and Biggs H C. 2012. IUCN Freshwater Taskforce (2011). Adaptive management guidelines for effective conservation of freshwater ecosystems in and around protected areas of the world. IUCN Freshwater Taskforce, Australian Wetlands and Rivers Centre, Sydney [As applicable to ‘terrestrial parks’ or any NRM, just the examples are rivers]. Downloadable from – I don’t have the site link with me at present – contact me on biggsharry@gmail.com or richard.kingsford@unsw.edu.au. Based on a far briefer publication without the specific management guidelines given in the brochure: Kingsford, R.T., Biggs, H.C. and Pollard, S.R. (2010). Strategic Adaptive Management in freshwater protected areas and their rivers. Biological Conservation. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.09.022

General brochures such as : Adaptive Management: A tool for Conservation Practitioners. Nick Salafsky, Richard Margoluis and Kent Redford. Originally produced by Biodiversity Support Program, will be traceable online.

General textbooks such as: Adaptive Environmental Management by Catherine Allan and George Stankey. 2009. CSIRO Press, Sydney

Specific:

Open Discussion