1. 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 Biggs
With contributions from Freek Venter, Piet Theron,
Danie Pienaar and Stefanie Freitag
2. 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
3. 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
4. Known
Cause-effect obvious
Best practice
Feudal leadership
Knowable
Cause-effect discoverable
Good practice
Oligarchic leadership
Complex
Cause-effect coherent in
retrospect
Pattern management
Emergent leadership
Chaotic
No 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?)
5. 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 questions
Will 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”
6. 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-complicated
and utility
stagnates
Idea is
simplified
and utility
improves
New detail
improve
utility again
Develop idea to
deliver utility
Functional utility
Detail
4
5
1
2
3
Idea gets
over-complicated
and utility
stagnates
Idea is
simplified
and utility
improves
New detail
improve
utility again
Develop idea to
deliver utility
Functional utility
Detail
4
5
Adapted from Ward
Key concept of a requisite simplicity -
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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
10. 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 ….
11. … 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 …
12. 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.
13. Adaptive Planning Process
OPERATING
PRINCIPLES
List vital
attributes
Determinants of
attributes
Evaluate attributes
Objectives
Prioritize
Objectives
Measures
VISION
CONTEXT
Roots 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
14. 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
16. 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 (100km 2
)
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 earlier
TPCs to show the way the thinking grew
Their actual wording technically strenuous !
Source : Rogers
17. Fluvial geomorphology and riparian vegetation:
Flow and sediment as agents of change
Rationale: 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
18.
19. 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.
20. VISION
Set desired future
state
OBJECTIVES
+ sub-objectives
OPTIONS
to achieve these
PREDICT
outcomes of
options
EVALUATE
Acceptability of
outcomes
SELECT
Combination of
options
OPERATIONALISE
Plan & 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 Monitoring
Is 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
21. Max-Neef level Component of Adaptive initiative Who is typically involved
Value
values
ethics
philosophy
Normative
planning
design
politics
law
Purposive / Pragmatic
engineering
agriculture
commerce
foresty
conservation
industry
tourism
water mgt
etc
Empirical
phyics / chemistry
geology
ecology
Adaptive Governance
Agreement on setup and
ongoing adjustments to ‘rules of
the game’
Adaptive Planning
Mission 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
AdaptiveEvaluation(feedbacks)
wide group of
stakeholders, horizontally
and vertically linked as
appropriate. see Fig. 3
planners
managers
researchers
selected stakeholder
representatives
managers
researhers
actively partnering
stakeholders
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Source : own, with help from Roux & Kingsford
23. Wrong Monitoring and Evaluation can stifle everything! Think how to use both of these appropriately
24. Risk
associate
d 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
controllin
g this risk
and what
resources
are used
to do so?
Is this
level of
risk
control
deemed
acceptabl
e
i.e.“withi
n park
risk
appetite”
(yes or
no)
How
effective
could risk
abateme
nt be if
improved
? What
would
this take
in
resourcin
g?
Objective
1
Objective
2
Objective
3
etc …
Comparative Risk assessment
Source : Gaylard & Ferreira
26. 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…
…./
27. 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
28. 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.
……./
29. 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 …../
30. 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 -
……/
31. 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
32. 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
33. …/ 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.
34. 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.
35. Institutional Arrangements - GLTP
JPMC 1:
Mozambique
/ Zimbabwe
JPMC 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
37. Institutional Arrangements - GLTP
JPMC 1
(3 each of National
Implementing Authority
1 Safety & Security Person
1 other of choice of each
Party)
JPMC 3
(3 each of National
Implementing Authority
1 Safety & Security Person
1 other of choice of each
Party)
JPMC 2
(3 each of National
Implementing Authority
1 Safety & Security Person
1 other of choice of each
Party)
Trilateral Ministerial Committee
(As per Treaty)
Joint Management Board
(As per Treaty)
Coordinating
Party
(As per Treaty)
NationalTFCAInter-
DepartmentalCoordination
Committee
Source : Theron
38. 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=MA
LNJS
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!
39. 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:
