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/