defragmenting natural resource management at the landscape-level: a governance assessment framework
Post on 21-Jun-2015
157 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Defragmenting Natural Resource Management at the Landscape-Level:
A Governance Assessment Framework
Alex Kisingo (University of Victoria, Canada)
Lance W. Robinson (International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya)
IASC Africa Regional Meeting
Cape Town
9 to 11 April 2013
Governance at the Landscape-Level…
… is critically important but under-studied
It is at landscape level that fragmentation is most easily seen
Ecosystem boundaries seldom correspond to human-created boundaries, even to Protected Area boundaries
Governance at this level can be even more complex than it is at other levels
Models and Strategies for Landscape Level Ecosystem Based Management (LLEBM)
UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
Regional integration for PAs, landscape level conservation
Nested watershed management
Coordination forums
Unique systems (e.g. Ngorongoro, Tanzania; Muskwa-Kechika, Canada)
Goal of the “LLEBM” Project
To test and refine a framework for assessment
of governance systems for landscape-level
ecosystem-based management
Social Phenomena that Deliver Governance
Governance Capacities
Governance Outcomes (Social functions
that are performed)
Resolving tradeoffs
Organizations
Institutions
Networks
Norms
Values
Etc.
Governance processes
Effective Decision-Making
Shaping how power is used
Learning
Setting direction
Leadership
Assessed according to 7 indicators: deliberation, resources,
linkages, equity, responsiveness, legitimacy and accountability. Building community
Dimensions of Governance for Assessment
Task Descriptive Questions Explanation
Description
of the Social-
Ecological
System
Q1. What is the “identity” of
the SES?
A description and delineation of
the landscape-level SES that is
being managed.
Q2 . Who are the stakeholders? A list and description of key
stakeholder groups.
Q3. What are the main issues
and problems in the SES?
As seen by the various
stakeholder groups.
Q4. What are the objectives,
interests, and values of the
stakeholders?
Brief descriptions of what
various stakeholder groups see as
important values and objectives
Q5. What are the
commonalities and
contradictions among the
various stakeholders’
objectives, interests and values?
A comparison and discussion of
the above.
Task Descriptive Questions Explanation
Description
of the
Landscape
Level
Governance
System
Q6. What are the core
organizational and
institutional elements of
the governance system?
The organization(s) and/or formal
decision-making mechanisms at the
core of the governance system, any
foundational institution(s) (legislation,
etc.) upon which it/they is/are based,
and their explicit aims.
Q7. What are the key
mechanisms and strategies
used for governance
A summary of how governance
mechanisms, processes and rules
influence behavior
Q8. What are the key
decisions being made that
affect the SES and the
problems?
The most important collective
decisions that affect the SES.
Task Evaluative Indicators Explanation
Assessment of
Governance
Processes
I-1. Deliberation The extent to which stakeholders and
decision-makers engage in genuine
deliberation on important issues.
I-2. Resources Ability of the governance system to generate
financial, human and political resources.
I-3. Linkages The presence of appropriate linkages among
organizations and institutions, especially
across levels.
Fair
Governance
I-4. Equity Whether or not institutional rules are fair and
take account of unequal circumstances in
society.
I-5. Responsiveness Whether or not institutional patterns show
response to society.
I-6. Legitimacy Whether there is public support for the
institutions of the governance system.
I-7. Accountability Whether or not institutional patterns provide
accountability procedures.
Task Questions/Indicators Explanation
Assessment of
Governance
Capacities
Effective
Decision-
Making
I-8. Clear scope,
goals and objectives
The extent to which decision-making bodies
have clear goals and objectives.
I-9. Efficiency Efficiency of decision-making processes
themselves.
I-10. Fit The extent to which the governance system
fits the SES
I-11. Learning capacity The extent to which the governance system
promotes learning
I-12. Leadership The extent to which the governance system
makes room for the emergence of leadership
of various kinds—visionary, entrepreneurial,
and collaborative
Task Questions/Indicators Explanation
Assessment of
Governance
Outcomes
I-13. Resolving Tradeoffs The extent to which the GS has resolved
tradeoffs—including tradeoffs among social,
economic and environmental needs, and
tradeoffs among different social groups—in a
way that is equitable and fair, that is
economically rational, and that protects the
environment.
I-14. Contributing to just power
relations
The extent to which the governance system
has placed limits on the use of coercive
power, and to which it has enhanced power as
capacity
I-15. Setting Direction The extent to which governance has
established a common vision or direction.
I-16. Building Community The extent to governance system is helping
stakeholders to identify, or create, shared
values and shared identities
Criteria for Scoring – Examples
Indicator 1 2 3 4
I-4. Equity Institutional rules favor
some stakeholders or
communities over
others and perpetuate
unequal circumstances
that already exist in
society.
Institutional rules are
fair for most
stakeholders, commun-
ities and sub-groups.
However, no explicit
allowance has been
made or provisions put
in place, for the
unequal circumstances
of some of these
groups.
Institutional rules are
fair for most
stakeholders, commun-
ities and sub-groups,
and have made
allowance in modest
ways, for the unequal
circumstances of some
of these groups.
Institutional rules are
fair for all stakeholders,
communities and sub-
groups, and have
provisions that take
account of the unequal
circumstances of some
of these groups.
I-15. Setting
Direction
No articulated vision or
common goals. The
GS provides little
guidance to help
stakeholders prioritize
and strategize.
Limited vision
articulated. Insufficient
detail to guide strategic
decisions or day-to-day
management.
The GS has articulated
a vision and there is
some level of detail to
guide strategic
decisions and day-to-
day management by the
governance system
itself and by
stakeholders.
The GS has articulated
a vision and there is
sufficient detail to
guide strategic
decisions and day-to-
day management by the
governance system
itself and by
stakeholders.
Case Study: Greater Serengeti Ecosystem in Tanzania
An ecosystem of great importance
A significant degree of community level dissatisfaction
Ecosystem crosses PA and District boundaries
Multiple types of PAs, plus land outside of PAs
The approaches for addressing fragmentation raise concerns about social justice
Greater Serengeti Ecosystem in Tanzania: the Governance System
There is a multi-stakeholder forum: SECCF
Generally though, there is no designed governance system for the whole ecosystem
The governance system is ad hoc: a range of actors (PAs, Districts, SECCF, etc.), relationships among them, a variety of institutions, etc.
Our assessment was an assessment of this governance system.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews
Structured questions using a Likert scale within the semi-structured interviews
Focus group discussions
85 respondents in total
Assessment of 16 indicators according to scoring criteria
Summary of Assessment Scores (Provisional!!!)
Governance Processes Governance Capacities Governance Outcomes
Deliberation 2
Resources 1 Clear scope, goals and objectives
3 Resolving tradeoffs 2
Linkages 2 Efficiency of the decision-making processes
2 Contributing to just power relations
3
Equity 2 Fit 1 Setting direction 1
Responsiveness 2 Learning capacity 2 Building community 2
Legitimacy 3 Leadership 3
Accountability 3
Some Surprises
Lowest scores related not to fair governance criteria but to the coherence of governance at the ecosystem level: resources, fit, and setting direction
Essentially, the only body functioning at the Serengeti ecosystem level is SECCF, and it has minimal resources and no authority
The various pieces that together make up the governance system do not correspond to the Serengeti ecosystem or to other critical problemsheds
Thus there is almost no ability for collective setting of direction at the landscape ecosystem level
What the assessment tells us about how to address fragmentation
There is some hope and some loose movement toward ecosystem-based management
In the Tanzanian context, creation of a purposely-designed body that is both inclusive and has some authority, may be politically unrealistic in the current context
However, ecosystem level planning processes could help to push actors toward a more integrated approach
Reflections on the Assessment Framework
Generally, the approach works, but…
Objective criteria to obtain quantitative scores from qualitative data is useful but is not the whole solution
Some indicators harder to assess objectively than others
Complementing what we have with qualitative, but structured, aspects may add value
A framework that also assesses governance “powers”—planning, revenue generation, regulation, etc.—may be more tangible and useful
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada The Serengeti Ecosystem Community Conservation Forum Our respondents
Acknowledgements
For more information….
http://www.viu.ca/landscapelevel/
top related