Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resources and ...

9 781445 778754

ISBN 978-1-4457-7875-4

90000

$GDSWLYH6WUDWHJLHVIRU1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHVDQG(FRV\VWHPV0DQDJHPHQWLQ&DQDGD2SSRUWXQLWLHVIRU,PSOHPHQWDWLRQLQ(XURSH

Technical Publication for the International Council for Canadian Studies

Canada-Europe Awards 2006

ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT IN CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN EUROPE Pablo F. Méndez, Luis Santamaría, Jaime Amezaga, Glen Hearns

Citation:

Méndez, P. F., L. Santamaría, J. Amezaga, G. Hearns. 2010. Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resources and Ecosystems Management in Canada. Opportunities and Constraints for Implementation in Europe. Prepared for the International Council for Canadian Studies, by the Laboratory of Spatial Ecology. IMEDEA. Institutional Analysis and Policy Support, Technical Publications Series. ILSE-IAPS-TP-001. 121 pp

Photo credits: all photographs taken by Pablo F. Méndez (except where indicated) Cover design: Manuel E. Vidal (metaNarrativas)

ISBN 978-1-4457-7875-4 © 2010 Laboratory of Spatial Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies

We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. T.S. Eliot (from LITTLE GIDDING, No. 4 of 'Four Quartets')

Acknowledgements We are very grateful to the International Council for Canadian Studies (ICCS) and the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which funded the research carried out in Canada, through the “Canada-Europe Awards (2006)”, and to the Spanish Ministry of Environment, which funded the research carried out in Spain, through the “Doñana 2005 Project”, giving us the opportunity to lead this most interesting and challenging project. We are also very grateful to all the interviewees and participants of the workshops carried out under the umbrella of this project (TRANSAM project), who kindly gave their time, data, experiences, results and insights on their management and research projects.

Executive Summary Natural resources management (NRM) and nature conservation (NC) policies are traditionally implemented through command-and-control approaches, which apply short-term, top-down institutional prescriptions and tend to simplify management operations, leading to pathological socio-ecosystems characterised by more vulnerable, i.e. less resilient ecosystems; rigidities in the institutional realm; and local societies highly dependent on limited sets of resources and suspicious of governance. One of the most promising approaches to overcome the current limitations of NRM and NC policy making processes relies on the concept of ‘adaptive management’ – a strategy initially conceived and developed by C. S. Holling and C. J. Walters halfway between British Columbia (Canada) and Austria (Europe), with the aim of creating a robust tool for the management of natural resources while keeping a continuous interaction among diverse actors. Adaptive management involves continual, collective learning processes aimed at promoting dialog among actors, clearly defining problems and recognizing constraints, representing existing knowledge in dynamic models, acknowledging uncertainty and identifying alternate system-functioning hypotheses. Since its inception, adaptive management has been applied to a wide range of NRM and NC problems worldwide, mainly in Canada, USA, Australia and (more recently) the European Union, providing with an accumulating body of knowledge that present it as a valid alternative to the classical command-and-control paradigm and instrumental for achieving sustainable resource use. However, although it has 40 years of development and (in some cases successful) implementation in Canada, until the current decade it received limited attention in Europe – and even less in Southern Europe. Within the TRANSAM project framework, using a case study approach, we carried out an investigation into the cause of the limited transfer of adaptive management from Canada to the European Union (EU). We also developed a research program aimed at designing and implementing a strategy to promote and facilitate a process of change towards adaptive management of NRM and NC in the European case study, with a special focus in water resources and wetlands. In particular, we focused on identifying the institutional opportunities and constraints for its application in the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (British Columbia, Canada) and the Doñana Nature Reserve (Spain, EU). We show how the Doñana Nature Reserve is a (complex) socio-ecosystem characterised by the persistence of a rigid institutional regime for water management and wetland conservation, and how, in such context, the use of a research program based on our analysis of the Canadian institutional experience with adaptive management, was instrumental in loosening rigid organisational structures in Doñana. Furthermore, we show how it served the long term purpose of proactively engaging the actors directly concerned with decision-making in a joint research-and-learning process, aimed at triggering change towards more adaptive institutional regimes. However, as we conclude, the Canadian experience with adaptive

management shows that the successful adoption and institutionalisation of adaptive management requires the convergence of several, critical (organizational, socioeconomic, conceptual and legal) factors, particularly when the socio-ecosystems involved face complex dynamics, uncertainty and historical (socio-political) conflicts.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................5 2. PROJECT APPROACH, QUESTIONS AND GOALS ........................................................................8 2.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................................. 8 2.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................ 9 3. CASE STUDIES ...........................................................................................................................10 3.1. CLAYOQUOT SOUND BIOSPHERE RESERVE .................................................................................. 10 3.2. DOÑANA NATURE RESERVE ................................................................................................................ 10 4. METHODS ...................................................................................................................................12 4.1. RESEARCH PROGRAM IN CANADA.................................................................................................... 12 4.1.1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.................................................... 12 4.1.2. ACTOR ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................ 13 4.1.3. INTERVIEWS ..................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.4. THE VANCOUVER WORKSHOP ................................................................................................... 15 4.2. RESEARCH PROGRAM AT THE DOÑANA NATURE RESERVE.................................................... 15 4.2.1. LITERATURE REVIEW AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS.................................................... 16 4.2.2. ACTOR ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................ 16 4.2.3. WORKSHOPS ..................................................................................................................................... 17 5. RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................19 5.1. RESEARCH PROGRAM IN CANADA ................................................................................................... 19 5.1.1. THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR NRM AND NC IN CANADA .............................. 19 5.1.2. RECENT INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CLAYOQUOT SOUND BIOSPHERE RESERVE ..................................................................................................................... 21 5.1.3. IDENTIFIED INITIATIVES AND PROJECTS ............................................................................... 23 5.1.4. ACTOR ANALYSIS AND INTERVIEWING................................................................................... 23 5.1.5. INSTITUTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT IN CLAYOQUOT SOUND................................................................................... 29 5.1.6. THE VANCOUVER WORKSHOP .................................................................................................... 30 5.1.6.1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 30 5.1.6.2. WORKSHOP REPORT................................................................................................................ 34 5.2. RESEARCH PROGRAM AT THE DOÑANA NATURE RESERVE.................................................... 62 5.2.1. INSTITUTIONAL REGIME AT THE DNR .................................................................................... 62 5.2.2. CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT AT THE EU....................... 64 5.2.3. ACTOR ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................ 66 5.2.4. UNCERTAINTY WORKSHOP......................................................................................................... 66

5.2.5. RESEARCH-MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP................................................................................. 67 6. DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................68 7. CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................73 8. DELIVERABLES OF THE TRANSAM PROJECT ..........................................................................74 9. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................75 APPENDIXES...................................................................................................................................85 APPENDIX 1 - RESEARCH-MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP AT THE DOÑANA NATURE RESERVE. POLICY DOCUMENT (SPANISH VERSION) .......................................................................... 86 APPENDIX 2 - PHOTOGRAPHIC DOSSIER................................................................................................. 95 APPENDIX 3 - PROJECT SUMMARIES PROVIDED BY THE UBC WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................................................................................. 107 Computer Models for Adaptive Forest Management: Some Examples from UBC................................. 108 A Conservation Framework for Northeastern BC ..................................................................................... 117 The Forest Project ......................................................................................................................................... 120

| INTRODUCTION |

1. Introduction Natural resources management (NRM) and nature conservation (NC) policies are traditionally implemented through reductionist, unique-target and prediction (i.e. command-and-control) approaches, which apply short-term, top-down institutional prescriptions and tend to simplify management operations (Holling and Meffe 1996, Janssen et al. 2007). The main purpose of such type of management is to avoid natural variability, reduce social and ecological uncertainties and maximize economic benefits through the exploitation of natural resources (Folke et al. 2005). However, changes in nature are not certain, gradual and linear, but rather complex, episodic and non-linear by nature, making long-term predictions untenable (Holling and Sanderson 1996, Levin 1999). Moreover, human impacts on natural systems are manifest over different spatial and temporal scales, influencing numerous sectors of society (Cash 2000, Cash 2000b, Hammond and Keeney 1999). Socio-ecosystems complexity “precludes a reductionist approach to management” (Ludwig et al. 1993). Command-and-control, reductionist approaches lead to pathological socioecosystems characterised by more vulnerable, i.e. less resilient ecosystems; rigidities in the institutional realm; and local societies highly dependent on limited sets of resources and suspicious of governance. These characteristics diminish their capacity for coping with external, extreme (natural or human-induced) perturbations, hence compromising their long-term sustainability (Holling and Meffe 1996, Gunderson and Holling 2002). On the other hand, the scientific community is increasingly aware of the incompleteness of the existing knowledge, particularly when researchers are required to assist managers making decisions and operations over the natural world. These uncertainties not only arise from manmade changes in future environmental conditions, but also from the inherent complexity above described, the uncertainty of users’ response to management, the inaccuracies of management objectives, and the difficulties in assessing the abundance of the various resources being used (Johnson 1999). Past approaches to decision making are inadequate to deal with such emergent complexities. Managing socio-ecosystems for sustainability requires the ability to cope with, adapt to, and shape change without losing options for future development (Folke et al. 2002). This demands a decision-making structure that is adaptive in nature and integrated in scale and scope. A growing number of actors at the international level (researchers, managers and policy makers) believe that the successful performance of future policies rests in the strategic design and management of processes of change (i.e. transitions) towards more adaptive management regimes (Rotmans 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Gleick 2003, Folke et al. 2005, Pahl-Wostl 2007, van der Brugge and van Raak 2007).

5

| INTRODUCTION |

Such transitions involve a true paradigm shift (sensu Imperial 1999) from hierarchical, control-based, conventional-economy approaches to adaptive, open-knowledge-based ones (Folke et al. 2005, Folke et al. 2007), at many organisational and institutional levels and at diverse spatiotemporal scales (Rotmans 2001, van der Brugge and van Raak 2007). One of the most promising approaches to overcome the current limitations of NRM and NC policy making processes at the operational and decision-making levels, relies on the concept of ‘adaptive management’ – a management strategy initially conceived and developed by C. S. Holling and C. J. Walters and associates at the Institute of Resource Ecology (University of British Columbia, Canada) and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Vienna, Austria), during the 1970’s and the 1980’s (Holling 1973, Holling and Chambers 1973, Holling 1978, Walters 1986), with the aim of creating a robust tool for the management of natural resources while keeping a continuous interaction among diverse actors (e.g., researchers, managers, diverse stakeholders). Adaptive management involves continual, collective learning processes aimed at promoting dialog among actors, clearly defining problems and recognizing constraints, representing existing knowledge in dynamic models, acknowledging uncertainty and identifying alternate systemfunctioning hypotheses (Walters 1986). For the purpose of clarity, we will hereafter use the working definition and basic features of adaptive management included in box 1 (based on Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Lee 1993, Gunderson et al. 1995, Walters 1997, Salafsky et al. 2001, Jacobson 2003, Murray and Marmorek 2004, Walkerden 2005, Gregory et al. 2006, Marmorek et al. 2006, Pahl-Wostl 2007, Bunnell 2008). Since its inception, adaptive management has been applied to a wide range of NRM and NC problems worldwide, mainly in Canada, USA, Australia and (more recently) the European Union (see for example ESSA 1982, MacDonald et al. 1997, Bouris 1998, Marmorek et al. 2006, Santamaría et al. 2007, NeWater Project 2008), providing with an accumulating body of knowledge that present it as a valid alternative to the classical command-and-control paradigm and instrumental for achieving sustainable resource use. However, although it has 40 years of development and (in some cases successful) implementation in Canada, until the current decade it received limited attention in Europe – and even less in Southern Europe. Such limited implementation of adaptive management into Europe contrast vividly with its widespread use in Canada and elsewhere, bringing up questions on whether there are specific institutional, technical, scientific or even cultural traits of the societies across the Atlantic divide that prevent the dissemination of these seminal ideas.

6

| INTRODUCTION |

Box 1. Working definition and basic features of adaptive management used in this publication: Adaptive management is a cyclic, iterative strategy at the interface among science, management and policy, designed for learning about the performance of different policy decisions, in the operational management of natural resource systems and ecosystems in complex socio-ecosystems. Its formal features are: 1.

the explicit acknowledgement of: a.

the existing, coupled socio-ecosystem, its complexity and related uncertainties;

b.

the definition of problems;

c.

the questioning of social and ecological causal, spatiotemporal interrelationships and feedbacks;

d.

the establishment of (clear and feasible) policy and management objectives and indicators;

2.

the systematic formulation of (alternate) hypotheses about socio-ecosystem functioning and policy performance, the consideration of alternatives at many policy and management levels and scales, and the design of robust experimental settings and sound monitoring programs;

3.

the systematisation (analysis and organization) of actor involvement;

4.

the development and interfacing of models of socio-ecosystems’ functioning for collectively learning about uncertainties, assumptions and predictions of causes and effects, and judging how well alternatives perform towards the achievement of objectives;

5.

the flow of information and the transfer of trans-disciplinary knowledge, expertise and experience among individual actors and organizations;

6.

the analysis and evaluation of outcomes in consideration of the established goals, and the assessment of the overall process and the necessity of restart.

7

| PROJECT APPROACH, QUESTIONS AND GOALS |

2. Project approach, questions and goals Within the TRANSAM (Transfer of Adaptive Management) project framework, using a case study approach, we carried out an investigation into the cause of the limited transfer of adaptive management from Canada to the European Union (EU). We also developed a research program aimed at designing and implementing a strategy to promote and facilitate a process of change towards adaptive management of natural resources management (NRM) and nature conservation (NC) in the European case study, with a special focus in water resources and wetlands. In particular, we focused on identifying the institutional opportunities and constraints for the application of adaptive management for NRM and NC in the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (British Columbia, Canada) and the Doñana Nature Reserve (Spain, EU). A second, more specific objective involved the introduction of innovative change towards adaptive management in the Spanish case study. Specifically, we addressed the following questions: 1. Is the adaptive management approach compatible with the current institutional framework for water and wetland management at the European Union? If yes: why has it not been adopted? If not: what changes would be required to achieve compatibility? 2. What were the opportunities and constraints to test or implement adaptive management in Canada? Are there comparable opportunities at the European Union? 3. Can the transfer of knowledge and expertise from Canada enhance the implementation of adaptive management experiences at the European Union?

2.1. General Objective To undertake a comparative analysis of the institutional opportunities and constraints for the implementation of adaptive management in Canada (British Columbia) and the European Union (Spain), in the fields of natural resources management (NRM) and nature conservation (NC).

8

| PROJECT APPROACH, QUESTIONS AND GOALS |

2.2. Specific objectives 1. To document the Canadian experience with adaptive management, with an emphasis on British Columbia. 2. To compare the institutional frameworks for NRM and NC at two geographic and political scales: continental (Canada-European Union) and regional (Spain-British Columbia). 3. To analyse two case studies in which particular, institutional developments allowing for the implementation of adaptive management initiatives for NRM and NC are taking place: the Doñana Nature Reserve (SW Spain) and the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (British Columbia, Canada). Our investigation comprised three main stages: (1) an extensive analysis of the institutional frameworks for NRM and NC at each of these countries, (2) a more specific comparison among the two selected case studies, and (3) a research program for the participative definition of the first steps of the process of change towards adaptive management in the Spanish case study. This publication intensively describes our methodology, results and conclusions.

9

| CASE STUDIES |

3. Case studies 3.1. Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve The Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (Clayoquot Sound hereafter) is located on the west side of Vancouver Island, off the coast of British Columbia. It is home to the Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Hesquiaht, Toquaht and Ucluelet, five groups of a broader aboriginal community, the Nuu-chahnulth First Nations (aprox. 50% of the total population) (Dobell 2001). It comprises 265000 ha of land (8% of the island) and 85000 ha of ocean mainly consisting of narrow and large inlets (sounds) in which empty rivers and lakes (Friends of Clayoquot Sound 2008, UNESCO 2008). The region is comprised of a diverse range of ecosystems, being the most representative the coastal temperate rainforest (93% of the land base). Coastal temperate rainforest is one of the rarest and most diverse ecosystems of the world, and has been subject to varying types (mostly logging) and degrees of intensive industrial activity during the last decades (Dobell 2001, Bunnell 2008). Since 1970, several areas within the region have been protected by the federal and regional governments (e.g., Long Beach unit of the Pacific Rim National Park, Flores Island Provincial Park). We have selected the Clayoquot Sound for investigation because it constitutes a paradigmatic case for the description, explanation and exemplification of specific institutional developments (i.e. organizational regularization) in the fields of NRM and NC, leading to novel socio-political and economic agendas largely promoting: -

Sound principles of public participation (especially of First Nations, non-aboriginal population and environmentalists, e.g., multi-stakeholder negotiation, community-centered participatory processes).

-

The use of alternative or innovative approaches for NRM and NC planning and practice, which incorporated social/ecological complexities and uncertainties into the formation and implementation of new policies (e.g., adaptive management) (Bunnell et al. 1994, Pinkerton 1999, Dobell 2001, Dobell 2002).

3.2. Doñana Nature Reserve We focused on the management of the wetlands and marshes of the Doñana Nature Reserve (Doñana hereafter, SW Spain), one of Europe´s most emblematic conservation areas. Doñana involves a complex history of tightly coupled relationships between humans and wetland ecosystems, in which command-and-control management and policy has a rich record of application. While it enjoyed increasing conservation since the 1960s, its surroundings have been

10

| CASE STUDIES |

characterized by fast agricultural development leading to accelerated environmental degradation and conservation conflicts (Santamaría and Amezaga 1999, Amezaga and Santamaría 2000). These conflicts tipped in April 25, 1998 with the Aznalcollar´s mining accident, which released more than 5 million m3 of waste to the Agrio and Guadiamar River – and further into the northeastern inflow to the Doñana marshes (see Aparicio et al. 1998, Meharg et al. 1999). Nowadays, the affected ecosystems are undergoing the final stages of a set hydraulicecological restoration works that were initiated shortly after the accident (García and Marín 2007). All such works were integrated in an “eco-hydraulic restoration project” (the “Doñana 2005 Project”), aimed at reverting the ecological degradation and restoring the hydraulic functioning of the entire wetland/marsh ecosystems (which got further deteriorated after the spill). The project made an explicit notice to the need for “new alliances between science and management” (García and Marín 2007). Several key actors recognized the project as a ‘window of opportunity’ and managed to start a pilot project based upon an adaptive management approach (Santamaría et al. 2007). The project aimed at restoring an expropriated plot of marshland (the Caracoles Estate, 2600 ha) that had been transformed into farmland in the 1960s.

11

| METHODS |

4. Methods 4.1. Research program in Canada We designed our research program in Canada in several stages, using several qualitative methods for the collection of information.

4.1.1. Literature review and institutional analysis We reviewed systematically the available policies, regulations and academic literature regarding NRM and NC in Canada, British Columbia and the Clayoquot Sound, in order to analyse: 1. The evolution, during the last century, of the Canadian, federal-provincial institutional framework in the fields of NRM and NC. 2. The recent institutional developments in NRM and NC at Clayoquot Sound. We then identified systematically recent initiatives and projects that applied adaptive management principles for NRM and NC and/or developed new institutions in Canada (with a special emphasis on British Columbia and the Clayoquot Sound). Based on the information reviewed, we developed two types of criteria (historical and qualitative, see table 1) for the subsequent analysis, identification and interviewing of potential actors and experts from such projects and initiatives. For the institutional analysis we used the levels of inquiry of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Kiser and Ostrom 1982, Ostrom 1990, 1998, 2005). Such framework organizes inquiry focusing the analysis on actors who make decisions and produce functional outcomes while they interact over time within action arenas (the IAD’s focal unit of analysis) at three different, nested levels: constitutional level, collective-choice level and operational level (table 2) (Kiser and Ostrom 1982). These levels are tightly interrelated, and decisions taken and outcomes obtained at one level will cumulatively affect decisions and outcomes at other levels. In such action arenas, institutions are the rules (e.g., of requirement, prohibition or allowance) that actors use to organize all forms of repetitive and structured social interactions (Ostrom 2005; see box 2 below for the functional definition of institutions used in the interviews).

12

| METHODS |

Table 1. Criteria used for the selection and grouping of actors in the Clayoquot Sound case study. Upper panel: historical criteria. Lower panel: qualitative criteria. Historical criteria A. He/She has historically contributed to the development of the theory and/or practice of adaptive management (since its inception –1970s-1980s). B. He/She is currently contributing to the development of the theory and/or practice of adaptive management. C. He/She has actively participated in the historical institutional process lived in the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve. Qualitative criteria D. He/She possesses relevant information about the adaptive management project or initiative E. He/She possesses relevant information about the recent institutional development of the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve. F. He/She is visible and accessible through information gathered from the web. G. He/She is visible and accessible through our partners at IRES or the first interviewees.

Table 2. The three levels of inquiry provided by the Institutional Analysis and Development framework (adapted from Ostrom, 1998). IAD’s levels of inquiry a.

Operational level (day-to-day actions directly affecting the world).

b.

Collective-choice level (collectively-chosen actions directly affecting rules at operational levels).

c.

Constitutional level (constitutions directly affecting rules at collective-choice levels).

4.1.2. Actor analysis We analysed and identified actors and experts using the criteria described above. At this stage, we also developed a working hypothesis to guide us in our inquiry; namely that most actors and experts that were implementing AM at BC had a sound understanding of the existing institutional opportunities and constraints for its implementation.

13

| METHODS |

4.1.3. Interviews Based on the working hypothesis derived in the previous stage, we designed and carried out interviews for all the identified actors. The interviews were semi-structured and open-ended, designed to let the interviewees express freely and profoundly their ideas about the questions asked. They were preceded by a brief introduction to the TRANSAM project and the DNR case study, and were guided by primary themes aimed at keeping the focus. The main aims of the interviews were: -

To gather information for the production and assessment of the actors’ accounts, focusing on the institutional opportunities and constraints faced by the adaptive management project or initiatives.

-

To gain additional information about historical and recent institutional developments in the CSBR, in the fields of NRM and NC.

Box 2. Functional definition of institution used in our interview process (modified from Jepperson 1991, Ostrom et al. 1994, Ostrom 2005). The rules of the game that humans use to organize all forms of established, social procedures (e.g., formal and informal rules, organizations, scientific paradigms and technologies). We initially looked for general patterns in the actors’ accounts, which could indicate avenues for further analysis and research, rather than for specific insights to test our hypothesis. Based on these, we present here the identified opportunities and constraints for the adaptive management of natural resources and nature conservation in the Clayoquot Sound, as identified in the analyses of the narratives of some of the interviewees (those classified by ‘Issue of interest’ = ‘CS-ID’, see table 4). We pay particular attention to those repeatedly addressed by most interviewees, and classify them from the perspective of adaptive management – as institutional “general opportunity”, “general constraint” or “case-dependent opportunity/constraint” (see our functional definition of institutions in box 2). While the assessment of opportunities and constraints were based on its explicit description during the interviews, case-dependent opportunities/constraints were analysed in more detail through the assessment of the full range of the actors’ accounts. We fixed our historical boundary at 1993, because this year marks a clear ‘tipping point’ (sensu Brock 2004) in the literature about the Clayoquot Sound. All actors referred to this date as the year when the socio-political system

14

| METHODS |

of the Clayoquot Sound changed to a more forward looking, innovative system, setting the pace of future institutional innovations on the ground.

4.1.4. The Vancouver Workshop We organized and facilitated a workshop involving a group of 10 key actors, which focused on four issues: 1. Reviewing the Canadian experience with AM. 2. Evaluating the relative roles of science and stakeholder involvement in the processes of policy formation in Canada, particularly at the first stages of AM programs. 3. Identifying the major institutional opportunities and constraints for the AM of NRM and NC in BC – and, more generally, in Canada. 4. Discussing the relationships and feedbacks between the practical applications and theoretical development of innovative, AM-based strategies.

4.2.

Research program at the Doñana Nature Reserve

This section provides with an overview of our work in Doñana, which has recently allowed us to conceptualize it as a rigid institutional regime for water resources management and aquatic ecosystems conservation, which are characterized by the predominance of command-and-control and maximization perspectives in local management and policies, and by decision making processes that are highly hierarchical and generate large power distances. We designed the research program in Doñana in several stages, which largely paralleled those used for the research at British Columbia and Clayoquot Sound: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Literature review and institutional analysis. Actor analysis. Action research. Workshops.

Qualitative methods based on action-research were used to prepare the path for the future participatory activities that we had designed (workshops). Specifically, we carried out semistructured, open-ended interviews with a selected set of key actors, aimed at enriching our institutional analysis, networking (i.e. generating social capital and cohesion opportunities), building trust and establishing an agenda for participation in the workshops.

15

| METHODS |

Our research was triggered by the following questions: 1. How to introduce innovative approaches to water management and wetland conservation, such as adaptive management? 2. How must agendas (i.e. participation by whom, in what, when, to what end) for actor involvement in innovative decision-making processes like adaptive management be set up in rigid institutional regimes? 3. Can formal decision-making in rigid institutional regimes be influenced by previously introducing, in an informal setting, trust, flexibility and learning capacity into the institutional regime? The program aimed at: 1. Analysing the configuration of the institutional regime, evaluating its historical causes. 2. Identifying the potential constraints and opportunities for triggering a process of change, through institutional development, towards the AM of water resources and wetland conservation. 3. Using a set of workshops to identify collectively the potential avenues for improvement and decide the first steps of a process of change towards the identified goals.

4.2.1. Literature review and institutional analysis We analysed the configuration of DNR’s institutional regime, with the purpose of identifying its historical causes, and the potential constraints and opportunities for triggering a process of change through institutional development towards the adaptive management of natural resources and nature conservation. For that, we constructed the story of the institutional evolution of Doñana (i.e. the events that shaped the current institutional regime). Particularly, we analyzed the period comprised between the beginning of the former century and 2008 (time of our last research action, see below).

4.2.2. Actor analysis In order to set the path for triggering participation in our research program, we performed an actor analysis to define an agenda (i.e. participation by whom, in what, when and to what end) for

16

| METHODS |

such participation. We used the following criteria: (1) the results of the historical institutional analysis, (2) Mostert’s (2006) four criteria (table 3), and (3) the three levels of inquiry provided by the IAD framework (see table 2 above). Table 3. Mostert’s (2006) four criteria for actor identification. Mostert’s criteria A. They possess relevant information about the case study. B. They can actively contribute to the development of new policy or projects. C. Their interests will be directly affected by the research project and any potential process of change. D. They can obstruct decision making or frustrate policy or project implementation.

4.2.3. Workshops We organized and facilitated two workshops. The first one (uncertainty workshop) involved a group of seven actors, and focused on identifying uncertainties in water management from the perspective of practitioners. The second one (research-management workshop) involved a larger group of actors, and focused on collectively learning and developing knowledge about the problems identified in the first stages of the research program. The uncertainty workshop focused on investigating what uncertainties represent a concern for actors in the region and how they do frame them. It was also meant to draw the attention to the topic and raise awareness about the issue. The research-management workshop focused on the improvement of the researchmanagement-policy interface, since most interviewees listed the disintegration and lack of coordination among researchers, managers and policy makers as one of the major challenges for enhancing the existing processes of decision and policy making in Doñana. It was divided in three parts. Firstly, we introduced our research program and presented a list of key problems that might prevent the implementation of adaptive management, since most of the participants had considerable knowledge about the rationale of such approach and knew of, at least, the pilot experiences applying it in the Caracoles Estate. Adaptive management was presented as the solution to the interface challenge. The problems that we introduced were identified in the research carried out in the Canadian case study. Such problems were synthesized and listed as follows in a whiteboard: -

The absence of a strategic framework for the region.

-

The lack of water management and wetland conservation goals.

17

| METHODS |

-

The lack of a shared model of the structure and functioning of the Doñana WSES.

-

The ignorance of key uncertainties.

-

Despite the existence of powerful and coordinated monitoring programs, the absence of goals makes them indirect.

-

The absence of evaluation and learning mechanisms (institutions, protocols, standards, coordinating individuals, champions, etc.)

Secondly, we organized four thematic talks (about nature conservation, research, water management and hydro-ecological restoration) presented by key decision makers and followed by facilitated discussion. The session concluded with the elaboration of concrete proposals to foster the development of new institutions at the research-management interface (see below). This part of the workshop was aimed to strength the process of networking and trust-building developed during the interviews. Thirdly, we organized a session of participatory modelling that was performed in two separated groups, either of which focused respectively on two key components of the management of the Doñana protected aquatic ecosystems: water and vegetation. In addition, the interviews and workshops allowed us to gather qualitative data and to explore the opportunities for implementing and developing future processes of change from the policies applied on the ground (e.g., towards adaptive management strategies).

18

| RESULTS – RESEARCH PROGRAM IN CANADA |

5. Results 5.1.

Research program in Canada

5.1.1. The institutional framework for NRM and NC in Canada Canada’s socio-economic development has been historically based in the great availability of natural resources (e.g., fisheries, timber and minerals). From pre-Columbian times, when aboriginal people already managed them (Notzke 1994), natural resources provide Canadians with most of their cultural heritage and high living standards. For example, forests constitute approximately half of Canada’s land base (921 million ha, of which 418 M ha are considered commercial forest and 119 M ha are used for timber production) (Hessing et al. 2005). Though plagued with recurrent crises, marine fisheries are still abundant and constitute an important economic sector in Canada, significantly contributing to the value-added in commodityproducing industries, employment and GDP of several provinces (e.g., Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island) (Parsons 1993, Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2008). However, governmental resource policies (at both federal and provincial level) are largely constrained by the nature and dynamics of export activities and the integration of the Canadian economy in the international markets (staples-dependent economy) (Hessing et al. 2005). The institutional framework for NRM and NC, and the functions of the State in both sectors has been socially and politically conflictive during the last century at many levels – leading to many constitutional struggles between the federal and provincial governments, which usually ended in instrumentalist approaches for conflict resolution (Ayling and Kelly 1997, Buckles 1998). At the constitutional level, the Canadian division of authority has provided (and still provides) provinces with fundamental powers over natural resources, with the exception of fisheries (British North America Act of 1867, hereafter BNA; Constitution Act of 1982) (Litfin 2000). The constitutional order determines governmental responsibilities, policy-making and legislative powers (e.g., entitled decision-makers), and decision making abilities within governmental organizational structures. It also guarantees existing aboriginal and treaty rights, all of which was determined by colonial practices and the BNA (Webber 1994, Hessing et al. 2005). The first constitutional act (BNA) was largely influenced by timber trade actors, a fact that largely established the basis for a resource-based economy that lasted until today (Natural Resources Canada, 2008). From the second half of the 19th century up to mid-20th century, resource extraction and conservation (mainly timber) was moderated through the development of new administrative arrangements at many (constitutional, collective-choice and operational) levels (e.g., regulations, regulatory agencies, provisions, long-term tenures, engineering commissions). The increasing

19


amount of technological and industrial developments made provincial governments aware of the uncertain character of long-term resource supply (Hessing et al. 2005). During this era a system for NC (e.g., national parks, forest reserves) was created “in order to preserve some areas from destruction” (Hessing et al. 2005). Prior to 1867, when the Constitution Act was passed, environmental quality needs were not explicitly considered (Rankin 1993). Before World War II, environmental functions like nature conservation (e.g., parks services) were largely entrusted to provincial ministries, but were “minimal, fragmented, and framed primarily in terms of human economic and organizational requirements” (Hessing et al. 2005). From 1950 onwards, conservation efforts by both federal (e.g., regional development incentives, Forestry Act of 1949) and provincial (e.g., forests and mineral reserves) governments continued in the same atmosphere of strong provincial opposition to federal regulatory initiatives, which accelerated dramatically the complexity and fragmentation of environmental provisions, regulations and administrative structures between the two levels (Hessing et al. 2005). This ultimately led to a vertical transfer of powers from federal to provincial governments, but to a horizontal transfer of functions between different organizational structures with overlapping jurisdictions at different levels (e.g., federal and provincial agencies and departments) (Hessing et al. 2005). Currently, the Canadian environmental legislation (e.g., wilderness and species protection) and the administrative structures for its enforcement, which partially stem from resource policies, are very complex – and a reflection of the historical federal-provincial struggle. With the creation of Environment Canada, in 1985, responsibilities over policy formation for environmental enhancement, renewable resource management and conservation (e.g., wildlife), and pollution prevention, became shared by the federal and the provincial governments - and showed substantial overlaps (Department of the Environment Act 1985, Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999). An Environmental Protection Service was created to coordinate the environmental activities of the departments of the environment previously established within the provinces, which provided with regulatory functions and punitive sanctions, rather than resource management structures (Macdonald 1991, Brown 1992). Yet “the legacy of structural fragmentation in jurisdiction and regulatory standards continues (nowadays) to make resource and environmental administration a complex and difficult process” (Hessing et al. 2005). The enactment of the Constitutional Act of 1982 involved two facts of great significance for the Canadian processes of policy formation: it strengthened the federal-provincial division of powers and jurisdiction, and gave certain powers to First Nations. In particular, Section 92 of the Act provides provincial government with legislative jurisdiction over natural resources (e.g., forestry and mining), with the important exception of fisheries (seacoast and inland) and resources affected by international affairs or treaties (e.g., trans-boundary parks), which are under

20


the jurisdiction of the federal government (Section 91.12). Section 35 recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights, and gives jurisdiction to First Nations. “Such division of powers has led to a very complex, legalistic structure for the management of some resources. For example, the federal government has legislative jurisdiction over certain species of anadromous species of fish (e.g., Pacific species of salmon – Sockeye, Chinook, Coho), and has administratively delegated authority back to the provincial government for the management of the so-called ‘provincial species of fish’ (e.g., rainbow trout, steelhead). However, despite such administrative transfer of powers, the latter remains within the federal sphere of jurisdiction. This adds a certain dynamic tension over legislative jurisdiction affairs among the federal, provincial and First Nations governments, because legislative jurisdiction means certain control power over resources (though it is needed ownership jurisdiction to get overall control)” (Richard Kyle Paisley, extract from interview).

At the end of the 1980s and during the 1990s, the ‘sustainability paradigm’ (Hessing et al. 2005) saturated the Canadian resource-policy agendas (Forest Resource Development Agreements 1985-1990, National Forest Strategies 1992, 1998). After long consultation processes by the federal government, in 1984, subsequent National Forest Strategies (1992, 1998, 2003-2008) have evolved from ad hoc, collective-choice institutions (e.g., inter-ministerial meetings) to soundly constituted policy forums. These procedures reflect a true effort to broad public participation in drafting policy strategies, but they also restrict the constitutional power of the federal government, vesting it to the provinces (Howlett 1989). Nowadays, the institutional, federal-provincial framework for natural resource management and NC remains fragmented (provincial and municipal governments are even acquiring more responsibilities), though in the forest sector “the major forest-owning provinces exhibited a pattern of policy convergence over the second half of the twentieth century” (Hessing et al. 2005).

5.1.2. Recent institutional developments in the Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve During the 1990s, Clayoquot Sound faced several economic structural adjustments and social conflicts over development among various groups, that led the region to a transition towards different institutional (i.e. socio-economic, political) structures (Magnusson and Shaw 2003, Dobell 2001) and fundamental transformations in “attitudes, patterns of communication, and trust, all of which led to a willingness to partner, learn, and work together” (Pinkerton 1999). The conflicts were characterized by the emergence of contrasting approaches to NRM and NC, stemming from differences in values and belief systems, and economic interests (e.g., industrial logging vs. protection for conservation, stemming from the view of forests as marketable ecosystems vs. ecosystems endowed with spiritual and aesthetic values) (Dobell 2001). These tensions were slowly resolved through a transition towards different institutional (i.e. socio-economic, political) structures (Magnusson and Shaw 2003, Dobell 2001), and

21


fundamental transformations in “attitudes, patterns of communication, and trust, all of which led to a willingness to partner, learn, and work together” (Pinkerton 1999). The process of change outlined above interacted profoundly, and probably also fostered, First Nations´ historical claims for co-management treaties and land-rights devolution processes (First Nations land had not been transferred to Canadian governments by any treaty). Many aboriginal management systems (e.g., Nuu-chah-nulth ha health or ‘Chiefs Territory’) entrust chiefs with the right and responsibility to protect the lands and waters in their territory and preserve the resources for future generations – which, as both First Nations members and some academics argued, constituted a more reliable land-stewardship system than private property ownership (Shaw 2001). The conflicts faced the BC’s provincial government and courts with the contradictory obligation of ensuring compliance with both the constitutional right of local (aboriginal and non-aboriginal) communities for civil disobedience against (non-restrained) logging, and the logging contracts between governmental agencies and industrial corporations (Rojas 1995). The conflict started to affect the international reputation of Canadian logging practices, affecting the demands for exported wood and wood products. Institutional innovation reached a tipping point in 1993, when the Government of British Columbia created the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound (the Panel hereafter) (Dobell 2001, Rojas et al. 2002, Bunnell 2008). The Panel was conceived as an independent Panel aimed at the development of world-class standards for sustainable forest management (e.g., long-term productivity and natural diversity of the Clayoquot region) by combining traditional (‘lived experience’) and science-based ecological knowledge (scientific data). It included experts from the Nuu-chah-nulth communities along with academics from different research organizations (Sit and Taylor 1998, Dobell 2001). To achieve its main goal, the Panel produced in 1994 a first report addressing the framework and guiding principles for reviewing historical standards and developing new ones. The report recommended the use of adaptive management strategies for improving both public and private forest planning and management practices, with specific targets such as responding to new knowledge and experience, as well as to unforeseen natural and human-induced environmental changes. It also emphasised the need for triggering social learning (Dobell 2001), by actively involving local actors (e.g., affected local communities, First Nations, industrial stakeholders) in planning and management processes (Bunnell et al. 1994).

22


5.1.3. Identified initiatives and projects We made an inventory (summarized in table 4) of 31 initiatives and projects that: 1. Apply AM principles for NRM and NC, or addressed conceptual challenges posed by its application – mainly at CSBR and British Columbia, but also elsewhere in Canada and USA, or even worldwide. 2. Developed new institutions (e.g., scientific panels, decision boards) in the recent past – mostly at CSBR, but also for NRM and NC.

5.1.4. Actor analysis and interviewing The result of our actor analysis consisted in the identification of 31 actors (see tables 4 and 5 below), which were afterwards requested for interview. We succeeded to interview 29 of these 31 actors, belonging to different management and research organizations, including private (profit and non-profit) and Crown corporations, universities, provincial and federal departments and agencies, environmental non-government organizations, and a treaty negotiator from the Tla-oqui-aht First Nation. 24 interviews were made face-to-face and 4 by telephone, with an average interview duration of approximately one hour. In most cases (25), interviews were recorded and text transcripts were produced and stored (those not recorded were due by technical reasons). Some actors were ex-situ senior experts from finished projects, i.e. actors with proved longterm experience in the field of adaptive management both in the development of its theoretical aspects and in its operational practice (label AM in table’s 4 column ‘Issues of interest’). We also interviewed in-situ actors and experts from ongoing projects (e.g., executive managers, monitoring technicians), as well as actors from the recent history of the Clayoquot Sound (label CS-ID in table´s 4 column ‘Issues of interest’). They provided information about historical and recent, institutional developments in the region, always in the field of NRM and NC. In all cases, priority was given to actors from the operational levels (i.e. executives, managers, researchers, technicians and environmentalists on the ground). Information gathered in the interviews was enriched with information sources and literature provided by the interviewed actors.

23

AM

BC Coast Forest Strategy

24

AM

Red River Basin Adaptive Management Simulation Model

Clayoquot Sound Monitoring and Indicator Strategy

AM

Community-Based Natural Resource Management Program

CS-ID

AM

CS-ID

AM

AM

Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort

Grand Canyon Ecosystem Model

AM

Ecosystem Based Management Working Group

CS-ID

AM

Issue of interest

Enabling Adaptive Forest Management

Project/initiative

Indicators and stressors for monitoring social, economic and ecosystem productivity in Clayoquot Sound

Explore natural, economic and social dynamics, and alternative policies with stakeholders and decision makers

Adaptive policy frameworks and community-based resource in Asian countries

Define and priorize research programs and experimental monitoring design

Identifying and mitigating impacts on grizzly bear populations

Alternative ways to meet ecosystem management objectives

Balancing ecological, social and economic goals for managing industrial logging

Factors needed for successful AM in the forest sector

Project description

Clayoquot Forest Management Ltd.

Lookfar Solutions Inc.

Adaptive Resource Management Ltd.

Ecometric Research Inc.

Compass Resource Management Ltd.

Compass Resource Management Ltd.

Western Forest Products Inc.

ESSA Technologies Ltd.

Organization

Private/CS

Private/USA

Private/Worldwide

Private/USA

Private/BC

Private/BC

Private/BC

Private/USA

Sector type/Class criteria

Warren Warttig

Tim Webb

Stephen Tyler

Josh Korman

Michael Harstone

Lee Failing

William J. Beese

David Marmorek

Identified actor

D, E, G

B, C

D, E, G

B, C

D, G

B

D, G

B

D, G

B

D, G

B

D, E, F

A, B, C

D, F

A, B

Selection criteria

Planning Biologist

President

President

Systems Ecologist

Partner

Partner

Forest Ecologist

President

Position

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Interview?

Table 4. Selected adaptive management projects and initiatives (AM = adaptive management, CS-ID = Clayoquot Sound-Institutional Development, USA = United States of America, BC = British Columbia, CS = Clayoquot Sound)


25

AM

AM

AM

Rivers Inlet Project

CALFED Bay-Delta Program –Science Program

AM

Reserve Design as a Tool to Conserve Species, Communities and Ecosystems

Weyerhaeuser’s Forest Project – Monitoring Biological Indicators During the AM Program

AM

Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound

CS-ID

AM

Issue of interest

Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management

Project/initiative

Improve California’s water supply and the ecological health of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta –AM within CALFED agencies

Research on causes of declines in sockeye salmon populations –sound monitoring programs, mathematical hydrodinamic modelling and innovative statistical techniques

Policies that anticipate ‘failure’ and learning from failures, as basic components of planning

Effectiveness of retention systems and zoning in maintaining forest attributes necessary to sustain biological richness and essential ecosystem functions

Develop world-class standards for sustainable forest management combining traditional and scientific knowledge

“Due to high uncertainty in our behavior models of resource management systems, all management actions are properly described as experiments with uncertain outcomes… rather than implementing ‘best management practices’, resource managers are actually relying on a ‘working hypothesis’ — whether they realize it or not” (Holling, 1978)

Project description

CALFED Bay-Delta Program

Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, Simon Fraser University

Forest Sciences Department, Forestry Faculty, University of British Columbia


Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound

Department of Zoology, University of Florida

Organization

Scientific-technical/ USA

Scientific-technical/ BC

Scientific-technical/ Conceptual


Scientific-technical/ CS



Mike Healey

Rick Routledge

Peter Arcese

Laurie Kremsater

Frederick L. Bunnell

C. S. Holling

Identified actor

D, G

A, B

D, F

Lead Scientist (2006-2008)

Professor in Statistics

(Co-Director – Centre for Applied Conservation Research)

D, F

A, B

Professor

Forest Biologists

Panel Co-Chair (Honorary Professor at UBC)

Eminent Scholar, Arthur R. Marshall Jr. Chair in Ecological Sciences

Position

B

D, E, G

B, C

D, E, F

A, B, C

D, F

A, B

Selection criteria

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Interview?


AM

AM

Computer Models for Adaptive Forest Management

Forests and Oceans for the Future

26

AM

AM

AM

AM

International Watercourses/River Basins Including Law, Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Simulation Training Exercises

BC Forest Service Adaptive Management Initiative

Forest and Range Evaluation Program (Forest for Tomorrow)

The Watershed Evaluation Tool (WET)

CS-ID

AM

CS-ID

AM

Issue of interest

Strategic Planning in Arctic Resource Communities

Clayoquot Alliance for Research, Education and Training

Project/initiative

BC Forest Service, Forest Practices Branch, Ministry of Forests and Range

Ecosystems Branch, BC Ministry of Environment/University of British Columbia

Study and rank large watersheds, using indicators to evaluate each watershed’s inherent physical sensitivity

BC Forest Service, Forest Practices Branch, Ministry of Forests and Range

Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia

Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia


Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability IRES, University of British Columbia

Department of Public Administration, University of Victoria

Organization

Science-based information for decision-making and continuous improvement of forest and range practices, policies and legislation in BC

Explore how AM can be applied to help continuously improve forestry practices in BC

Study of international water law and conflict resolution

Incorporate core community values and knowledge in local sustainable forests and natural resource management

Tools to help managers in achieving their objectives of sustainable forest management in an adaptive framework

Understand how climate change will affect Nunavut communities – implementation of AM programs

Research on specific issues and needs that exist among Clayoquot Sound communities, academic community and institutional borderlands

Project description

Government/BC

Government/BC

Government/BC




Scientific-technical/ Canada

Scientific-technical/ CS


Eric Parkinson

Alanya Smith

Brian Nyberg

Richard Kyle Paisley

Charles R. Menzies

Juan Blanco

Michelle Boyle

Rod Dobell

Identified actor

D, G

B

D, G

B

D, F

A, B

E, G

B

E, G

C

D, E, G

B

D, G

B

D, E, F

B, C

Selection criteria

Officer (MOE)/ Senior Fisheries Scientist (UBC)

Effectiveness Evaluations Coordinator

Manager

Director, Dr. Andrew R. Thompson Natural Resources Law Program

Associate Professor of Anthropology

Posdoctoral Research Fellow

PhD

Principal Investigator

Position

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Interview?


AM

Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration in Canada's Protected Natural Areas

27

CS-ID

CS-ID

CS-ID

CS-ID

Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve

Conservation Economy

Clayoquot Field Station

CS-ID

AM

Friends of Clayoquot Sound

Principles and Guidelines for Ecological Restoration in Canada's Protected Natural Areas

AM

Strategic Land and Resource Plans in BC

CS-ID

AM

Issue of interest

Adaptive Management in Water Use Plans

Project/initiative

Transformative, experiential and interdisciplinary learning to solve problems on a local, national and global scale

Conservation economy –promote innovation and provide services for communities, First Nations and enterprises to green and grow their local economies

Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations philosophy ‘Hishuk ish ts’awalk’, or ‘everything is one’ –to promote truly sustainable local communities and economies

Create of a conservation-based society, with a corresponding conservation-based economy

Ditto

Make consistent, credible and informed decisions regarding the management of issues of common concern to parks and protected areas agencies in Canada and internationally

Provide increased certainty and form the foundation for balanced solutions that meet economic, environmental, and social requirements throughout BC

Find a better balance between competing uses of water in BC – active AM, or experimentation with operational changes

Project description

(non-profit)

Tofino Botanical Gardens Foundation

(non-profit)

Ecotrust Canada

UNESCO

Friends of Clayoquot Sound (Commnunity-based organization)

Pacific Rim National Park/Parks Canada

Pacific Rim National Park/Parks Canada

Integrated Land Management Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands

BC Hydro (Crown Corporation)

Organization

Private/CS

Private/Canada

NGO/CS

NGO/CS

Government/Canada

Government/Canada

Government/BC

Government/BC


George Patterson

Brenda ReidKuecks

Rebecca Vines

Maryjka Michajlowycz

Ed Paleczny

Yuri Zharikov

Brian Retzer

Paul Higgins

Identified actor

E, G

C

E, G

C

E, F

C

E, F

C

D, E, F

B, C

D, E, F

B, C

E, G

C

D, G

B

Selection criteria

Director

Director of Community Programs

Community Coordinator

Forest Watch

Manager of Resource Conservation

Park Monitoring Ecologist

Planning Officer

Senior Research Biologist

Position

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Interview?


Tla-o-qui-aht Nation Building Strategy: ha’wiih and ma’uas (chiefs and houses)

Project/initiative

CS-ID

Issue of interest

Consult the oral historians of the Tlao-qui-aht First Nation, and document their knowledge pertaining to Ha’wiih, the caretakers and controllers of the haahuulthii (Nation’s natural and cultural values) and responsible of many aspects of the Nation’s governance

Project description Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation/Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council

Organization First Nations/CS

Sector type/Class criteria Sayachapis (Marc) Masso

Identified actor

E, G

C

Selection criteria Treaty Negotiator

Position Yes

Interview?


28


Table 5. Interviews included in this publication, organized by sector type and class criteria. Sector type ScientificFirst technical Private Government Nations Class criteria Canada British 2 2 5 Project Columbia geographic Clayoquot 2 2 1 location Sound Elsewhere 1 1 2* Elsewhere in 1 3 USA Worldwide 1 4 Conceptual Totals 10 9 7 1 *

NGO -

Totals 8

2

8

-

4 4

2

1 4 29

Federal Government (Parks Canada)

5.1.5. Institutional opportunities and constraints for adaptive management in Clayoquot Sound Table 6 presents thirteen key themes that (all or most of) the interviewees consistently identified as important issues for the successful implementation of adaptive management strategies for the NRM and NC (with an emphasis on BC and the Clayoquot Sound). These themes are presented as positive statements (first column), accompanied by the qualitative values that the interviewed actors gave to the statements during their accounts, separately for the periods before and after 1993 (second and third columns; see Methodology for the justification of the choice of this historical landmark). (A more complete analysis of the actors´ accounts –narrative analysis– will be published in a forthcoming article).

29


Table 6. Key themes identified by the interviewees as important issues for the successful implementation of adaptive management strategies. Actors from the recent history of the Clayoquot Sound were asked to identify the issues and characterize them as opportunities or constraints, separately for the periods “before 1993” and “after 1993” (the year in which the Clayoquot Sound Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices was created at the request of the British Columbia Government). Statement Before 1993 After 1993 Presence of adaptive management pilot projects on the ground (public and private)

Constraint (no presence)

Opportunity (presence)

Use of operative methodologies and procedures for stakeholder involvement

Constraint (scarce use)

Opportunity (broad use)

Constraint (low commitment)

Case-dependent

Fear to uncertainty within management agencies

Constraint (high)

Case-dependent

Existing functional organizational capacity and structures

Case-dependent

Opportunity (growing)

Willingness of local communities

Case-dependent

Case-dependent

Existing political (i.e. from-the-top) support

Case-dependent

Opportunity (increasing)

Constraint (very strong)

Opportunity (less strong)

Constraint (very powerful)

Opportunity (less powerful)

Constraint (non-existing)

Case-dependent

Constraint (high persistence)

Case-dependent

Extent of inter-agency coordination

Constraint (low extent)

Constraint (low extent)

Persistence of multi-level conflicts



Commitment for long-term implemented measures

monitoring

of

Strength of (socioeconomic) sectorial interests Power of command and control strategies as exclusive options Existing policy and legal structures Persistence of institutional inertia (rules reproduction)

5.1.6. The Vancouver Workshop 5.1.6.1. Summary of results The Vancouver workshop constituted the culmination of the first stage of the Canadian part of the TRANSAM Project. It completed the previous process of networking activities throughout British Columbia, which included formal expert interviewing and information exchanges with representatives of several agencies and organizations. We specifically chose participants with a fair amount of experience in the theme of interest, who participate nowadays (or have participated recently) in important projects and/or initiatives implementing adaptive management programs for NRM and NC, often dealing with complex

30


social-ecological problems. Tables 7.a and 7.b include a summary of the workshop’s conclusions. A full report of the workshop is provided below. Table 7.a. Summary of conclusions of the Vancouver Workshop speakers – Opportunities and challenges for adaptive management. Conclusions Speaker Bill Beese

Opportunities for adaptive management - Increasing pressure in the global market place for wood from forest certified as sustainably managed. - Variable retention procedures. - Collaboration with academics in the development of feasible and realistic objectives, and reliable indicators. - Executive (i.e. from-the-top) willingness and support.

Challenges for adaptive management - The acquisition and interpretation of data regarding single species. - Long-term commitment for success and further development of the adaptive management framework. - The ongoing struggling for profitability of the timber business mainly due to strong external forces. - The maintenance of public involvement.

- Learning. Mike Harstone

- The explicit building of affected interests into the - Overlapping roles among actors. adaptive management planning framework and - Low institutional nimbleness. their linking to the decisions or actions. - Confusion between science (facts) and - The structuring and information of dialogue values. about the trade-offs among multiple objectives. - Hidden trade-offs behind adaptive - The link of actions and objectives, as the focus of management. adaptive management. - Lack of definition for triggers/impacts - The understanding of scientists of how their thresholds. input fits into the multiple objectives that - Lack of committed funding for managers (decision makers) must balance. monitoring. - The acknowledgement that adaptive management - Limited opportunity for meaningful serves the purpose of enhance learning by involvement by affected First Nations and allowing comparison between expected and other stakeholders. observed outcomes, thereby improving hypotheses and predictive capability over time. - Lack of a structured format to review and - The upfront agreement of clearly defined impact thresholds.

Paul Higgins

- The analysis of trade-offs between adaptive management and other environmental management objectives. - The adequate trade-off between the consequences of information for management and the chance of getting it.

31

address duelling knowledge claims. - Systemic rigidities. - The production of costly decision making processes resulting in the postponement of difficult decisions.


Table 7.b. Summary of conclusions of the Vancouver Workshop speakers – Critical facts and guidelines for effective adaptive management. Critical facts and guidelines for effective adaptive management Fred Bunnell

- Simpler is not always better. Simple comparisons among operational practices/treatments are valuable but do not always include the necessary complexity. - Don’t expect tidy thresholds. Some physical relationships have clear thresholds – almost no biological relationships do. - Conflicting recommendations are inevitable. For almost all management issues data will provide conflicting recommendations to management – desired outcomes respond differently to management actions. - Informed choice and general guidance. Informed choice presents decision-makers with predictions of the effects of different, clearly specified management options on a number of valued components based on the best available science. General guidance helps sustain longterm improvement. - A major challenge to monitoring is to meet immediate needs while anticipating future needs. - Predictions will be wrong. Complex natural systems contain too many ‘black swans’ (unexpected events with large impacts) for predictions to be accurate. The problems are usually ‘wicked’. - Expectations from monitoring may be naïve. It is probably naïve to expect direct short-term management response to monitoring results in the face of strong economic pressures.

Paul Higgins

- Spatial and temporal scale of the problem (duration and spatial complexity). - Technical uncertainty (model structure and parameters, stochastic and systematic confounding effects, indicator choice). - Stakeholder and institutional support (institutional capacity, leadership, trust, flexibility in decision making). - Costs, benefits and risks (perceived risks of failure). - Key principles of the Water Use Plans making process in British Columbia (based on adaptive management tenets): 1.

The recognition of multiple objectives and uses (wildlife conservation, First Nation values, fisheries, recreational).

2.

Making it a collaborative, cooperative and inclusive process.

3.

No constituting it as a force of change in legal or constitutional rights.

4.

The recognition that trade-offs have and will occur.

5.

The embodiment of science and continuous learning through information gathering and analysis.

6.

The focusing on issue resolution and long-term benefits.

32


Critical facts and guidelines for effective adaptive management (cont.) Warren Wartigg

- Guidelines for an effective adaptive-management-based science-policy interface: 1.

Focus research on questions that are relevant to policy issues.

2.

Conduct research in a communicative and collaborative manner.

3.

Understand the process of serving and engaging policy processes.

4.

Create organizational capacity and culture that enables and encourages work at the science-policy interface.

- Scientific information is rarely the primary driver of policy change, policy-makers respond more readily to research that affects their constituents’ needs (values that are unsatisfied or at risk of being lost). - People’s values should be considered in planning, conducting, and implementing research, and a clear focus on needs enhances the effectiveness of forest research and its influence on policy-makers. - Research that is both interdisciplinary and integrative is needed (i.e. collaboration). - Researchers should consider the role of science in policy implementation and must remain independent, neutral and unbiased. Laurie Kremsater

- Some operative lessons from the Coast Forest Strategy indicators monitoring program: 1.

Comparison to natural benchmarks identified forest structures that needed more attention during Variable Retention programs. Those were improved and confirmed by operational monitoring over time – a direct monitoring feedback.

2.

Operational progress over time can indicate if improvement is being made in retaining variety of structures.

3.

With the multiple changes in company ownership, maintaining communication between researchers, managers and forest operators has been a challenge. Efforts continue to close the feedback loop.

4.

Landscape patterns can be compared over different management scenarios and scenarios chosen that maintain more interior, create less road, and create less edge.

5.

Long term trends in landscape patterns and stand-level structures can expose priorities for improvement.

33


5.1.6.2. Workshop report

General questions 1. Theory: how has theory been developed and what does it say? Practice: how has it been implemented and what are the results? 2. What is the role of science-management-policy interfaces for successful AM implementation? 3. Which are the main barriers and opportunities for AM implementation, from the institutional, legislative and technical perspectives? Which is the extent of stakeholder involvement and which is their role? 4. Closing the adaptive cycle: how does our experience and practice influence our theory – which in turn influences practice? (‘Applying AM to the academic theory of AM’) Does practice support theory? Does theory provide with guidelines and principles for successful AM implementation?

Goals 1. To perform a general review of Canadian experience with AM, with an emphasis on British Columbia. 2. To elicit information about both the role of science and the role of stakeholder involvement, in the processes of policy formation in Canada. 3. To identify major institutional opportunities and barriers for the AM of natural resources (e.g., water, timber, fisheries and minerals) and nature conservation (e.g., ecological restoration), and to understand the role of stakeholder involvement at the first stages of the AM programs. 4. To provide with useful and viable guidelines that contribute for the understanding of the relationship and feedbacks between the practice and theoretical development of innovative AM-based strategies

34


Introductory session

The introductory session was devoted to outline the project’s background by two of its senior European partners (Jaime Amezaga and Luis Santamaría). Firstly, Jaime Amezaga covered the historical background of the current European Union’s environmental policy. As he noted, it is currently bounded by the Treaty of Nice (2000), which provides with a legal framework for all member states, defines areas of action in the EU and enumerates a number of basic elements as guidelines for action including: the Precautionary Principle, prevention, rectification of environmental damages at source, environmental integration, and the Principle of Subisidiarity of the EU’s directives. Subsequently, Amezaga provided a summary of the EU’s Water Framework Directive to the participants. He underlined the fact that the WFD constitutes a strategic framework for managing the water environment with a common approach to protecting and setting environmental objectives for all groundwater and surface waters within the EU. He specifically pointed out the fact that each river basin demarcated by the directive must produce its own strategic management plan and promote public participation. Also, he noted that the main aim of the WFD is to achieve good surface water and groundwater status at the latest 15 years the date of entry into force. Finally, he presented other related European legislation (Birds and Habitats Directive, and Biodiversity Policy) in order to complete the overview of the European Framework for environmental policy. The main conclusions of the presentation by Jaime Amezaga focused on the WFD, namely that such framework: 1. defines a planning cycle with environmental objectives, monitoring and public consultations for all watersheds; 2. establishes a network of protected areas and encourages appropriate management plans, and; 3. does not requires AM but also, in principle, neither precludes it. The second presentation, given by Luis Santamaría, covered the adaptive strategy designed for the restoration of the “Caracoles Estate”, a 2600 ha agricultural estate, into marshland, as part of the “Doñana 2005 Project”.

35


He observed that the AM-based strategy was advised by several scientists during the consultation processes carried out by the scientific committee in charge of the project’s research coordination, prior to the implementation of the restoration project. The initial design included a short intensive action, coupled with a long-term monitoring plan, which aimed at implementing an alternative solution with the specific goals of ensuring long-term success, fixing adequate baselines (in time and space) as references, and focusing in patterns (e.g., biodiversity) and functions (e.g., productivity). The consulted scientists prescribed an AM-based strategy as an alternative to the more classical approaches traditionally chosen by the management institutions on the ground. Their main aim was to overcome the main challenges, both ecological and institutional, that initially faced the “Caracoles Estate” restoration project, which were not collectively posed upfront. Another goal was to “avoid putatively-optimal solutions” to ecological restoration (e.g., the identification of an optimal flooding cycle), and provide with a strategy able to continually generate knowledge on the factors that would enhance ecosystem resilience to variation in flooding cycles (e.g., diversification of the marsh spatial structure and wetland connectivity). However, as Santamaría concluded, the main challenges that the project faced (and still faces) were not in the physical realm, but in the institutional (i.e. policy and decision making) arena, namely that: -

Due to historical inertia, the management institutions in place are fearful of innovation in management planning and operational design.

-

Local academics distrust the new approach, as they believe that research must exclusively focus on characterizing local biodiversity and monitoring its status, disconnectedly from management on operational action, therefore broadening the current abyss between research and management.

Finally, Santamaría stressed that learning how to manage the restored wetlands, through an AM-based strategy, would help managing the complete marsh.

Session 1: Management experiences, practice and outcomes

The first working session covered critical theoretical, policy, institutional and technical aspects, for the development and operational implementation of AM in BC. This session specifically looked at how science gets into management, i.e. how it gets implemented in practice into AM experiences. We proposed to address the following issue: What is actually being done, from the

36


management perspective? i.e. what does it mean to take adaptability seriously in the management institutions and in the day-to-day management of a nature reserve? The first presentation, given by Bill Beese, from Western Forest Products (WFP), concerned the test of new strategies for the management of BC’s coastal forests, by the different companies that he has worked for (MacMillan Bloedel, Weyerhaeuser and WFP Inc.), under the umbrella title of ‘The Coast Forest Strategy’. The first initiative, called the ‘Forest Project’, was announced by MacMillan Bloedel in 1998 as a strategic response strategy to increasing pressure in the global We want to sustain healthy and marketplace for wood from forest certified as sustainably productive forests and conserve managed. It extended over an area of about 1.1 million ha of biodiversity on our tenures, which forested land on the coastal mainland and larger islands of are primarily public land that we British Columbia. MacMillan Bloedel was consecutively manage under long-term leases acquired by Weyerhaeuser and Western Forest Products, with the government. both of which adopted the key strategic elements of the Forest Project. Basically, this project sought to address public concerns regarding clearcutting, old growth forests and biological diversity. Its main goals were to operate a safe and profitable business, to maintain public and marketplace approval (social license), and to sustain biological diversity. Beese’s talk focused on the third goal. He showed how nowadays his company was attempting to accomplish this goal using a three-tiered approach that includes: (i) ecosystem representation (having a certain proportion of all ecosystems represented in reserves on the land base), (ii) the maintenance of structure at the stand level, and (iii) the maintenance of species diversity. The first one is fulfilled primarily through a whole system of landscape level reserves throughout the (BC) province (including riparian reserves, sensitive terrain, wildlife habitat areas, and old-growth management areas). To maintain We have been doing retention at the stand structure at the stand level more old growth is level, moving out of clear-cutting toward reserved from harvest through a system of other approaches that leave a variety of stewardship zones, and ‘variable retention’ (VR) structure behind, more similar to what is implemented for most harvesting instead of nature would do. clearcutting. This approach is being used in a framework of eco-sections (broad areas of similar geography, topography and climate), which helped to set new management standards across the company. Through the design of AM-based experiments using VR, a new approach to harvesting and silviculture based on differential long-term retention of trees (different long-term levels of leavetree retention –types, amounts and patterns), was introduced. This strategy can also adapt traditional silvicultural systems and meet social demands for different alternatives to clearcutting.

37


Indeed, VR itself allows for the implementation of AM programs, including the establishment of several experimental areas for comparing the biological and economic impacts of VR. Also, it allows for independent monitoring of random samples of cutblocks, and monitoring of structural attributes, single species, and the impacts of VR on forest growth and yield, windthrow and small streams. For that purpose, an AM Working Group and a VR Working Group were formed. The first (comprised primarily of researchers, including academics, consultants, employees, representatives of companies with adjacent tenure, and government representatives) developed a framework for action, methodology and pilot Communication among different working protocols for effectiveness monitoring groups is necessary to ensure that scientific (monitoring framework documents, indicators findings provide feedback to management and experimental block comparisons). At this action, and close the loop in the adaptive point of the talk Beese stressed that the work on management process. the development of species diversity indicators, which was done in collaboration with Laurie Kremsater, Fred Bunnell and others, focused on the grouping of indicators, coming up with a species accounting system for making sure the needs of all the different forest species are covered. The VR Working Group was composed of practitioners –those who had to implement the new planning and practices. Early discussions in the VR Working Group focused on how to make the new practices work. With time and demonstrated ability to make new practices work, discussions focused increasingly on conflicts between economic return and sustaining biodiversity –“illustrating that a wicked problem remains wicked” (Bunnell). While the design of the broad elements of the new approach (including monitoring protocols) resided in the AM Working Group, the innovation and the practicality of making new practices work operationally resided primarily in the VR Working Group. The development of objectives and indicators made it possible to answer specific questions, set up certain actions and monitor well defined processes. Beese focused on just one example: wind damage –“how much wind damage (windthrow and breakage) are we getting just because of the edge of the cut-block, the edges of large patches and the edges of small groups that we have left?”. He presented data for a 3-5 year period showing that the retention system within the different blocks wasn’t the primary problem with wind damage, and that significant challenges remained with the edges of the cut-blocks. The smaller groups that were left had fewer large snags, and that was one The functioning model could be rather of the objectives –to maintain snags for canopymore complicated but the working model nesting birds. The smaller groups were certainly was very useful for decision making. more vulnerable to wind damage than larger patches. Large groups tended to maintain more of the so-called forest-dependent species that ranged from

38


beetles to birds. Logging costs were much lower where there was a small number of large groups versus a greater number of small groups. All of these factors were illustrated in a simple representation of the thought process, and the results were clear: certain objectives were met with different alternatives of retention systems (large groups, small groups, or dispersed single trees). The AM working group still coordinates the process and provides the company with sciencebased recommendations and scientific advice from time-to-time –and the company management team ultimately has the power to make the We had a decision structure within the decisions about company policies. If the company, with some organizational management team approves changes to strategies, structures designed to make the whole policies or standard operating procedures, this feedback loop happen. often leads to new programs and new field projects. This kind of assessment and adjustment of practices has taken place over the last 5-6 years. The results obtained from the approach described above (e.g., VR) have helped to redefine the company’s strategy, and such adjustment is “what we are calling the ‘new western forest strategy’, so we have been through at least one AM cycle over the course of things and we hope to continue that continual loop”. Beese concluded that the AM program has helped the company learn how to operate on the ground and improve. At the same time, the program continues to evaluate ways to maintain ecosystem representation in the unmanaged landbase, and habitat elements in stands. For him, the major current challenges are: -

The acquisition and interpretation of data regarding single species.

-

The long-term commitment for success and further development of the AM framework.

-

The ongoing struggle for profitability of the timber business mainly due to strong external forces.

-

The maintenance of public involvement, which seeks to ensure ongoing social acceptance, presently achieved thanks to strategies like ‘The Coast Forest Strategy’.

39


Extracts from discussion B. Beese: “It’s been hard to tease that out of the data, but it does seem like maybe those types of events are not as rare as we thought, because it seems like every five years… I’m saying: we’ve had another catastrophic wind throw event that was not expected. So maybe they’re not quite so unexpected”. L. Kremsater: “You’ve undergone some very similar challenges in that the small company that started it –MacMillan Bloedel– had a new CEO that said: ‘you’re not going to clear-cut, you’re going to do something different, and you need to tell me it works’. You had AM change of practices right there. You didn’t really have to create trust because it came from above… But then, when you went to become Weyerhaeuser, you had something convincing to do. And I think now, that you are combined with –Cascadia and Western Forest Products and Weyerhaeuser are all together – it’s been a bit of a sales job to try and get this into a larger picture”. F. Bunnell: “I think this is a general issue in resource management: for some of the questions we ask, we’re not going to see the consequences of actions for a long time. Then you have to try to convince somebody to monitor, which is long term. So it gets to be a trick of learning – as Bill mentioned – to deliver some things within the monitoring project that are beneficial to the funders over short periods so they can see the value of funding the longer term monitoring”. The second presentation was given by Mike Harstone (Compass Resource Management), who presented several propositions for facilitating AM. He referred to a project his company is involved with: the Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort, which construction will take half the size of the Whistler area. The project has been in the environmental assessment review process for over fifteen years, largely because of low inputs of public participation and the huge concerns associated with Grizzly bears (maintaining the flow of genes, population viability all the way down to the USA). This place also happens to be, from a cultural perspective, the place “where the spirit of the Grizzly bear resides”. To First Nations, this is the most sacred place when it comes to Grizzly bears. After fifteen years in review process, the provincial government finally approved the project arguing that the project would not have “populational level effects on the Grizzly bears”. He started his presentation with a question: “Why do you need AM?” He made a difference between uncertainty, the need to learn, and urgency, the need to take action. AM is in an intermediate position between conventional management, which focus primarily on management objectives, and basic research, which focus mainly on learning objectives (Marmorek et al. 2006). AM is a systematic approach for improving resource management by learning from management.

40


However, despite the fact that learning plays a key role in AM, Harstone viewed it as a means to an end, namely good management, and not an end in itself. He stressed to the audience that AM is warranted when a real management decision is to be made, there is an opportunity to learn and the value of information for decision making is high –“as something will change”. Harstone also noted that a clear and measurable identification of management objectives is also needed. In that sense, he also stressed that uncertainties must be (in fact, can be) expressed as explicit hypotheses, that a monitoring system in order to reduce them is crucial, and that long term commitment and decision reviewing is essential –“so that actions can be adjusted”. So you are delaying making those propositions (about trade-offs) now whereas you should integrate them up front. And as a result, as you get into the monitoring phase of the study, it is the first thing to be chopped. And therefore, you are just kind of running blind again.

He then posed several factors by which AM programs are doomed to failure: -

Overlapping roles among actors (mainly managers and scientists).

-

Low institutional nimbleness.

-

Confusion between science (facts) and values.

-

Hidden trade-offs behind AM.

-

Lack of definition for triggers/impacts thresholds.

-

Lack of committed funding for monitoring.

-

Limited opportunity for meaningful involvement by affected First Nations and other stakeholders.

-

Lack of structured formats to review and address duelling knowledge claims.

What would an adaptive management program look like? What First Nations wanted to do was really clear: what were the triggers? In other words: when would the government actually have to do something? What are the impacts on other stakeholders? What are the costs associated with that?

41


Subsequently, Harstone raised several propositions towards the attainment of successful AM programs in the framework of the Jumbo Glacier Alpine Resort project, including that: -

Affected interests (objectives) must be explicitly built into the AM planning framework and linked to the decisions or actions. There is a need to generate buy-in and build partnerships in the early stages of the planning process.

-

AM should structure and inform dialogue about the trade-offs among multiple objectives.

-

The link between actions and objectives should be the focus of AM. Explicit objectives are needed to guide decisions about what Glen: Five minutes more. actions to take. Mike: Did you actually stop the clock?

-

Scientists need to understand how their input fits into the multiple objectives that managers (decision makers) must balance.

-

The purpose is not to develop complex predictive models that are “right”, but to enhance learning by allowing comparison between expected and observed outcomes thereby improving hypotheses and predictive capability over time (e.g., starting by expert elicitation to develop hypotheses and assess expected outcomes over a set period of time).

-

AM triggers will never get sprung unless there are clearly defined impact thresholds that are agreed to upfront. There is a need to be clear not just about what actions have been adopted and are currently being implemented, but which actions we foresee wanting to consider in the future. What is needed for success (by Mike Harstone) AM success will be ¾ Leadership and partnership judged by the extent to ¾ Clear links to planning or decision making processes which decisions are ¾ Early and systematic First Nation & stakeholder involvement changed, and on¾ Relevant science ground results ¾ Explicit objectives and performance metrics improved as a result.

-

¾ Recognition of and constructive approach to tradeoffs ¾ Explicit hypotheses ¾ Commitment to ongoing monitoring ¾ Secure funding

42


Extracts from discussion M. Harstone: “When we get involved with projects, a lot of times, if you’re a scientist, it’s an evaluating process sometimes. It’s the rare scientist who’ll say: ‘well, here are the facts’… It’s like they have a value about how they think that resource should best be managed”. C. Menzies: “I’m sorry but that presupposes that you actually know what the facts are. I mean: I see it like this. The whole thing about values versus facts. You’re embedded in the entire process… [your position] is going to shape what you do in your work for a corporation, that’s going to shape what you do when you’re an independent researcher. You are not doing any value-free science… What I think you were saying in terms of value is more a perspective or orientation that leads one to act in a particular way”. P. Higgins: “For example, what you’re talking about is how you choose the level of, say, statistical error. You’ll choose in a science experiment. There’s type one and type two errors, and the way you choose those, expresses how much you don’t accept uncertainty”. M. Harstone: “A lot of times, how you set up an adaptive management experiment confuses those two things [facts and values], and you need to be explicit about recognizing that there are those two very different things… different people will put different weight on whatever the attributes are associated with that value that’s been expressed…. But then, at the end of the day, in terms of what the management options are, it might not actually come into play. Or in some cases it might. But, at least, you’ve structured things in a way so you don’t get hung up on the semantics of some of the things that seem to really challenge people”. G. Hearns: “I think a lot of times adaptive management is used as a cloak to hide behind. Because there’s uncertainty now, there’s tough trade-offs in terms of stakeholders views or First Nations views that people don’t want to take right now. It’s like, we got consensus in the room right now because we’re going to do an adaptive management approach. And they put off these tough trade-offs that they know will never get revisited because when you do a review it’s not as much effort as when you developed the plan the first time”. L. Kremsater: “Within adaptive management, you set up objectives for success in some cases but you also set up situations where you’re really trying to learn, not sure if those management choices are your best ones. In fact, sometimes you know that they’re not going to be your best ones but they’re helping you learn”. Finally, Paul Higgins, from BC Hydro, closed the session enlightening the audience with some pieces of wisdom derived from implementing AM programs over 23 watersheds in BC. He started with some background on the water use planning process in BC. ‘BC Hydro and Power Authority’ is a Crown company (public company) that promotes green energy development, through sustainable water use. The goal or BC Hydro Water Use Plans (WUP) is to find a

43


balance between power and non-power uses to meet contemporary standards for water resource management. BC Hydro has a $25 million (CND) budget to establish WUP over 5 year schedules. The physical power of the company resides in its stewardship of 42 hydro-facilities over 23 watersheds, the capacity of producing 9800 MW of hydropower, and more than 100 diversion licenses.

And the issue we had is that we didn’t have very much scientific information on our facilities that would help us make good decisions. We had a very short time period to make these decisions. Adaptive management has turned out to be a blessing because of the way it’s been embedded into our licenses. It’s given us an approach to move forward.

Paul Higgins stressed that BC Hydro acknowledges AM and that, within the company, it is recommended as a preferred policy approach to manage time scope and scientific uncertainty issues in the development of WUP, without making changes in the company legal or constitutional rights (to generate power). Why should we use adaptive management? Because it would allow us to manage our data gap and time scope issues and in theory it’s a defensible approach to improve management. The WUP consists of several phases. Once initiated the process and the consultative activities, major steps are: (i) the confirmation of issues and interests in terms of specific water use objectives, (ii) the gathering of additional information on the impacts of water flows on each objective, (iii) the creation of operating alternatives to meet different interests, (iv) the assessment of trade-offs among operating alternatives in terms of the objectives, and (v) determine and document the areas of consensus and disagreements. Final steps include monitoring of WUP compliance and its review on a periodic and ongoing basis. The key principles of the WUP making process are: -

The recognition of multiple objectives and uses (wildlife conservation, First Nation values, fisheries, recreational).

-

Making it a collaborative, cooperative and inclusive process.

-

No constituting it as a force of change in legal or constitutional rights. The recognition that trade-offs have and will occur.

-

The embodiment of science and continuous learning through information gathering and analysis.

-

The focusing on issue resolution and long-term benefits.

44


Higgins finished his presentation presenting five conclusions about the implementation experience of AM programs in the managed watersheds. He noted that there is a need to address trade-offs across AM and other environmental management objectives. For him, AM is an option nested within an overall environmental management program, frequently attempted for the wrong reasons or at the wrong scale –“water management issues can be too diverse and complex to be resolved under one ‘umbrella’ AM strategy”. He stressed that some problems just don’t suit adaptive approaches or the system is too rigid to accommodate the needed trials. Also, the viability of an AM initiative is related to the consequences of information for management in relation to the chance of getting it. As Failing et Adaptive management has an emphasis on long-term al (2004) have addressed, issues improvement. Environmental management can have an being addressed by AM must be emphasis on short-term improvements. Adaptive related to the most important management considers that you have to think about the objectives to justify deferring value of information. Adaptive management really focuses decisions related to other objectives on one aspect of a problem, but it’s in the context of a whole (management relevance). lot of other things. There is no silver bullet, but one of the big things that we knew was that we needed to develop trust, so we spent a long time working with people, learning about their values, taking their values seriously, teaching them about the limitations of the operations of a hydro-facility and what could be done and what couldn’t be done and what normally happens.

The key factors controlling the viability of AM programs, as enumerated by Higgins, are: (i) spatial and temporal scale of the problem (duration and spatial complexity), (ii) technical uncertainty (model structure and parameters, stochastic and systematic confounding effects, indicator choice), (iii) stakeholder and institutional support (institutional capacity, leadership, trust, flexibility in decision making), and (iv) costs, benefits and risks (perceived risks of failure). Finally, he stated his most provocative conclusion. That is AM is seductive and intoxicating but can have a dark side, as it can produce costly decision making processes resulting in the postponement of difficult decisions; managers can perceive that scientists are promoting costly experiment in the pursuit of scientific knowledge as an end in itself; and it builds management and stakeholder expectations that sometimes will not be delivered. In some cases, adaptive management just doesn’t suit the problems that you’re trying to get. But because people like adaptive management, they think it’s the new way to go, you try to embed it in an adaptive management rather than an environmental management framework –you might be misguided and not have the success you’re looking for.

45


Extracts from discussion J. Amezaga: “Trust. To have trust, you must be trustworthy. What kind of trust are you talking about? Personal trust? Trust in the process? Trust in the outcome?” P. Higgins: “…each of these water use plans took about two years to develop. The first six months of that was spent just finding out what [First Nations] people cared about… until I had understood what their value system was, they wouldn’t talk to me…and then, once they were talking to me, I could tell them about how difficult it is to run a hydro-facility… I think that developing trust is like you develop trust with anybody. It takes time”. M. Harstone: “I think it’s quite fair to say that the hydro-engineers didn’t have much trust if they didn’t see why they were being told to do in their jobs well and they were reticent sometimes to participate or to give information…It was as much internal turmoil, I would say, in terms of how the water use planning got carried out as well as it was the external one in terms of longstanding trust issues”. P. Higgins: “Trust is something you have to earn”.

46


Session 2: Science-management-policy involvement

interfaces

and

stakeholder

The second session followed after a coffee break. It concerned the interface among science, management and policy, and the extent of public participation in the development of AM programs. This session specifically looked at how science gets into management, and how both science and management experience is incorporated into policy. Also, it will look at the extent of stakeholder involvement and their role in specific AM programs. We proposed to address the following issues: 1. How is science incorporated in decision-making for AM? Who is making the decisions, and what role does the science community play in those decisions? How should be define and develop research/science to effectively support AM? 2. How are management experiences incorporated into policy making? Are there efficient channels of communication between managers and policy makers in the field of nature conservation? 3. Do managers and policy-makers use structured decision-making tools? Do managers and policy-makers embark in developing panels with community, scientists and other stakeholders? Have these procedures and tools proven helpful? You know, when we began this, Carl and I both arrived at UBC about 1970 and those grad students –Ray Hilborn and Randall Peterman– were working here. All of we were trying to work towards a structured form of learning, because we knew that management was going to happen anyhow. So, is there a way you can learn from your management?

It began with a presentation by Fred Bunnell (Department of Forest Sciences, UBC). His presentation provided with an overview of his intellectual perspective on how science is incorporated in decision-making for AM. According to Fred Bunnell the purpose of AM is to improve management through information gained on actions taken. The goal of science is to expose consequences of alternative management decisions as clearly as possible. Subsequently, he noted the following facts and guidelines about AM.

Simpler is not always better. Much of our design for increased effectiveness employs simple comparisons among operational practices/treatments. Those simple comparisons are valuable and informative but do not always include necessary complexity.

47


Don’t expect tidy thresholds. Some physical relationships have clear thresholds – almost no biological relationships do. The best that scientists can deliver to decision-makers is a marginal value (risk) curve and offer a clear interpretation. Conflicting recommendations are inevitable. For almost all management issues data will provide conflicting recommendations to management –desired outcomes respond differently to management actions. Conflicts can be exacerbated by economic and social objectives for the same land base.

You should not tell the stakeholders or your partners in this enterprise [of AM] that you are going to find trigger factors [tidy thresholds], because you are probably not going to. It is simply because they do not exist. It is almost always curvilinear.

Informed choice and general guidance. Numerous, conflicting recommendations from scientists can overwhelm managers and be ignored. Response curves derive from data. Decisions on best options or appropriate amounts are The data has to connect to the questions, which based on values, especially tolerance of risk means it has to connect to the management and assumptions about the values of the options that are available to you. So you try and resource. Valuation of results, however, is design a program around the questions but the external to the data and monitoring results most important question is always this: if we should be presented independently of specific had the data, would we do anything with it values. Recognizing that data are not anyhow? equivalent to a decision, consider two different mechanisms for feedback of complex relationships to management –informed choice and general guidance. Informed choice: most useful for evaluating choices among specific alternatives. Informed choice presents decision-makers with predictions of the effects of different, clearly specified management options on a number of valued components based on the best available science (e.g., Northwest Forest Plan). The decision-makers, who have responsibility for incorporating public values, decide which option or plan is best based on the information presented. ‘Best available science’ includes general published As you’re learning to monitor, you are actually doing literature and monitoring results. research. The only real difference is the term. When Results can be formally combined with you talk monitoring, you are talking long term. literature results (e.g., Bayesian analysis) or presented as additional material, unincorporated into analysis. The options to evaluate can be suggested by managers, scientists, environmental or other interested groups. The important point is that the predicted effects of the management options on anticipated outcomes are presented, rather than implicitly incorporating researchers’ values by making recommendations directly or by using a summary score. The informed choice approach is useful

48


when the number of clearly-defined options available for a particular management decision is limited. General guidance: helps sustain long-term improvement. Informed choice does not provide general guidance to management questions like: “What should we be doing more or less of, or doing differently altogether?”, or “what issues will we be facing in 10 years?” Guidance on these kinds of questions happens best through a group of people with ready access to monitoring results and other information, and who can use their expertise and judgment to decide which are the most pressing problems or issues and what solutions or ways of improving are possible. The nature of the group or groups and ways to “institutionalize” the approach should be considered (e.g., the International Science Panel and Variable Retention Working Group for The Forest Project, coastal BC). The decision is almost always going to be made on the basis of social and economic concerns, so it will always be incomplete. Your job is to make it understandable and the consequences of these data that you have collected as clear as possible for the people that end up making the decisions –so you’re trying to keep it fairly clear.

A major challenge to monitoring is to meet immediate needs while anticipating future needs. The differences between informed choice and more general evaluation and guidance reflect two underlying challenges to monitoring programs. The first relates to the length of view –short term versus long term. Specifically, is the monitoring program intended primarily to help with shortterm management problems by choosing between currently available options, or is it intended to provide long-term guidance towards an ever-increasing ability to attain some overall goal? The second distinction is whether the program reflects efforts to ‘mitigate’ (find the least-bad current option) or to ‘do good’ (work towards a better condition). Predictions will be wrong. Complex natural systems contain too many ‘black swans’ (unexpected events with large impacts) for predictions to be accurate. The problems are usually ‘wicked’ – “…class of social systems problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision-makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing” (Buchanan, 1992). The monitoring should be designed to anticipate surprises and distinguish between better and worse – ‘best’ has no role. There is no single ‘correct’ path, but you may be able to avoid the deepest ditches.

49

The scholars that deal with decision theory and problem analysis have a special group of problems that they call ‘wicked problems’. Those are the ones for which there is no right solution. There is no right answer. You know what’s better and what’s worse, but there’s no right answer.


Expectations from monitoring may be naïve. It is probably naïve to expect direct short-term management response to monitoring results in the face of strong economic pressures. Even though approved by President Clinton, the Northwest Forest Plan was not implemented as designed (Molina et al, 2006). At best, people overseeing a monitoring program can provide selective forces that help keep the monitoring Create institutional structures to encourage useful in the long-term. Most major feedback, action and support innovation –those management issues are too thoroughly that study innovation find out that 95% of examples of wicked problems to permit simple innovation comes from the guys on the ground. solutions. Feedback loops may work for simple operational questions. Broader-scale changes are more likely to be based on information received less directly, as recommendations from people who integrate many information sources (e.g., International Science Panel in The Forest Project, market groups or policy-makers). Because such recommendations are partly informed by science, a monitoring program can make an important contribution by generating sound scientific results. These may ultimately have more impact on improving management – by whatever indirect route – than monitoring attempting direct, immediate feedback to management decisions. For a government or company, conducting sound scientific projects (even if not directly applied) can be seen as ‘rent’ for the use of the broader scientific knowledge that is the fundamental basis of informed management decisions. With an ever-changing organizational environment for monitoring, and the inherent interests of most researchers, good scientific contributions may be the main legacy of a long-term monitoring within an AM program. Ultimately, monitoring may lead to improved practices not by direct feedback, but by serving as a frequent reminder that particular practices are valued for more than their economic contributions. Adaptive management as conceived within ‘The Forest Project’ –it provides the ‘rumble strips’ to avoid drifting off the road and into the ditch. Adaptive management provides course corrections to the road map provided by planning and practice (F. Bunnell).

50


Extracts from discussion F. Bunnell: “…somebody can come up with a really bright idea but they don’t know how to make it work. The people who are actually on the ground, actually doing things, can usually figure out a way to make it work. So it’s not going to be academics that figure out how to make a new practice work. They’ll have some suggestions. They’ll have some idea of what it should do. But there’s other people that are going to be able to make it work far better than almost all academics”. L. Kremsater: “I’ll always remember one of the first times we were thinking about increasing retention in the coastal forest up here. They were already doing some retention in Oregon and we had a workshop there. We went down with some forest engineers from MacMillan Bloedel. It took some selling to them that this increased retention was a good thing, but after just listening during this workshop – this was before the forest project – the drive home was: ‘oh, we could do that same thing. We've got bigger trees. It’ll be hard but we can do this’. They figured out how to make retention a reality in coastal forest when people used to say, here in B.C.: ‘there is no way you’re going to retain that much forest; with trees this tall, it's too tough". P. Higgins: “You have to understand the fundamental ways that things work and the tolerances of the system, and the only way you can do that is by having the responsibility of operating that system. You won’t know when you can open your gates or how you open the gates for your wetland, unless the guy that you know does that or the farmer picks up the phone and says: ‘hey! What are you doing?’ You have to understand all of that”. L. Santamaría: “…there was something coming from above. Supporting that. Now, you want to do something that works, but you are working against establishment. How do you go?” F. Bunnell: “Slowly, and persistently…If you want it badly enough, then you have to commit the time… somehow you have to get the people that actually change things, to be changing things, right at the beginning, and I think it’s easier to give them broad outcomes and tell them you’re not really sure how to do this but it would be so much better if this could happen”. L. Kremsater: “The programs would just die if the person involved doesn’t shift from being a science researcher and become a political champion or something”.

51


Bunnell was followed by a second presentation by Warren Warttig (International Forest Products Limited) about the main challenges that the interface between science and policy faces. He defined such interface as “all about utilizing scientific knowledge more effectively, thereby creating more value, more quickly for society from forest research”. He firstly reminded the audience, in order to make contrast with We are practitioners, we are foresters. So, are we the current reality, the recent history of doing the right thing? With that, to interpret whether BC’s forest management policies, which we’re doing the right thing, that’s where the for one hundred years (1880-1886) were effectiveness monitoring, adaptive management based on utilitarian approaches, focusing programs come in. They are a tidy way of saying: be primarily on socioeconomic factors. objective and non-biased in the result. And that’s your Sustainability issues were then based on social license. Social license is your trust. timber resources, having other (environmental) values limited consideration. Between 1986 and 1988 such focus was maintained, but there was a general recognition that timber resource management was impacting the fisheries resource and the drinking water. In 1988, it was implemented the Fish Forest Guidelines. The public started to recognize other, non-utilitarian values. In 1995, it was elaborated the Granting agencies have the tendency to fund research ideas BC Forest Practices Code, a that have a sexy title. It has a tendency to pull it away from a document that recognized the central theme and to this day, I’m not aware of a university that increasing emphasis on balancing has a strategic research program where they have different socioeconomic with faculties trying to build on knowledge in a cumulative manner environmental values. Also, in rather than a jigsaw puzzle manner. 1995, the Clayoquot Scientific Panel came up with its recommendations and the prescription of ecosystem-based management. The emphasis turned then into ecosystem functions like primary and secondary productivity. In 2001, the Forest Range and Practices Act shift the focus on results, and an increased emphasis on professional reliance. More recently, in 2004, the Central and North Coast Ecosystem Based Management Handbook (EBMH) has come up with an overarching plan mainly for the protection of environmental values. However, many monitoring plans still lack the input from academia. For example, in 2001, as part of an effective monitoring program for Landscape Unit Plans, three regional workshops were held involving representatives from the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests, Environmental NGO’s and Forest Industry, but there were not representatives from the academic world. Where was the academia then? Has academia expressed concern? Why are scientists so far removed away from policy makers and practitioners? Warttig asked.

52


In his final summing-up, Warttig stressed that the main point of his historical review was that “there has been a clear shift in BC from management for timber extraction with an emphasis on socioeconomic values, to management for primary and secondary ecosystem productivity without addressing socioeconomic values”. He noted then that the question is how to find the balance between the social, the economic and the environmental realms, in order to meet completely the community values. For that, he addressed, practitioners need effective policy, credible scientific input, and effective communication among scientists, policy makers, and practitioners. Also, practitioners need effectiveness monitoring and AM programs –“perception of objective, nonbiased results (‘social license’)”. For example, the Sustainable Forest Management Network is internationally-recognized for delivering a world class interdisciplinary program that undertakes relevant university-based research, and involves diverse sectors into a partnership of funding, planning, and implementing sustainable forest management research (government, industry, academia and granting councils). Actually the first step in adaptive management is the literature. Make sure you’re not recreating something. Warttig concluded that, in order to work effectively at the interface of forest science and forest policy, several guidelines must be taken into account, including: -

Focus research on questions that are relevant to policy issues.

-

Conduct research in a communicative and collaborative manner.

-

Understand the process of serving and engaging policy processes.

-

Create organizational capacity and culture that enables and encourages work at the science-policy interface.

Further conclusions by Warttig were that scientific information is rarely the primary driver of policy change, policy-makers respond more readily to research that affects their constituents’ needs (values that are unsatisfied or at risk of being lost). People’s values should be considered in planning, conducting, and implementing research, and a clear focus on needs enhances the effectiveness of forest research and its influence on policy-makers. As regards research, he stressed that research that is both interdisciplinary and integrative is needed (i.e. collaboration), and that researchers should consider the role of science

53


in policy implementation. Finally, he concluded that researchers must remain independent, neutral and unbiased. Extracts from discussion C. Menzies: “It was interesting that you mentioned: values change or forest conditions change… I’m curious that you don’t mention a third: the interests of the forest themselves… if you only see the driving forces to forest policy as being: changes in value or forest conditions, that basically means that the forest companies themselves are, in a sense, innocent and naïve participants, acting in conditions over which they have no control… I’m suggesting the third key answer to that is the economic interest of the forest corporations and it’s been that way from the beginning”.

Session 3: Closing the adaptive cycle –learning from practice

Session 3 concerned how the practitioners experience influences theory, which, in turn, influences practice. It comprised just one presentation followed up by discussion. This session looked at the hierarchical feed-back that may close the learning cycle. It specifically asked how our experience and practice influences our theory – which in turn influences practice, and will be keep rather free, aimed at facilitating the free exchange of new ideas. Laurie Kremsater (Department of Forest Sciences, UBC) started things off with a presentation on her work, together with Fred Bunnell and Bill Beese, in the Coast Forest Strategy indicators monitoring program and on how to link results to management (i.e. feedback to change actions). The CFS strategy organized monitoring around three indicators: -

Indicator 1: Ecologically distinct ecosystems are represented in the non-harvestable landbase of the tenure to maintain lesser known species and ecological functions. We said: we need a certain proportion of each distinct ecosystem represented in an unmanaged state. We had reasons for that. There’s a rational here. That looks after the species we don’t know too much about. It looks after ecological functions. It provides a baseline for our research. So we have reasons; we have objectives for the indicator.

-

Indicator 2: The amount, distribution, and heterogeneity of stand and forest structures important to sustain native species richness are maintained over time.

54


-

Indicator 3: The abundance, distribution and reproductive success of native species are not substantially reduced by forest practices. Then we had this third group of indicators to monitor all around species. And again, there was a rational to do this. Species really are what the public responds to. Genetics, which are factored by species, but really what allows things to adapt, to be resilient to changing environments. So species are important.

Before embarking on monitoring, the AM Working Group thought through how feedback from each indicator could link to management. The possible management actions ranged from relatively complex to relatively easy to implement. And as information comes in over time, we’ll know what structures are to be maintained. What we are doing well operationally and what we’re doing not so well operationally. Potential Feedback: For indicator 1, ecological representation, knowing what ecosystems are weakly represented in the unmanaged land base allowed several possible actions: 1. Relocate parts of the old growth zone or allocate parts of the habitat zone to underrepresented areas. 2. Add protected areas (such as Old Growth Management Areas) to those ecosystems. 3. Increase riparian buffers or other landscape level features (e.g., Deer Winter Ranges or Wildlife Habitat Areas). 4. Increase levels of stand level retention in those ecosystems. 5. Focus monitoring on those underrepresented ecosystems because these are the ecosystems where variable retention will be the major means of maintaining some species and therefore should be the focus for monitoring organisms and structures. Note that we didn’t include feedback that required keeping all ecosystems above some arbitrary target, rather actions were aimed at improving the weakest areas.

55


For indicator 2, landscape and habitat structures and patterns, feedback could involve several actions: 1. Comparisons of VR (Variable Retention) blocks to benchmarks can suggest structures that are retained well by VR and those that are not, efforts can be made to improve retention of structures. 2. Comparisons of structures retained under different types and levels of VR could suggest best mixes of VR to use to create variety of structures on landscape. 3. Information on what structures are found with different patch ‘anchor types’ could suggest different features to which patches should be anchored. 4. Information on edge effects can help choice of block layouts, retention sizes and shapes. 5. Operational progress over time can indicate if improvement is being made in retaining variety of structures. 6. Landscape patterns can be compared over different management scenarios and scenarios chosen that maintain more interior, create less road, and create less edge. 7. Long term trends in landscape patterns and stand-level structures can expose priorities for improvement. For indicator 3, species, feedback focused on identifying indicator species, but over the longer term information on species will link to management by: 1. Shifts in range may indicate gains made by modified forest practices. 2. Linking species to VR levels and types. Feedback then involved assessing which species were most sensitive to practices and monitoring their trends. 3. Linking species to particular structures, and then tracking abundance of structures to suggest provision of habitat for the species. 4. Patterns of organisms around edges can assist block layout. 5. Linking species to landscape patterns and suggesting adequacy of habitat via modelling. 6. Species associations can assist modelling to project over long-terms and large areas.

56


Actual Feedback: Feedback on representation has focused on monitoring in extensively managed areas. The under-represented ecosystems fell largely on private lands where there was reluctance to establish Old Growth Management areas of increase retention levels in those ecosystems. Some effort was directed at riparian restoration in those ecosystems, but not beyond typical FRPA guidelines. Monitoring occurred in these ecosystems, but they have not been the focus. Comparisons to natural benchmarks identified structures that needed more attention during VR. Those were improved and confirmed by operational monitoring over time –a direct monitoring feedback. Also, comparisons indicated group VR functioned better than dispersed VR for retaining many structures, but that dispersed How do you know what areas need work or retention kept some structures (e.g., large live what’s weak or what’s better? Well, you learn trees) better than group VR. AS a result, the mix that by comparisons. We use comparisons of of VR types shifted to more group retention, but different retention levels, different retention dispersed retention was also maintained. Work types; we decide those are the things we are on how choice of anchor points affects structures willing to play with. showed rocky outcrops tended to support poorer structures. Results of operational changes have not yet indicated if anchors have shifted from those types. Linking species studies to management is the least developed are so far and the most difficult to achieve. Patterns of bird abundance to retention level have been investigated and sensitive species identified; these species are tracked through continuing Breeding Bird Surveys. Some pilot efforts at modelling landscapes have examined interior, edge, roads and responses of lichens and birds for different scenarios. Those scenarios were not driven by choices facing the company but rather were academic investigations; without practical scenarios to compare and choose among, the landscape associations are unlikely to link to management. With the multiple changes in company ownership, maintaining communication between researchers, managers and forest operators has been a challenge. Efforts continue to close the feedback loop. Extracts from discussion L. Kremsater: “You can improve your structure; you can improve your unmanaged land-base or some species that you can look after if you do this or that. But when you get to starting to balance it, you start to look at the range of species that we monitor and compare that to what kind of retention do you do here and here and here and here over a whole landscape, it gets so complicated”. B. Beese: “We’re getting five-year results now for just about everything and we’re up to eight

57


years on landscape level breeding-bird surveys. So that’s the one linkage we have between stand level monitoring and landscape is the birds”. W. Warttig: “So, that’s where I think the models come in, at that level”. L. Kremsater: “It does. I guess I have a real hesitation about some models too. I think that having the science panel, with scientists that are knowledgeable of this from the beginning, and can take some of the stand level studies and the landscape bits that we do have help merge those into whether you think the overall direction is good or not. Or whether there should be additional studies or additional experiments set up. That’s been a really useful, if expensive, tool to use to help guide us”.

Session 4: Steps towards transition to adaptive institutional regimes

The final session of the workshop was given by Pablo F. Méndez. It was devoted to show the participants some preliminary results of the project. He presented a theoretical framework that helped him to describe the Canadian institutional framework for natural resources management and nature conservation as an adaptive (i.e. flexible, able-to-learn) institutional regime. He defined institutional regime as the whole complex of institutions (e.g., formal and informal rules), organizations (e.g., management agencies, research institutes), scientific paradigms (e.g., command-and-control approaches) and technologies (e.g., information technologies) that allows, within any resource system, for: 1. anticipating surprise and sudden collapse through adaptive strategies; 2. making policies and taking decisions collectively, democratically, and based on updated information and knowledge; 3. learning from every operation made on the ground at the management level; and 4. fully, wisely consider the diversity of on-the-ground stakeholders interests, values, beliefs and perceptions of the world. His theoretical framework comprised three analytical tiers provided by transition theory (Rotmans et al. 2007), which has been recently introduced as a new integrative approach in the field of Integrated Water Resources Management in the EU (see e.g., van der Brugge and Rotmans 2006). The transition theory offers an analytical framework that can be easily used to explain and structure complex social-ecological problems, and helps to design a (theoretical) process of transition.

58


In particular, Méndez considered three levels, namely: (i) micro-social phenomena (the niche level, e.g., management operational procedures, innovative groups, technological and conceptual innovation niches), (ii) meso-level institutions (the meso/regime level, e.g., water boards, scientific committees and panels, participation councils), and (iii) macro-levels (the macro/landscape level, e.g., political ‘landscapes’ like the EU, global change scenarios, Environment Canada institutions). According to Rotmans et al (2007), the structure of the regime level can be changed or, at least, destabilized by the emergence of innovation at the niche level (e.g., AM). Also, signals of new paradigms (e.g., sustainability paradigms, mainstream economics new trends, past cultures and traditional knowledge re-emergence) arising at the landscape level might influence the institutional regime at the meso-level, and change it radically canalizing, for example, innovative concepts or strategies from innovation niches. In summary, a preliminary analysis of the qualitative data obtained through the literature review and the formal interviewing process, allowed Méndez to argue in favour of a hypothetical space, in which the landscape and niche levels status in Canada would have the structure showed in box 5. He showed only a constructive structure, enabled to rise the opportunities that the Canadian research and management communities have taken advantage of in trying to implement and develop AM in NRM and NC. Also, such situation was speculatively argued to be slowly influencing a meso-level institutional structure, which would be transforming itself in what he called an Adaptive Institutional Regime (AIR).

59


Box 5. Current features of the proposed transitional structure in Canada – Towards an Adaptive Institutional Regime (AIR) for Natural Resources Management and Nature Conservation Observed features at the macro (landscape) level: -

Academic ingenuity and individual willing for mutual, collective discovery.

-

Universal acknowledgement that there are alternatives among well-positioned agents of change (e.g., senior policy makers, top managers and executives, senior scientists, consultants).

-

Traditional knowledge historical re-emergence (e.g., inclusion of the Nuu-chah-nulth principles ‘hishukish ts’awalk’ = ‘all is one’, ‘isaak’ = ‘respect’, in the elaboration of land and water use planning).

-

New economic paradigms (e.g., conservation economy).

-

Public interest in alternatives.

-

The consideration of innovative methodologies for decision making processes (e.g., structured decision making, multi-stakeholder negotiation, community-centered participatory processes).

-

New spaces for novel institutional and organizational development.

-

External (international-foreign, private) investment in alternative economic organizations (e.g., Iisaak, shareholding, capital injections, international grants, risk capital).

-

Exogenous demonstrations and ‘ad-hoc’ importation of operative AM models (e.g., Glen Canyon, USA; Western Australian agricultural region, Australia).

-

Peer-reviewed scientific publications globally recognized (e.g., Holling 1978, Walters 1997, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Bunnell 2008).

Observed features at the micro (niche) level: -

Pilot AM schemes and experiences.

-

Innovation in a broad sense (technological, conceptual, scientific paradigms).

-

Stakeholders and general public self-interest.

-

Local practices and champions.

-

Good ideas at the ‘bottom’ (that find support from the ‘top’).

-

Traditional knowledge promotion.

-

Localized changes in the education systems of universities and technical schools.

-

Innovative networks, aware academic communities and collective, inter-organization strategic design.

-

Marginal changes in individuals (e.g., enthusiasm, learning).

-

Room for constructive vs. destructive attitudes confrontation.

-

Efforts for integrating different values in processes of policy formation (sociocultural, economic).

-

Day to day effort and individual ‘stubbornness’ (“and many other virtues”).

Speculated meso (institutional-regime) level in dynamic transformation, and in which increasingly: -

Processes of collective decision making are enabled (e.g., democratic principles activation, bounded conflict resolutions).

-

Interdisciplinary, diverse and plural decision-making arenas are on the ground.

60


-

Reasonable rationales (e.g., Holling’s “rule of hand”, Holling and Allen 2002) are used for socialecological models development.

-

Socioeconomic components are innovatively included.

-

Parsimonious (i.e. optimizing, functional) stakeholder involvement processes are occurring (e.g., by excluding potential, foreign investors or resource operators that could jeopardize local economies and endogenous development).

-

Useless (scientific) competition avoidance (e.g., by the integration, or early competition of different resource system functioning models).

-

Novel policy making instances and institutional arrangements working on the decision making arenas (e.g., policies understood as experiments from which to learn).

-

Policy evaluations and feedback from monitoring processes are normal.

-

Legal instances allow for proceeding with flexibility and legitimacy at the operational levels (e.g., protocols, standards and staff).

-

Labour organization and staff understand alternatives like AM.

-

Mechanisms for partnership and long-term commitment are developed.

-

Institutional monitoring is ongoing (e.g., such as that done by society –social licenses).

-

Institutional memory devices and mechanisms are used (e.g., senior advisory groups).

-

Dilution of destructive attitudes through institutional diversity is working.

-

Equity in budget allocations and returns is a principle.

-

Both the a priori acknowledgement and distribution of responsibilities, and their a posteriori recognition are guiding principles.

-

Policy shifts among political terms and changes in government are absorbed.

61

| RESULTS – RESEARCH PROGRAM AT THE DOÑANA NATURE RESERVE |

5.2.

Research program at the Doñana Nature Reserve

5.2.1. Institutional regime at the DNR The DNR faces a complex history of tightly coupled relationships between humans and water resources, in which the top-down operation of resource management and nature conservation policies and institutions has contributed to the increasing isolation of its marsh/wetland ecosystems. Nowadays, less than one third of the original wetland/marshland persists, comprising 27,000 ha embedded in the reserve, fed by intensively modified tributaries and streams (e.g., Guadiamar River), affected by decades of progressive degradation punctuated by ecological crises (e.g., waterfowl mortalities during the 1980’s, mine pollution during the 1990’s; Grimalt et al. 2000, García and Marín 2007) and where several attempts to restore its ‘natural’ hydraulicecological regime (e.g., Casas and Urdiales 1995, García and Marín 2007) have been undertaken. During the last century, socio-economic development in Doñana has been characterized by the intensive exploitation of its water resources and the continuity of institutional arrangements (policies, regulations, scientific paradigms) aimed at the transformation of its aquatic ecosystems into productive (agricultural, afforested) lands. Management approaches to technical problems (e.g., hydraulic control, regulation of drainage and irrigation) were largely based on engineering solutions (e.g., impoldering, channelling) imported from abroad (Fernández and Pradas 2000b, García and Marín 2007). The most intensive transformations took place during the 1960’s and the 1970’s, during which plans and projects promoted and launched by the central government (e.g., Guadalquivir-FAO Project, Almonte-Marismas Plan) were controlled and carried out by the Civil, Agricultural and Forestry Engineering Corps (Fernández and Pradas 2000a). The Doñana ecosystems were systematically transformed into a matrix of channels, sluice gates, pumping stations and bridges at almost sea level, aimed at ‘optimising’ drainage by gravity (Llamas 1988, Casas and Urdiales 1995). Subsequent regulations entrusted the Spanish agricultural agencies with the stewardship of nature conservation (e.g., National Parks Act of 1916, Forestry Act of 1957, Nature Reserves Acts of 1975 and 1989). However, until the 1950’s there was neither a real awareness about the social and ecological values of wetlands, nor were they considered as suitable for protection. In 1969, the aquatic ecosystems of Doñana were legally protected within the Doñana National Park, owing to the effort of a small group of scientists and citizens who were aware of the risk of an imminent collapse of the ecosystem (Valverde 2004). The declaration of the National Park was preceded by the acquisition of large areas of marshland included in the Doñana Biological Reserve (DBR) by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), and paralleled the creation of the Doñana Biological (research) Station (DBS, 1971) (Fernández and Pradas, 2000b, Valverde 2004).

62


The national Ministry of Agriculture was in charge of the management of the Park for the first two decades. The management was soon in hands of the Institute for Nature Conservation (ICONA), created in 1971 by the merger of several forestry institutions within the Ministry. Subsequent regulations (Nature Reserves Acts of 1975 and 1989) increased the authority of the ICONA and reinforced the National Parks’ legal systems. However, the historical dichotomy between the agricultural offices and the conservation/research institutions was consolidated in 1978, when the directorate of the National Park and the Biological Reserve was split between the ICONA (Ministry of Agriculture) and the DBS (Spanish Research Council, Ministry of Education), and both agencies received separated mandates: ICONA should manage the Park, while the DBS should guarantee its conservation. The conservation of the Doñana marshes therefore depended on the institutional relationship between the DBS and the ICONA, which was itself facing an internal war among pro-conservation engineers and old-school engineers (Valverde 2004). In 1996, the national Ministry of Environment took over the management of the Spanish National Parks’ Network. The Doñana National Park was still under the supervision of the DBS, which was mandated to maintain, through its research activities, the stewardship over the Park’s conservation. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the Andalusian Regional Government engaged in a political and judicial contest to claim the jurisdiction over its planning and management from the Spanish (central) Government. After several measures and counter-measures by the Andalusian and central Governments (National Parks’ Director Plan in 1995, National Parks’ Act in 1997, Doñana Nature Reserve Act in 1999), in 2004 the Constitutional Court conceded the right for the management of National Parks to the regional governments. The legacy of the contest for responsibilities over the management of the Park, currently under the stewardship of the Andalusian Regional Ministry of Environment (which changed its name to ‘Doñana Nature Reserve’), has added a new element of friction to the relationships between the various (national and regional) managing agencies. The history of the Park has been also characterized by contradictory views over the interaction between agricultural developments and nature conservation – which, with the progressive incorporation of sustainability considerations to the political agenda, resulted in open discrepancies between the collective choice and the operational levels. For example, the decree passed in 1984 by the central government to substantially reduce the surface initially established for drainage and transformation actually resulted in increased agricultural development on the ground, owing to the application of the existing technological advances (see Llamas 1988). In contrast, the eco-hydraulic restoration of the marshes approved in the same decree failed on the ground due to poor definition of objectives, lack of knowledge, legal impediments and technological shortcomings (Casas and Urdiales 1995).

63


In 1998, the Aznalcóllar mining accident contaminated severely and extensively one of the river courses that feed the marshes in the immediate neighbourhood of the Park (the Guadiamar River; e.g., Meharg et al. 1999). The accident provided the impetus for the application of two restoration projects, which were implemented separately by the regional (Guadiamar’s Green Corridor Project, 1998-2002) and national (Doñana 2005 Project, 1998-2006) Ministries of Environment. Though both restoration projects were largely based on the established commandand-control paradigm and, in many cases, substantially designed by the engineers that chaired the preceding (drainage and restoration) works, enough flexibility for developing new modes of action (e.g., adaptive management, participatory action research) had been introduced to the system (Montes 2002, Arenas et al. 2003, Escalera 2003, Santamaría et al. 2007).

5.2.2. Current environmental policy and management at the EU Despite the diversity of national policies and approaches, all EU countries share a common body of environmental policies and regulations – the environmental acquis (see box 3). It is a heterogeneous group of legislative and policy texts that broadly addresses issues of concern for human health, the management of natural resources, the quality of the environment, and the preservation of biodiversity. The representation of these issues varies over the various pieces of legislation and policy documents, although the emphasis seems to have shifted from preserving human health and natural resources to some vague protection of the environment “as a whole” and its biodiversity. In the EU environmental acquis, the term ‘environment’ is used with a surprising degree of laxity, and despite its pervasive presence through legislative and policy documents, and the specific mandate to integrate it in all sectoral legislation, it has never been defined (Kramer 1998). For example, the Amsterdam Treaty (in its article 6) and the Communication ‘Partnership for Integration’ establish ‘the obligation to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of other EU policies’, but provide no indication on what is specifically meant by environment or environmental protection. This is in stark contrast with several directives (e.g., habitats directive, waste directive) where a number of terms that could also be considered of widespread use (such as ‘conservation’, ‘habitat’ or ‘waste’) are defined from the start. Indeed, the broadening of EU’s environmental concerns has resulted in a continuous change in the specific meaning given to the term ‘environment’ in these documents (see Santamaría et al. 2002 for an extensive set of examples). The pervasive presence of the term ‘environment’ across EU legislation and policy documents is significantly weakened by the nebulous nature of the term, which is taken to represent the abiotic container of pollutants, the physical structure of the landscape impacted by a mine, the biota of a lake from which water is being abstracted for

64


irrigation, the soil ecosystems affected by atmospheric emissions from an industry, the forest created and exploited by extensive farming, or any combination of these. Why should this be a problem? Firstly because, as EU waste legislation has shown, any problems in the definition of key terms result in a deficient implementation of the legislation and a feeling of uncertainty for all actors affected by it (Tromans, 2001). Secondly and most importantly, because setting priorities and resolving conflicts in the development and implementation of sectoral policies concerned with their effect on the environment (as required by the Amsterdam Treaty) will be extremely difficult if common definitions, goals and priorities are not provided. Similar to the treatment of the term ‘environment’ (and probably related to it), the realization that ecosystems and ecosystem functioning should be at the core of the sustainable management of natural resources has reached EU policy in a highly heterogeneous manner. The policy document with the most modern management approach is the recently approved Water Framework Directive (WFD). Such directive incorporates a number of aspects necessary for applying ecosystem management to the management of natural resources, such as the definition of sustainable goals and objectives, reconciling the spatial scales of management jurisdictions and ecosystem processes and reconciling the temporal scales of management and ecosystem function. However, ecosystems are predominantly thought of as fixed in time and space (rather as specific sites than as dynamic functional units), uniquely characterized by their biological structure (e.g., for assessing their ecological status) and largely de-contextualized from their history and surroundings (through e.g., the use of emission limits for individual substances at each source, rather than total emission loads for the sum of discharges into a given ecological unit). Similarly, legislation on nature protection views ecosystems as either geographic sites with defined by the presence of a certain set of components (habitats directive) or as ´containers´ for certain species of interest (birds directive). Box 3. Some examples of the diverse components of EU’s environmental acquis. -

Water quality: Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and complementary directives.

-

Nature protection: mainly the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC.

-

Communications: the European Community Biodiversity Strategy (CEC 1998a), the Communication ‘Partnership for Integration – a Strategy for integrating Environment into European Union Policies’ (CEC 1998b), the Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231, complemented by a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive, COM(2006) 232, still on the consultation process) and the Communication “Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 – And beyond” (COM(2006) 216 final).

65


5.2.3. Actor analysis Following the criteria exposed above, we identified a total of 40 key actors, of which 34 were available for interviewing in the first phase and/or participating in the subsequent workshops. Key actors predominantly belong to agencies with direct management duties over Doñana, such as its Administration Office (Regional Ministry of Environment), the Doñana Biological Station (Ministry of Education and Science) and the Guadalquivir River Authority (Ministry of Environment). Key actors with direct influences on the decision-making at other levels included officers from the Andalusian Ministry of Environment, academics from (national and Andalusian) universities and research agencies, and environmental groups (e.g., WWF). This approach allowed us to start creating a weak network among the identified actors. Among the 34 contacts achieved, 25 were interviewed (one hour on average) by the same researcher. All actors showed a growing interest and reliance on the research project, and most accepted the invitation to future participatory activities whenever their agenda allowed it. However, we have not gathered data yet to evaluate to what extent we achieved to network, build trust and identify leadership.

5.2.4. Uncertainty workshop The uncertainty workshop was run with a group of seven participants, including researchers and representatives of the stakeholders responsible for the implementation of water policy at regional level and the management of Doñana. It made explicit the need to take uncertainties into account and instigated a reflection process about such need. The workshop showed that there is a huge variety of uncertainties that stakeholders in water management have to deal with. Their conceptualisation by the different stakeholders was explicitly captured and reflected in a final list of 13 uncertainty situations. Two situations led the ranking of importance: the lack of a shared objective for the region and the influence of different interests on decision-making. The card sorting exercise identified several criteria considered as important by the individual participants to deal with uncertainties - such as the perceived urgency of dealing with a given uncertainty, or the difficulty involved in dealing with it. The final list of criteria will form the basis for a second workshop, aimed at identifying strategic moments of intervention to deal with uncertainties and discussing options to introduce more adaptive approaches for water management.

66


5.2.5. Research-management workshop Fifteen of the identified stakeholders participated in the workshop. The discussions that followed the introductory talks allowed several problems related to conservation, research and water management in Doñana to emerge. The participants identified the main opportunities for institutional development (mainly in the context of Doñana hydro-ecological restoration projects) and agreed on seven key recommendations for improvement of the research-management interface (presented in Box 4; see also Appendix 1 for a Spanish version of the policy document produced at the workshop). Box 4. Key recommendations of the participants in the workshop for the improvement of the research-management interface in the Doñana Nature Reserve.

1.

The transparent definition of shared management goals and functioning models of the Doñana Nature Reserve’s marsh/wetland ecosystems.

2.

The structuring of existing monitoring programs, based on established goals and functioning models, and seeking to optimize coordination among agencies.

3.

The incorporation of social research and public participation into policy making and management plans.

4.

The definition, within the new Management Plan of the Guadalquivir River Basin, of a specific sub-basin for Doñana wetlands and the water courses directly inflowing into them. Such definition would help resolving the contradiction inherent to the declaration of most river branches inflowing or surrounding Doñana (an important national and international wetland) as highly modified water courses.

5.

The continuation and enhancement of the collaborative dynamics that emerged after the Aznalcóllar mining accident. Such dynamics are broadly perceived as a social good, which should be promoted both politically and economically.

6.

The improvement of mechanisms for information exchange and inter-agency goal definition among the Doñana Nature Reserve, the Doñana Biological Station and the Guadalquivir River Authority. Examples include the development of protocols, standards, joint committees, virtual workspaces and corporate databases for mutual support and joint decision making.

7.

The stepwise introduction of learning, novelty and innovation into management, based on the transfer of knowledge generated in well defined, pilot projects and programs.

67

| DISCUSSION |

6.

Discussion

Adaptive management was born during the 1970’s halfway between British Columbia (Canada) and Austria (Europe) – but, in what seems a paradox, it was not adopted effectively in any European country until the present decade, when its was applied to water management (see e.g., Pahl-Wostl et al. 2005, NeWater Project) and incorporated to several long-term (but largely academic) initiatives (e.g., the Stockholm Resilience Centre). This is in stark contrast with Canada and USA, where adaptive management has cycled, during the last four decades, through alternate phases of theoretical, deductive evaluation (testing of theories) and inductive development and feedback (public workshops and debate), to which many scholars and practitioners have contributed. This self-reinforcing process has provided natural resources management (NRM) and nature conservation (NC) ‘adaptive management’ theorists and practitioners with a complete and diverse body of knowledge on the subject. Our qualitative analysis shows the institutional opportunities and constraints faced by a considerable number of projects that aimed at implementing adaptive management in Canada. At the constitutional level, the institutional regime for NRM and NC was characterized by a continuous trial of strength between the federal and the provincial governments, with a legacy that has endured to date. Indeed, during the last decades, the provincial and municipal governments have progressively increased their stewardship powers and duties over management and conservation – leading also to processes of institutional (i.e. organizational, legal and scientific-technical) convergence and coherence in some socio-economic sectors (e.g., forest sector). In what relates to our case study, the Clayoquot Sound, we argue that such process of decentralization and institutional convergence represented a necessary step that empowered the British Columbia Government to introduce (from the top) key institutional innovations (e.g., the creation of the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices, SPSFP). At the collective-choice and operational level, our study of the work of the SPSFP Panel in the Clayoquot Sound revealed that the successful adoption and institutionalisation of adaptive management required the convergence of several critical (organizational, socio-economic, conceptual and legal) factors – and that the number of factors involved was considerably large because the socio-ecosystem faced a great deal of complexity, uncertainty and historical conflicts. The successful implementation of adaptive management initiatives at the Clayoquot Sound and its surroundings (e.g., Vancouver Island, BC Coast) was made possible by the availability of an adaptive management body of knowledge (AMBoK hereafter), which had been previously developed and evaluated at a number of small, pilot projects and sites in the USA and Canada. An additional key factor was the (bottom-up) “successful, strategic, cooperation between academics and actors from the (forest) industry, willing to test alternatives to contemporary resource management and economic development strategies” (Fred Bunnell, workshop transcription).

68

| DISCUSSION |

Such factors were established formally and collectively by a diverse group of key regional actors (researchers, managers, foresters, socio-economic agents and local communities), in a platform based on adaptive management tenets. The “avant-garde nature” of the concept required a sustained effort for the collective understanding and agreement of its usefulness (i.e. its “whys and hows”), and an institutional transition towards a more flexible, open-knowledge-based, and learning institutional regime in which: -

Policy failure became acceptable.

-

Long-term commitment for socio-ecological experimenting and monitoring became the norm.

-

The corporative establishment of management and conservation goals became a day-today effort.

It is also worth stressing that such transition was also the result of a socio-economic and ecological crisis (the so-called ‘logging crisis’), a historical event weighed down with uncertainty that was sufficient (but not necessary, nor unique) to trigger institutional change and innovation in the region. The Vancouver Workshop allowed us for eliciting additional opportunities and constraints for the testing and implementation of adaptive management in Canada, directly from on-the-ground experts and analysts. That analysis, combined with the AMBoK, provided us with a useful framework for the strategic development of our research program in Doñana – which was centred on public participation and the promotion of innovation (adaptive management). In particular, the recommendations collectively produced in the research-management workshop (which departed from a summary of the main lessons that we learned in Canada) helped us in our intent to intervene as agents of change, seeking to overcome the uncertainty and historical conflicts that the Doñana rigid institutional regime faces. We recognized the eco-hydraulic restoration project “Doñana 2005” as an opportunity window, deductively identified critical problems facing the institutional system (such as the lack of shared, collectively chosen management goals), and used a set of research-management workshops to collectively formalize a broad strategy of change for the region’s water management and wetland conservation policies. At the institutional level, the identification of a set of rigidities within the socio-political realm led us to suggest that improvements must be introduced in the management institutions as an external force. Retrospectively, the safe-to-fail experimental approach carried out in the Caracoles Estate (Doñana 2005 Project) constituted a crucial, novel approach that made use of a short-lived opportunity window, and attempted to both generate a sound ecological understanding

69

| DISCUSSION |

of wetland functioning and introduce new, adaptive-management-based modes of water management and wetland conservation. However, the approach faced considerable resistance at the collective-choice and operational levels and, coinciding with the re-opening of a new constitutional phase (the transfer of competence for the DNR from the national to the regional authorities), it was temporarily halted and substantially modified. Indeed, the realization that even “humble” interventions aimed at proving the usefulness of new approaches could face both resistance at higher decision-making levels and considerable uncertainties in the socio-politic realm, reinforced our perception of the importance of the type of research presented in this publication. As our study shows, historical events may reflect a broad array of causal, uncertain relationships in such (rigid) institutional configurations. Such realization stresses the importance of understanding the history of the current institutional conflicts, for the double purpose of (i) understanding, analysing and involving actors, and (ii) preparing successful participatory activities that help overcoming locked or hidden conflicts and mistrust. In our view, the persistence of command-and-control strategies for ecosystem restoration and nature conservation has contributed greatly to the stabilization of rigidities within the Doñana institutional regime, hence increasing the chance of new social crises and institutional conflicts – which further enhance the network of distrust and lack of shared expectations. The build-up of conflicts locked into a rigid institutional regime currently prevents the effective implementation of alternative (water and wetland) management strategies, further preventing local stewards and societies from the opportunity to innovate. In such rigid institutional systems, small-scale initiatives that increase institutional flexibility and facilitate the build-up of trust must precede any attempt to implement truly innovative programs. Examples of (potential) initiatives that fulfil such purpose are, for example, the publicparticipation programs required by EU’s Water Framework Directive. These and other requirements of the WFD reflect a growing realization of the importance of combining short-term management actions with long term (sustainable) goals, using surrogates of ecosystem quality to monitor the progress, and encouraging novel processes of public participation like social learning. Indeed, the WFD does not encourage adaptive management, but it does not preclude it – and one could even argue that it may implicitly embraces it, as a strategy that intrinsically promotes and entails social learning. However, the WFD also shows the persistence of outdated management procedures and the fear of management institutions to let their knowledge (and in particular their modus operandi) evolve – making efforts to make the system adaptive and accountable rather weak. For this reason, the implementation of adaptive strategies that allow the sustainable management of natural resources and the ‘environment’, managing complex socioecosystems using imperfect knowledge, is a cornerstone in the modernization of EU

70

| DISCUSSION |

environmental policy. However, it is likely to encounter the resistance of scientists, managers and policy makers, stemming from their respective institutional cultures, which make managers and policy makers mistrusts researchers (since they fear uncertainty and resent exposure to public debate) and scientist mistrust managers and policy makers (since they are not used to have their findings questioned on what they perceive as opportunistic considerations, such as allocation of funds, political opportunity or institutional viability). Such resistance stems, in our view, from a fundamental difference in the way in which the European and Canadian-American societies and administrations have approached the controversy surrounding the interaction between economic development, human welfare and environmental quality. In the US and Canada, a vivid public debate involved all major actors (including scientific organizations such as the Ecological Society of America) and forced them to work hard into achieving a consensus and communicating it effectively to the public. On the one hand, such debate guaranteed a continuous re-evaluation of officially-held positions by all parties, well in agreement with the spirit of adaptive management. On the other hand, the implementation of environmentally responsible schemes has been held by corporate inertia (which can exert very active lobbying pressures against environmental regulations) and by the difficulties in mainstreaming existing officials into new management ideas. At the EU, the centralist tradition of most member states and the European Commission (EC) itself has prevented a full-winged public debate. Environmental regulations and complex management systems are being effectively implemented; however, they are extremely rigid and give little room to adaptive schemes. A profound fear of public scrutiny and criticism (at both national and EU level) is blocking any significant evaluation of the role played by the current “mainstream thinking” in determining the achievements and failures of EU environmental policy. In addition, increased control over research funding has been used to mainstream research upon pre-determined directions, at the price of preventing innovation and curtailing the generation of debate and criticism. Since recent EU policy documents abound in references to public participation, democratisation, adaptation, innovation and inter-disciplinarity across, we must conclude that the roots of the problem lay in the institutional framework and management culture rather than in the ultimate intentions of EU policy makers. The atomisation of national academies, which seem unable to organize themselves at a European level and generate a satisfactory consensus on any polemic environmental issue, has worsened the process significantly. All of this is particularly unfortunate, since the implementation of environmentally-responsible, adaptive management schemes will require major institutional changes at both European and national levels and the European Commission is probably the only institution with the capacity to mainstream scientists and local managers towards the required levels of scientific and professional innovation.

71

| DISCUSSION |

We argue that our action-research approach, based on adaptive management tenets, constitutes a robust (but not unique) strategy for triggering actor involvement and facilitating the participatory, pragmatic improvement of water resources management and aquatic ecosystems conservation policies in rigid institutional regimes facing high institutional uncertainty and historical conflicts. But we would also argue that, due to the intrinsic characteristics (i.e. high institutional rigidity and inertia) of many (European) management systems, the kind of strategy shown in this study must be preceded by a “flexibilization” phase, aimed at increasing the chances of supporting public participation and increasing the chances of future innovation.

72

| CONCLUSIONS |

7. Conclusions The Doñana Nature Reserve (complex) socio-ecosystem is characterised by the persistence of a rigid institutional regime for water management and wetland conservation. In such context, the use of a research program based on our analysis of the Canadian institutional experience with adaptive management and the AMBoK developed during the last four decades by many scholars and practitioners was instrumental in loosening rigid organisational structures in Doñana. Furthermore, it served the long term purpose of proactively engaging the actors directly concerned with decision-making in a joint research-and-learning process, aimed at triggering change towards more adaptive institutional regimes. We suggest that any attempt to introduce participatory strategies in rigid institutional regimes must be preceded by preparatory work by agents of change, in order to increase institutional flexibility and build trust. Such preparatory work may also be a necessary step to fully implement some of the most innovative aims of the current (EU) water policy, such as the participation requirement and goodecological-status aims of the Water Framework Directive. However, as the Canadian experience with adaptive management shows, the successful adoption and institutionalisation of adaptive management requires the convergence of several, critical (organizational, socioeconomic, conceptual and legal) factors, particularly when the socio-ecosystems involved face complex dynamics, uncertainty and historical (socio-political) conflicts. In Canada (and elsewhere, such as the USA and Australia), such convergence has been transitional, and it required the build-up of knowledge and experience by at least two generations of adaptive-management theorists and practitioners. In order to address the increasingly urgent, uncertain, and complex environmental problems facing the EU, the European Commission should mainstream scientists and local managers towards the required levels of institutional, scientific and professional innovation required for the implementation of adaptive strategies – using the experience of other regions around the world to speed up such process.

73

| DELIVERABLES OF THE TRANSAM PROJECT |

8. Deliverables of the TRANSAM project Scientific publications: Méndez, P.F., Isendahl, N., Amezaga, J.M., Santamaría, L. 2010. Can Adaptive Management facilitate Transitional Processes in Rigid Institutional Regimes for Water Management and Wetland Conservation? An example from the Guadalquivir Estuary (title subject to minor changes). Ecology & Society (2nd revision) Technical publications: Méndez, P. F., L. Santamaría, J. Amezaga, G. Hearns. 2010. Adaptive Strategies for Natural Resources and Ecosystems Management in Canada. Opportunities and Constraints for Implementation in Europe. Prepared for the International Council for Canadian Studies, by the Laboratory of Spatial Ecology. IMEDEA. Institutional Analysis and Policy Support, Technical Publications Series. ILSE-IAPS-TP-001. 121 pp Presentations at international congresses and conferences: Méndez, P. F. 2008. Management and research integration in the Doñana marshes. Keynote speaker at the 14th Congress of the Iberian Association of Limnology. Aquatic Ecosystems and Nature Reserves Workshop. Huelva (Spain). 8-12 September, 2008 Méndez, P. F., Amézaga, J., Santamaría, L. 2008. Developing adaptive institutional regimes for wetland management and biodiversity conservation. EURECO-GFOE 2008 Biodiversity in an Ecosystem Context. Leipzig (Germany). 15-19 September, 2008. [online] URL: http://www.slideshare.net/pfmendez/developing-adaptive-institutional-regimes-for-wetlandmanagement-and-biodivesity-conservation Presentations at local meetings and seminars: Méndez, P. F. 2008. How to use techniques based upon adaptive management to improve the management of natural resources and nature reserves. IMEDEA Seminar Series. Mallorca (Spain). March 13, 2008 Méndez, P. F. 2008. How to use group model building techniques to improve organizational learning. Corpore Sano Institute, Ltd. Almería (Spain). March 18, 2008

74

| REFERENCES |

9.

References

Bibliography: 2000. Designing a landscape unit plan monitoring framework: issues and considerations. Strategic Policy & Planning Section, Forest Practices Branch, BC, Ministry of Forests, Government of Canada. Amézaga, J. M., and L. Santamaría. 2000. Wetland connectedness and policy fragmentation – Steps towards a sustainable European wetlands policy. Physics & Chemistry of the Earth (B) 25:635-640. Arenas, J. M., F. R. Martínez, A. Mora, C. Montes, and F. Borja, editores. 2003. Ciencia y restauración del Río Guadiamar. Consejería de Medio Ambiente. Junta de Andalucía. Aparicio, A., J. Escartín, L. Santamaría, and P. Valverde. 1998. Toxic spill caught Spain off guard. Nature 395:110. Ayling, R., and K. Kelly. 1997. Dealing with conflict: natural resources and dispute resolution. Commonwealth Forestry Review 76:182-185. Bouris, K. 1998. Case studies of adaptive management. Appendix X in C. Murray, D. Marmorek, and W.A. Kurz. 2000. De-mystifying Adaptive Management. Training course prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, for the BC Forest Service, Victoria, British Columbia. Brock, W. A. 2004. Tipping points, abrupt opinion changes, and punctuated policy change. Department of Economics. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Brown, M. P. 1992. Organizational design as policy instrument: Environment Canada in the Canadian bureaucracy. Pages 24-42 in R. Boardman, editor. Canadian environmental policy: ecosystems, politics, and process. Oxford University Press, Toronto, Canada. Buckles, D., editor. 1998. Cultivating Peace: Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource Mangement. Proceedings of Conference, Held in Washington DC, May, 1998. World Bank Publications.

75

| REFERENCES |

Bunnell, Fred L., R. Atleo, K. Lertzman, C. Pielou, L. Kremsater, N. Turner, E. Lawrence, R. Haiyupis, S. Stanley, G. Hartman, K. Moore, M. Church, P. Schiess, C. Berris, J. Franklin, J. Ryder, T. Lewis, A. Harestad, J. Allman, and M. Hadley. 1994. Report of the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. [online] at: http://www.cortex.org/dow-cla.html Bunnell, F. 2005. Adaptive management for biodiversity in managed forests - it can be done. Pages 3-11 in C. E. Peterson, and D. A. Maguire, editors. Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Proceedings of a conference. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR. Bunnell, F. L. 2008. Indicators for sustaining biological diversity in Canada's most controversial forest type – Coastal temperate rainforest. Ecological Indicators 8(2):149-157. Buchanan, R. 1992. Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues VIII(2):5-21 Casas, J., and C. Urdiales. 1995. Introducción a la gestión hidráulica de las marismas del Parque Nacional de Doñana (S.O. de España). Páginas 165-189 en C. Montes, G. Oliver, F. Molina, and J. Cobos, editores. Bases ecológicas para la restauración de humedales en la cuenca mediterránea. Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía. Cash, D. 2000. Distributed Assessment Systems: An emerging paradigm of research, assessment and research for environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 10 241-242. Cash, D. 2000b. Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assement and management processes. Global Environmental Change 10:109-120. Dobell, R. 2001. Social learning, social capital, and adaptive management in the Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Proceedings of Conference, 4th Annual Policy Research Conference, Canada, December 7, 2001. Dobell, R. 2002. Devolution and discretion: building community-based resource management into contemporary governance. In J. Langford, and M. Edwards, editors. New players, partners, and boundaries: a public sector without boundaries? Canberra: National Institute for Governance. [online] URL: http://www.clayoquotalliance.uvic.ca/PDFs/canber_rev_31.pdf ESSA Environmental and Social Systems Analysts Ltd. 1982. Review and evaluation of adaptive environmental assessment and management. Prepared for Environment Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, 116 pp.

76

| REFERENCES |

Escalera, J. 2003. Investigación participativa para el desarrollo sostenible en el Corredor Verde del río de Guadiamar. Páginas 528-537 en J. M. Arenas, F. R. Martínez, A. Mora, C. Montes, and F. Borja, editores. Ciencia y restauración del río Guadiamar. Consejería de Medio Ambiente. Junta de Andalucía. Failing, L., G. Horn, and P. Higgins. 2004. Using expert judgment and stakeholder values to evaluate adaptive management options. Ecology and Society 9(1):13. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art13/ Fernández, J., and R. Pradas. 2000a. Historia de los Parques Nacionales Españoles. La Administración Conservacionista (1896-2000). Tomo I. Madrid, Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Fernández, J., and R. Pradas. 2000b. Historia de los Parques Nacionales Españoles. Doñana, Tablas de Daimiel, Cabrera y Cabañeros. Tomo IV. Madrid, Organismo Autónomo de Parques Nacionales. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, B. Walker, J. Bennet, F. Berkes, J. Colding, K. Danell, M. Falkenmark, L. Gordon, R. Kasperson, N. Kautsky, A. Kinzig, S. A. Levin, K-G. Mäler, F. Moberg, L. Ohlsson, P. Olsson, E. Ostrom, W. Reid, J. Rockström, H. Savenije, and U. Svedin. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: building adative capacity in a world of transformations. Proceedings of Conference, The World Summit on Sustainable Development on behalf of The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government. Folke C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30:441-473. Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16:253-267. Folke C., L. Pritchard Jr., F. Berkes, J. Colding, and U. Svedin. 2007. The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecology and Society 12(1):30. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art30/. García, F., and C. Marín, editors. 2006. Doñana, Water and Biosphere. Madrid, Doñana 2005 Project – Guadalquivir River Authority. Ministry of Environment. [online] URL: http://www.chguadalquivir.es/chg/opencms/chg-web/water_and_biosphere.html

77

| REFERENCES |

Gleick P. H. 2003. Global freswater resources: soft-path solutions for the 21st century. Science 302(5650):1524-8. Gregory R., L. Failing, P. Higgins. 2006. Adaptive management and environmental decision making: A case study application to water use planning. Ecological economics 58: 434-447. Grimalt, J. O., M. Ferrer, and E. Macpherson. 1999. The mine tailing accident in aznalcóllar. The Science of the Total Environment 242:3-11. Gunderson L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light, editors. 1995. Barriers and bridges: to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, USA. Gunderson L. H., and C. S. Holling, editors. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, USA. Hammond, J., and R. Keeney. 1999. Smart Choices. Harvard Business School Press. Hessing, M., M. Howlett, and T. Summerville. 2005. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy - Political Economy and Public Policy. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1-23. Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA. Holling, C. S., and A. D. Chambers. 1973. Resource science: the nurture of an infant. BioScience 23(1):13-20. Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10(2):328-337. Holling, C. S., and S. Sanderson. 1996. Dynamics of (dis)harmony in human and ecological systems. Pages 57- 85 in S. Hanna, C. Folke, and K. Mäler, editors. Rights to nature: ecological, economic, cultural, and political principles of institutions for the environment. Washington, D.C., Island Press, USA. Howlett, M. 1989. The 1987 National Forest Sector Strategy and the search for a Federal role in Canadian forest policy. Canadian Public Administration 32(4): 545-563

78

| REFERENCES |

Imperial, M. T. 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management 24(4):449-465. Jacobson, C. 2003. Introduction to Adaptive Management. In C. Jacobson, PhD thesis. Towards improving the practice of adaptive management in the New Zealand conservation context. Lincoln University. [online] URL: http://student.lincoln.ac.nz/am-links/am-intro.html Janssen, M. A., J. M. Anderies, and E. Ostrom. 2007. Robustness of Social-Ecological Systems to Spatial and Temporal Variability. Society of Natural Resources 20:307-322. Jepperson, R. L. 1991. Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. Pages 143-163 in W. W. Powell, and P. J. DiMaggio, editors. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Johnson, B. L. 1999. Introduction to the special feature: adaptive management - scientifically sound, socially challenged? Conservation Ecology 3(1):10. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art10/ Kiser, L., and E. Ostrom. 1982. The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. Pages 179-222 in E. Ostrom, editor. Strategies of political inquiry. Sage, Beberly Hills, USA. Kramer, L. 1998. EC Treaty and environmental law. 3rd edition. Sweet and Maxwell. Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics in the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Levin, S. A. 1999. Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Perseus Books, Reading, MA. Litfin, K. T. 2000. Advocacy coalitions along the domestic-foreign frontier: globalization and Canadian climate change policy. Policy Studies Journal 28:236-252. Ludwig, D., R. Hilborn, and C. Walters. 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260:17-36. Llamas, M. R. 1988. Conflicts between wetland conservation and groundwater exploitation: two case histories in Spain. Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 11(3):241-51. Loorbach, D. 2007. Transition management. new mode of governance for sustainable development. International Books, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. 327 pp.

79

| REFERENCES |

MacDonald, D. 1991. The politics of pollution: Why Canadians are failing their environment. McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, Canada. MacDonald, G. B., R. Arnup, and R. K. Jones. 1997. Adaptive forest management in Ontario: a literature review and strategic analysis. Forest Research Information Paper No. 139. Magnusson, W., and K. Shaw, editors. 2002. A political space: reading the global through Clayoquot Sound. Montreal & Kingston: Queen’s University Press, Canada. Marmorek, D., D. C. E. Robinson, C. Murray, and L. Greig. 2006. Enabling adaptive forest management – final report. Prepared for the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry by ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. 94 pp. Meharg, A. A., D. Osborn, D. J. Pain, A. Sánchez, and M. A. Naveso. 1999. Contamination of doñana food-chains after the Aznalcóllar mine disaster. Environmental Pollution 105(1999):387-90. Molina, R., B. G. Marcot, and R. Lesher. 2006. Protecting rare, old-growth, forest-associated species under the survey and manage program guidelines of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology 20:206-318. Montes, C. 2002. Lecciones aprendidas en tres años de restauración de ecosistemas en el Corredor Verde del Guadiamar. Ecosistemas 11(1). [Online] URL: http://www.revistaecosistemas.net/pdfs/314.pdf. Mostert, E. 2006. Participation for sustainable water management. Pages 152-176 in C. Giupponi, A. Jakeman, D. Karssenberg, M. P. Hare, editors. Sustainable management of water resources: an integrated approach. Edward Elgar, UK. Murray, C., and D. Marmorek. 2004. Adaptive management: a spoonful of rigour helps the uncertainty go down. 16th International Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Notzke, C. 1994. Aboriginal peoples and natural resources in Canada. Captus Pr, North York, Ontario, Canada. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

80

| REFERENCES |

Ostrom, E., R. Gardner, and J. Walker. 1994. Rules, games & common-pool resources. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Ostrom, E. 1998. Institutional rational choice. An assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Pages 35-71 in P.A. Sabatier, editor. Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder, USA. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA. Pahl-Wostl, C. 1995. The dynamic nature of ecosystems: chaos and order entwined. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Pahl-Wostl, C., T. Downing, P. Kabat, P. Magnuszewski, J. Meigh, M. Schlueter, J. Sendzimir, and S. Werners. 2005. Transition to adaptive water management – The NeWater Project. Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück. Water Policy. NeWater Working Paper 1. Pahl-Wostl, C. 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11(1):10. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art10/ Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management 21:49-62. Parsons, L. 1993. Management of marine fisheries in Canada. NRC Press, Canada. Pinkerton, E. 1999. Factors in overcoming barriers to implementing co-management in British Columbia salmon fisheries. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 2. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art2/ Rankin, M. 1993. Environmental regulation and the changing canadian constitutional landscape. Page 53 in G. Thompson, M. L. McConnell, and L. B. Huestis. Environmental Law and Business in Canada. Aurora, ON: Canada Law Book. Rojas, A. 1995. El Caso de Clayoquot Sound, Canadá: confrontación, paradigma y diálogo intercultural en la negociación de un conflicto medioambiental. Ambiente y Desarrollo 4:6774.

81

| REFERENCES |

Rojas, A., J. Grandy, and J. Jamieson. 2002. Towards an adaptive resolution of environmental conflicts: lessons from Clayoquot Sound. Paper for an International Conference on Adaptive Resolution of Environmental Conflicts, Liu Centre, University of British Columbia, September 25-27, 2002. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt. 2001. More evolution than revolution – Transition management in public policy. Journal of Future Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy 3(1). [Online] URL: http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/asset/7672/DRIFT-2006-006.pdf Santamaría, L., and J. M. Amézaga. 1999. Improving the management of large protected wetlands: learning the lessons of the Doñana nature reserves. Pages 365-375 in Brebbia and Usó, editors. Ecology and sustainable development II. WIT Press, Southhampton, UK. Santamaría, L., M. Lucas, and B. López. 2002. Ecological concepts in EU environmental legislation. Pages 57-103 in Kroll et al. ERMITE D4. European policies and mine waters. [Online] URL: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/environment/research/documents/ERMITE_D4.pdf Santamaría L., A. Green, R. Díaz-Delgado, M. A. Bravo, and E. M. Castellanos. 2007. Caracoles – A new laboratory for science and wetland restoration. Pages 325-327 in F. García, and C. Marín, editors. Doñana, Water and Biosphere. Madrid, Doñana 2005 Project – Guadalquivir River Authority. Ministry of Environment. [online] URL: http://www.chguadalquivir.es/chg/opencms/chg-web/pics/agua_y_biosfera/pdfs/Chap6.pdf Salafsky, N., R. Margoulis, and K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive management – A tool for conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program. World Wide Fund. Shaw, D. 2001. Restoring First Nations to the Land: Lessons from Clayoquot Sound. A Joint Report by the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and the Natural Resources Defence Council. Sit, V., and B. Taylor. 1998. Statistical methods for adaptive management studies. Victoria, BC, Res. Br., B.C. Min. For., Victoria, BC, Land Manage. Handb. No 42. Stankey G. H., R. N. Clark, and B. T. Bormann. 2005. Adaptive management of natural resources: theory, concepts, and management institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654. Portland. Portland, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Tromans, S. 2001. EC waste law – a complete mess? Journal of Environmental Law 13:133-146.

82

| REFERENCES |

Valverde, J. A. 2004. La Aventura de Doñana – Cómo crear una Reserva. Quercus, Madrid, España. van der Brugge, R., and J. Rotmans. 2006. Towards transition management of european water resources. Advances in Global Change Research. Journal of Water Resources Management 249-267 van der Brugge, R., and van Raak R. 2007. Facing the adaptive management challenge: insights from transition management. Ecology & Society 12(2): 33. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art33/. Walkerden, G. 2005. Adaptive management planning projects as conflict resolution processes. Ecology & society 11(1): 48. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art48/. Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources (biological resource management). Blackburn Press, Caldwell, USA. Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1(2):1. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1/. Webber, J. 1994. Reimagining Canada: language, culture, community and the canadian constitution. McGill-Queen's University Press. Websites: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 2008. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Government of Canada. [online] URL [Updated: April 27, 2009]: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm [Last access: May 4, 2009] Friends of Clayoquot Sound. 2008. Friends of Clayoquot Sound. [online] URL [Updated: April 6, 2009]: http://www.focs.ca/ [Last access: May 4, 2009] Natural Resources Canada. 2008. Natural Resources Canada. Government of Canada. [online] URL [Updated: May 1, 2009]: http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/index-eng.php [Last access: May 4, 2009]

83

| REFERENCES |

NeWater Project. New approaches to adaptive water management under uncertainty. [online] URL [Updated: currently being updated]: http://www.newater.info/everyone [Last access: May 4, 2009] Stockholm Resilience Centre. [online] URL [Updated: http://www.stockholmresilience.org/ [Last access: May 4, 2009]

April

27,

2009]:

UNESCO. 2008. Clayoquot Sound UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. [online] URL [Updated: unknown]: http://www.clayoquotbiosphere.org/index.php [Last access: May 4, 2009]

84

| APPENDIXES |

Appendixes

85

| APPENDIX 1 – RESEARCH MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP AT THE DOÑANA NATURE RESERVE |

Appendix 1 - Research-Management Workshop at the Doñana Nature Reserve. Policy Document (Spanish version)

Matalascañas, Huelva (Spain) April 2, 2008

86

Un informe sobre el taller participativo de Matalascañas, en el que se debatieron las estrategias para mejorar la transferencia de la información científico-técnica y la toma de decisiones en la gestión de las marismas del Espacio Natural Doñana.

Integración de la Gestión y la Investigación en las Marismas de Doñana Estrategias Innovadoras y Gestión Adaptativa Pablo F. Méndez, Luis Santamaría Instituto Mediterráneo de Estudios Avanzados (IMEDEA), Mallorca

IMEDEA

ICCS

[email protected] | luis.Santamarí[email protected]

Jaime Amezaga

Instituto de Investigación en Medio Ambiente y Sostenibilidad IRES, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Inglaterra IRES

IRES

USF

Glen Hearns Instituto para los Recursos, el Medio Ambiente y la Sostenibilidad (IRES), Vancouver, Canadá

Participan

Nicola Isendahl Espacio Natural Doñana

Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir

Estación Biológica de Doñana

Instituto de Investigación de Sistemas Ambientales (USF), Osnabrück, Alemania

Proyecto Doñana 2005

87

Recomendaciones clave de los participantes 1 Desarrollar un proceso para definir, de forma transparente y compartida, los objetivos de gestión y el modelo de funcionamiento de la marisma del END. El proceso debería centrarse, en primer lugar, en los actores clave de las diferentes agencias de gestión, y ampliarse en una segunda fase a los diferentes actores del entorno.

2 Estructurar el programa de seguimiento a partir de los objetivos de gestión y el modelo de funcionamiento de la marisma del END, optimizando la coordinación institucional. El perfeccionamiento del plan de seguimiento incluiría, entre otros factores: Continuidad: asegurar su diseño y mantenimiento a largo plazo Acceso: facilitar la distribución de sus resultados a tiempo real (o en plazos razonablemente cortos) Utilidad: facilitar su uso por las agencias de gestión.

3

Incorporar la investigación y la participación social (entorno del parque) a los procesos de elaboración de políticas y planes de gestión, con objeto de: Æ Mejorar los procesos de toma de decisiones. Æ Entender e involucrar al entorno social.

4 Definir, en el nuevo Plan Hidrológico de la Cuenca del Guadalquivir, una subcuenca específica para el Espacio Natural Doñana. El objeto sería elevar el nivel de exigencia, tanto en los objetivos de gestión como en densidad y calidad de la red de seguimiento, para las cuencas que vierten directamente a la marisma del END y los tramos del Guadalquivir con una influencia directa sobre ésta. La declaración de una subcuenca con un plan de gestión y seguimiento diferenciado ayudaría, además, a resolver la contradicción que implica la declaración de varios tramos de río como “muy modificados” en la inmediata vecindad de un humedal de especial importancia nacional e internacional.

5

Continuar y potenciar la dinámica de colaboración creada por el accidente de Aznalcóllar. Los participantes la perciben como un bien social que surgió después del accidente, que habría que potenciar política y económicamente. El ambiente de cooperación se plasmó en varios cambios en el funcionamiento institucional (Consejo de Participación, Comisión Científica Mixta) y creó una mayor cultura de cooperación y objetivos compartidos. Para aprovecharlo al máximo, sería deseable que hubiera una sanción oficial (reconocimiento) que le diera un mayor perfil político y abriera nuevas vías de financiación.

6 Mejorar los mecanismos para el intercambio de información, uso de resultados y definición de objetivos comunes entre el END y la EBD (p.ej. comisión/es, espacios virtuales, etc.). Las exigencias del funcionamiento diario de las diferentes organizaciones (END, EBD, CHG) dificultan el intercambio fluido de información, conocimiento experto y opiniones. Sería deseable que un grupo de trabajo conjunto estudiara la creación de mecanismos específicos de apoyo mutuo. Las posibilidades incluyen la creación de comisiones conjuntas, grupos de trabajo, espacios virtuales (foros, bases de datos corporativas), etc.

7 Introducir las nuevas ideas e iniciativas de gestión de forma sencilla y progresiva, construyendo a partir de proyectos bien definidos y difundiendo las lecciones aportadas por éstos. 88

Antecedentes El taller de Matalascañas, enmarcado en el proyecto TRANSAM (“Transference of Adaptive Management”), se centró en la presentación, análisis y debate de las políticas y planes de gestión, investigación y seguimiento en la marisma del Espacio Natural Doñana, y sus interrelaciones con la gestión del agua en el Estuario del Guadalquivir. Durante el taller, se hizo un esfuerzo específico por identificar las incertidumbres y barreras institucionales que condicionan la mejora de dichas políticas y planes. El análisis posterior de la información obtenida en el taller permitirá una evaluación más profunda de los valores, creencias, intereses, responsabilidades y percepciones de las partes interesadas, y su influencia sobre la toma de decisiones y la transferencia de conocimiento. El taller nace en el marco de un estudio comparativo de casos entre el Espacio Natural Doñana y la Reserva de la Biosfera de Clayoquot Sound (Columbia Británica, Canadá). Fue diseñado en paralelo a un taller realizado en la Universidad de la Columbia Británica (Vancouver). Los objetivos de este último fueron aprender de la experiencia canadiense en Gestión Adaptativa, identificando las oportunidades y barreras institucionales que han condicionado su implementación. Además, recopilamos información acerca del papel de la investigación y los procesos de consulta pública en la elaboración de políticas (provinciales y federales) de uso de los recursos naturales y protección de ecosistemas.

89

Presentaciones temáticas · La gestión en el END

Juan Carlos Rubio

·

Director

Carlos Urdiales

·

Técnico de conservación

Espacio Natural Doñana

Mensaje – El END es un territorio de una gran complejidad ecológica y social, sometido históricamente a un proceso de aprendizaje continuo fundamentado en una gestión complicada y en grandes cambios sociales. Sus sociedades hay que comprenderlas a partir de su estructura socioeconómica y sus expectativas de futuro. La planificación futura de éste territorio tendrá que estar basada en: la armonización de las políticas supranacionales, nacionales y regionales; la diversidad de inversiones económicas; y la participación social y sectorial. Para enfrentarse con éxito a la planificación de un territorio tan complejo, habrá que alcanzar el máximo consenso posible entre la gestión y la investigación.

Presentación y debate – La gestión de la marisma del END se organiza en torno a tres objetivos prioritarios: • Recuperación de la naturalidad de la marisma. • Potenciación de la biodiversidad. • Uso sostenible de los recursos naturales. Es necesario un conocimiento adecuado del funcionamiento de la marisma para analizar los problemas y las soluciones que se han implementado recientemente. Los grandes problemas a los que se enfrenta dicha gestión en la actualidad son: (1) la alta presión de herbivoría en la marisma; (2) las molestias (naturales y antrópicas) que sufren las colonias reproductoras de aves acuáticas; y (3) las grandes modificaciones hidráulicas de la marisma. El escenario futuro de funcionamiento y gestión más inminente será el generado por el proyecto de restauración Doñana 2005. El sistema de compuertas remanente seguirá constituyendo la única posibilidad de manejo activo de la marisma, mediante el control del flujo de descarga hacia el estuario.

El conocimiento del sistema hidrológico generado desde los años 90, junto al seguimiento continuo, permiten referir los criterios de manejo de las compuertas a la geometría y topografía de la marisma natural, en función de las condiciones ecológicas e hidrológicas, disminuyendo la arbitrariedad, intuición e incertidumbre en el manejo de la misma. Con respecto a la gestión de las cuencas vertientes, las autoridades competentes están siguiendo varias líneas de actuación para resolver los principales problemas: aguas residuales e industriales, erosión de suelos agrícolas, contaminantes agrícolas y vertederos de residuos sólidos. La contribución de las aguas subterráneas al ciclo de inundación anual de la marisma natural es poco relevante desde el punto de vista cuantitativo, pero es muy importante desde el punto de vista cualitativo. Para las zonas de marisma transformada dentro de la marisma del END, que están sometidas a inundación artificial, debería establecerse un plan de manejo que integre los criterios de producción y de conservación. Las posibles soluciones al problema del sobrepastoreo de la marisma, un ecosistema con una capacidad de carga variable e irregular en el tiempo, podrían incluir: la implementación de las zonas de reserva establecidas en el PRUG; la reducción de la carga ganadera hasta límites fijos, considerados sostenibles y compatibles con la conservación de la cubierta vegetal; el establecimiento de las cargas admisibles con la conservación de la cubierta en cada uno de los escenarios de inundación y estado de la vegetación anuales; y la adecuación del concepto de “explotación ganadera” a las necesidades de conservación y a las realidades jurídicas del END (p.ej. posibilidad de alternancia estacional o nomadeo controlado de los rebaños dentro del espacio, en función de la carga tolerable en cada momento y lugar). Es una solución que tendrá que ser promovida con el colectivo de los ganaderos y con las municipalidades del entorno. Recientemente se ha descubierto que la principal causa de mortandades en la marisma de Doñana es la proliferación masiva de cepas tóxicas de cianobacterias. La principal solución, actualmente, es evacuar parte de las aguas hacia el estuario para acelerar la desecación. En los últimos años, se ha establecido un sistema de alerta temprana. Las medidas de protección de las colonias reproductoras de aves acuáticas son, principalmente: la instalación de cercados que evitan perturbaciones y el acceso de ganado y jabalíes; y la regulación de tránsitos y actividades en la marisma (proyectos de investigación y actividades ganaderas, como la Saca de las Yeguas).

90

· La investigación en el END

Xim Cerdá

·

Vicedirector

Estación Biológica de Doñana Mensaje – La Estación Biológica de Doñana es uno de los institutos del CSIC en que la investigación está más relacionada con la gestión. La EBD y el END no tienen una dependencia estricta. Actualmente hay una buena relación y transferencia de la información. Legalmente, los programas de investigación científica deberán elaborarse por el equipo de gestión del END, en coordinación con la Estación Biológica de Doñana y las universidades andaluzas. El responsable de coordinar la investigación en el END es también el director de la EBD.

Presentación y debate – La EBD es el principal organismo investigador en el END. Participa además en la regulación de dicha investigación a través de la tramitación de permisos, el seguimiento de la investigación, la elaboración de informes anuales y la gestión de bases de datos. En el END pueden investigar científicos de cualquier centro, siempre que tengan proyectos financiados y tramiten los correspondientes permisos. Además, la EBD pone a su disposición diversas facilidades para llevar a cabo sus trabajos. El análisis de las publicaciones científicas en el período 1854-2003 indica que ésta se ha concentrado en las aves, mamíferos, flora e hidrología (por orden de importancia).

Aunque en la EBD se potencian, de manera informal, los proyectos relacionados con los problemas que afectan al END, tan solo existe un compromiso formal para los proyectos que desarrolla el equipo de seguimiento de los procesos naturales. Entre 2000 y 2007, un 29% de todos los proyectos de investigación realizados dentro del END guardaron relación con la marisma. Aunque los proyectos de investigación de la EBD han logrado que haya una gran acumulación de información, no hay que olvidar que el objetivo primordial de los investigadores es la producción científica, no necesariamente acerca de Doñana y su entorno. Sin embargo, los proyectos financiados por el OAPN y los temas de investigación sobre la marisma pueden tener mucha importancia para la gestión. Por ello, el PRUG de Doñana establece una serie de líneas prioritarias en las que hay que realizar investigación, aunque actualmente son pocos los proyectos dedicados a dichas líneas. Destacan, como temas de importancia emergente, el efecto del cambio global, que generará modificaciones importantes en la marisma - como las causadas por las especies invasoras. Políticas de investigación y mecanismos de transferencia de conocimiento para el apoyo a la gestión – No hay una política dirigida de investigación para la gestión. Aunque existen mecanismos institucionales y administrativos de financiación de proyectos aplicados (a través del OAPN y la Consejería de Medio Ambiente), la interfaz entre la gestión y la investigación es muy difusa. Para potenciarla, habría que dotar las líneas prioritarias del PRUG de instrumentos de financiación que sirvan de soporte a los proyectos. Uno de los proyectos que hay actualmente en marcha es la redacción de un plan de investigación para Doñana. Diferencias entre la gestión y la investigación – El gestor tiene un trabajo claro de respuesta a la sociedad y necesita respuestas inmediatas a problemas concretos, mientras que el investigador busca avanzar en el conocimiento y el plazo pasa a ser secundario. Esto es, ambos colectivos difieren en las escalas temporales y prioridades a la hora de dar respuesta a las demandas de la sociedad. Desde el colectivo investigador se critica que esta diferencia refleja también una cierta falta de previsión a largo plazo de las iniciativas de gestión: en muchos casos, cuando el problema es inminente, notorio, visible socialmente, se buscan precipitadamente soluciones a corto plazo. Desde el colectivo de gestores se enfatiza que el investigador debe facilitar las alternativas que tiene el responsable de la gestión, pero es éste quien debe asumir la responsabilidad de la elección. Las alternativas vienen de abajo, de la investigación e innovación, pero, para que se produzcan los cambios, debe de haber un claro mandato desde arriba. Gestión Adaptativa – La disociación entre los plazos y los intereses de la investigación y la gestión es una de las cuestiones clave que trata de resolver la GA. El enfoque consiste en actuar de forma que se pueda aprender de cualquier operación u acción, evitando la “parálisis por análisis”. Se trata de utilizar los métodos de experimentación y observación que han desarrollado los investigadores, para diseñar la gestión de forma que se facilite el aprendizaje continuado. Es una metodología que trata de aprovechar los dos sectores aprovechando las fortalezas de ambos. Transferencia de información – Aunque se han hecho muchos esfuerzos para mejorar la transferencia de información, ésta sigue sin estar disponible en el sitio y momento adecuados para la toma de decisiones. Hay una necesidad de mejorar los mecanismos de transferencia de conocimiento y resultados entre investigadores y gestores.

91

· Gestión del agua en la Cuenca del Guadalquivir

Agustín Argüelles

Mensaje – La confederación se encuentra inmersa en la elaboración y los procesos de consulta pública de los Planes Hidrológicos de Cuenca (PHC) que prescribe la Directiva Marco de Aguas (DMA). Muchos de los temas importantes de la planificación de la Demarcación Hidrográfica del Río Guadalquivir, son trascendentales para la gestión del END. Los primeros pasos incluyen el conocimiento de los problemas a los que se enfrenta la gestión del río. Las marismas del END, que hasta ahora estaban catalogadas como aguas de transición y costeras, fuera de las competencias de la confederación, ahora han pasado a ser responsabilidad de diferentes administraciones reunidas en el Comité de Autoridades Competentes, que será una pieza clave de la planificación hidrológica. Ésta última es muy novedosa, difusa e inevitablemente tecnocrática. Los conceptos que incluye son de interpretación difícil, incluyendo el principal objetivo a cumplir, la mejora del estado ecológico de las aguas de la cuenca.

Presentación y debate – El modelo de Planificación Hidrológica propuesto por la DMA es muy novedoso. La clasificación de las aguas de transición del Guadalquivir se basa en el régimen mareal y la salinidad. Las aguas de transición de la Demarcación del Guadalquivir se han dividido en 11 masas de agua, que se corresponden con el Tronco del Río Guadalquivir, los brazos existentes al Oeste (Brazo de la Torre) y Brazo del Este, la Dársena de Alfonso XIII y el tramo final encauzado del río Guadaira. La mayoría de estas masas han sufrido importantes alteraciones hidromorfológicas que obligan su consideración como masas de agua muy modificadas. En el Guadaira, solo el tramo final justifica su encuadre en esta clase de masas. Tanto el Brazo del Este como el Brazo de la Torre carecen de funcionalidad clara como masas de agua de transición. El Brazo del Este realmente funciona, y es gestionado por la CMA, como una zona húmeda (Ramsar): tiene la posibilidad de conectarse con las mareas a través de unas compuertas, y recibe aportes de ríos y retornos de zonas regables, con los consiguientes riesgos de eutrofización.

·

Jefe de la Oficina de Planificación Hidrológica

Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir

Los datos analíticos utilizados para la determinación del estado de las masas de agua de transición pertenecen a la red de seguimiento de la CMA, utilizándose el período 2003 a 2007. Las principales fuentes de contaminación que afectan al estuario del Guadalquivir son las procedentes de los vertidos de aguas residuales de las poblaciones de su entorno (entre las que se encuentran las EDAR de Sevilla y las del Aljarafe), y los aportes de sus dos principales afluentes en la zona: el río Guadaira, afectado por vertidos urbanos e industriales, y el Guadiamar, que recibe efluentes urbanos, agrícolas y mineros (procedentes de la ya extinta actividad minera de Aznalcóllar). La situación del estuario hace que en él se concentren todos los problemas que afectan a la cuenca. Principalmente: (1) la contaminación de las aguas, de origen puntual y difuso; (2) el elevado consumo de aguas, que impide el suficiente aporte de agua dulce; y (3) la elevada erosión, relacionada con la pérdida de cubierta forestal. Además, las alteraciones hidromorfológicas, consecuencia del acondicionamiento del cauce para la navegación fluvial, causan su tipificación como masas de agua muy modificadas, cuyo grado de alteración no es viable modificar - por lo que los programas de medidas a establecer en el Plan de la Demarcación tan solo estarán encaminadas a alcanzar el buen potencial ecológico, en lugar del buen estado ecológico. La declaración de “muy modificados” para varios tramos adyacentes o vertientes a las marismas del END es contradictoria con el elevado estatus de conservación y protección de este humedal. La solución podría pasar por la declaración de una subcuenca específica para los tramos que influyan directamente en este humedal. Esta solución contribuiría a resolver además la escasez de estaciones de seguimiento en dicho entorno (que, por su mayor exigencia de estatus ecológico, exigiría un seguimiento más preciso y exhaustivo).

92

· Coordinación de los proyectos de restauración

Benigno Bayán

·

Ingeniero Jefe de la Zona Sevilla

Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir Mensaje – Los proyectos de restauración ecológica “Corredor Verde del Guadiamar” y “Doñana 2005” han demostrado las ventajas de incorporar el asesoramiento de los científicos acerca del contenido (objetivos, diseño, implementación) de cualquier proyecto de restauración. Esta experiencia debería sentar precedente: funcionarios, técnicos y científicos deberían ir obligadamente de la mano. El proyecto de restauración de la Finca Caracoles permitirá, gracias a un diseño elaborado conjuntamente por ingenieros, técnicos y científicos, aprender, adquirir conocimiento del funcionamiento ecológico de la marisma y aplicar dicho conocimiento en otros casos de restauración. Fue un caso claro de Gestión Adaptativa - porque si en Doñana alguien pregunta ¿agua para qué?, deberíamos ser capaces de contestar: ese agua está para que los procesos biológicos, los procesos ecológicos, se beneficien.

Presentación y debate – Tras el accidente minero de Aznalcóllar, tanto la Junta de Andalucía como el Gobierno Central no quisieron limitarse a limpiar el área afectada. Dieron un paso más allá, y crearon los proyectos de restauración Corredor Verde del Guadiamar y Doñana 2005. Estos dos proyectos se solapan en el territorio y en las competencias de las administraciones – por lo que han exigido la coordinación entre las dos administraciones, para ponerse de acuerdo en su contenido y desarrollo. Para ello, se centralizó la gestión en un coordinador único, respaldado por un Grupo de Apoyo, en el que había funcionarios de la Junta de Andalucía y de la CHG. También quedó claro, tras un proceso que incluyó varias reuniones internacionales, que el objetivo central de estos proyectos, la restauración hidroecológica de Doñana, depende de numerosos procesos fisico-químicos y biológicos. Por su complejidad, requería contar con el apoyo y participación de los científicos.

Para ello, se acordó crear una Comisión Científica, que no sólo ha asesorado sobre el contenido de los proyectos, sino que también ha realizado un seguimiento y evaluación de las obras conforme a los objetivos establecidos. Es decir, se ha hecho investigación aplicada a Doñana y, en especial, a la restauración de sus ecosistemas. La experiencia de la intervención de científicos en la elaboración de proyectos es fundamental y debería sentar precedente. Aunque no es necesaria en todos los casos, lo es en proyectos de gran envergadura en los que estén implicados procesos biológicos complejos. También es importante destacar que se ha hecho lo que se ha hecho debido al accidente (esto es, como respuesta a una crisis). Hay un caso en concreto que no ha sido únicamente “de papel y lápiz”. En la Finca Caracoles, que era agrícola y se expropió para su restauración, el diseño se adaptó con objeto de obtener un mejor conocimiento del funcionamiento de la marisma. El objetivo es aprender, mediante el seguimiento de la colonización y funcionamiento una serie de lucios de diferentes tamaños, profundidades y grado de agrupación, sobre el funcionamiento ecológico de la marisma, y aplicar dicho conocimiento en otras labores. Al principio, fue una actuación que causó impacto, y tuvo que ser explicada más de una vez, hasta ser aceptada por todos como un proyecto interesante. Las ocho obras del proyecto Doñana 2005 se han centrado en la recuperación de los cauces que históricamente llevaban agua a la marisma. A pesar de la importancia que tienen para la marisma, deben ser consideradas como un medio y no como un fin en si mismos. Si alguien pregunta ¿agua para qué?, deberíamos ser capaces de contestar para que: esa agua está para que los procesos biológicos, los procesos ecológicos, se beneficien. Un ejemplo paradigmático puede ser la Montaña del Río, construida ya en los años ochenta, que también era agua para Doñana, pero llenó la marisma como si fuera un embalse - y eso no era lo que tenía que ser. Se está dando marcha atrás ahora, porque los procesos biológicos estaban siendo perjudicados. Imbricación del Plan Hidrológico de Cuenca con los proyectos de restauración y dragado en el Río Guadalquivir – Los objetivos del PHC son satisfacer las demandas de agua y conseguir el buen estado ecológico de todas las masas de agua. Todo lo que vaya dirigido a la consecución del buen estado tiene su encaje en los programas de medidas, que no sólo establece la CHG, sino que incluye otras medidas (p.ej. la aplicación de códigos de buenas prácticas agrarias). Con referencia a las conclusiones obtenidas por el proyecto Doñana 2005, en este encuadre de la relación con las actuaciones para la consecución buen potencial ecológico, habrá que analizarlas e incorporarlas. Armonización del PHC con los objetivos de gestión del END – Las categorías del estado de las masas de agua se asignarán formalmente en el futuro próximo. La declaración de los tramos bajos del Guadalquivir como “muy modificados” implica la aceptación de que el buen estado ecológico no puede conseguirse, al estar prácticamente todo el cauce muy modificado por los dragados y la presencia de numerosas presas. Sin embargo, hay que conseguir que se cumpla el buen estado ecológico al máximo, ya que Doñana es un espacio protegido Ramsar, y está en el inventario de espacios protegidos que contempla el PHC. Eso hace que tenga máximo rango de protección de la calidad del agua y de exigencia en la consecución de los objetivos de buen estado ecológico. Para asegurarlo, podría ser recomendable delimitar una unidad de gestión hidrológica específica (una subcuenca) dentro del PHC.

93

La Gestión Adaptativa Lecciones de la experiencia canadiense

Pablo F. Méndez IMEDEA

La Gestión Adaptativa nació en Canadá (Columbia Británica), como una alternativa a los principios y procedimientos tradicionales para la gestión de los recursos (hídricos, pesquerías, forestales y minerales), que buscaba desarrollar un enfoque más realista y menos enfocado en el simple control de los mismos.

1

La inercia institucional dificulta los procesos de implementación de modelos innovadores para la gestión de recursos naturales y ecosistemas. Superarla requiere la confluencia de un marco estratégico, unos objetivos de gestión comunes e individuos con coraje para promover el cambio desde arriba (directivos y ejecutivos) y desde abajo (innovadores y líderes internos).

A nivel humano, el proceso de transición hacia modelos adaptativos en Canadá ha ocurrido (está ocurriendo) gracias al esfuerzo concertado de toda una generación de investigadores y gestores, influido por las ideas que emergieron en el mundo académico en los 60-70. Durante la década de los 90, han accedido a posiciones de dirección y coordinación dentro de diversas instituciones y están aplicando procesos innovadores basados en modelos flexibles y adaptativos a diferentes niveles y escalas. En la actualidad existe suficiente masa crítica de gente que entiende la idea y la está aplicando.

2 Existe un equilibrio muy delicado entre la simpleza y la complejidad en el diseño de prácticas y modelos de gestión. No hay que rehuir la complejidad cuando esta puede determinar la respuesta del sistema a las prácticas de gestión, pero tampoco hay que incrementarla innecesariamente. La clave está en identificar el número de elementos que es necesario gestionar y monitorear para aplicar las prácticas de gestión y conocer la respuesta del sistema a dichas prácticas. Una herramienta particularmente útil es el desarrollo parsimonioso e interdisciplinar de modelos integrados de funcionamiento del ecosistema y el sistema social.

3 Para su total comprensión, responsabilidad y confianza en el uso, las prácticas y modelos de gestión deben ser elaborados interdisciplinarmente y deben ser participativos, públicos y transparentes. Los procesos biológicos, por regla general, no tienen umbrales claros. Habitualmente, lo mejor que los investigadores del medio biofísico pueden ofrecer a los gestores, para la toma de decisiones, son interpretaciones claras y sintéticas de los resultados obtenidos usando el método científico. Y lo mejor que los investigadores sociales y los agentes de cambio (p.ej. consultores) pueden ofrecer son metodologías y diseños a largo plazo, para facilitar la participación y la inclusión de todas las partes interesadas en los procesos de cambio. El análisis y aprendizaje que incorpora la Gestión Adaptativa, sin embargo, dota a todos ellos de la capacidad y habilidades suficientes para mejorar progresivamente la calidad de las políticas y las decisiones de gestión.

4 Hay dos tipos de mecanismos de retroalimentación para informar a la gestión de las interrelaciones complejas existentes en la naturaleza: la orientación general (nivel estratégico) y la decisión informada (nivel táctico). La orientación general posibilita la mejora continua de los marcos estratégicos establecidos y la evaluación continua de los objetivos de largo plazo. Además, facilita la institucionalización de la innovación, ya que provee de mecanismos amplios para generar confianza y alinear estrategias. La decisión informada provee a los gestores de las predicciones de diferentes alternativas de gestión, basadas en la mejor ciencia e información posibles y reduciendo las incertidumbres al mínimo.

5 La adopción de modelos innovadores de gestión (como la Gestión Adaptativa) se ve facilitada por la credibilidad derivada de proyectos piloto exitosos, que demuestren su funcionamiento. Para reducir la inercia institucional hace falta credibilidad, esto es, que las buenas ideas que se generan en los nichos de innovación demuestren su funcionamiento. Para ello, han de promoverse las redes de innovación, promocionarse los modelos más funcionales y sencillos, y generarse cambios de actitud en los actores de los cuerpos de decisión (p.ej. entusiasmo, capacidad de aprendizaje, coraje).

94

| APPENDIX 2 – PHOTOGRAPHIC DOSSIER |

Appendix 2 - Photographic dossier

95


Forest Science Centre at UBC

Vancouver, city of glass

Representation of respect at a school in Vancouver

Beaver Lake at Stanley Park (Vancouver)

96


Totem poles at Stanley Park

Temperate rainforest at the park

Old-growth temperate rainforest at Vancouver Island

Trees over trees in the forest

97


Esowista, home of the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation within the Pacific Rim National Park – Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve (Vancouver Island)

Esowista

The Port of Tofino with Meares Island in the background (Clayoquot Sound Biosphere Reserve)

Clayoquot Field Station

98


Mudflats view from the Clayoquot Field Station

The coast of Tofino

The Long Beach Unit of the Pacific Rim National Park. Logging works in the background

Sea anemones at Long Beach

99


Lowland peat bog at Pacific Rim National Park

Surfers of Long Beach

Squamish Valley

Timber industry at Squamish Valley

100


Chinook salmon hatchery at the valley

A vigilant bald eagle at the valley

First Nations art at the valley

101


Aquaculture at “Veta la Palma” (Doñana Nature Reserve)

Pink flamingos at the Doñana marshes

Ranunculus peltatus at the marsh

Aquatic life

102


Surveillance tower at “Palacio de Doñana”

Patio of “Palacio de Doñana”

A view of the marshes

Beginning of the rain season

103


Livestock roads at “Caracoles Estate”

Natural wetlands at the marsh

Manmade wetlands at “Caracoles Estate”

“Caracoles Estate” from the air – last signs of the agricultural work (Photo credit: Laboratory of GIS and Remote Sensing. Doñana Biological Station)

104


Channels and pipes for draining the marshes

Water pump at “El Lobo”

Sluice gate at the edge of the protected marsh

Manmade wetlands at the east edge of the reserve, created due to the extraction of sediment for the construction of a retaining wall after the Aznalcóllar accident

105


Footprint of flamingos, a sign of their search for food

Cracked ground during the dry season

Commemorative plaque to José Antonio Valverde, who led an international coalition that claimed the legal protection of the Doñana marshes during the 1950’s and the 1960’s

Sunset at “Palacio de Doñana”

106

| APPENDIX 3 – PROJECT SUMMARIES PROVIDED BY THE UBC WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS |

Appendix 3 - Project Summaries Provided by the UBC Workshop Participants

107


Computer models for adaptive forest management: some examples from UBC Juan A. Blanco Postdoctoral Research Fellow Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada [email protected]

1. Introduction Adaptive management is a system that involves bringing resource managers, modelers, and scientific experts together for a series of brief, intense workshops to produce a simulation model of the system being managed (Holling 1978). Playing with the simulation model then allows workshop participants to examine the possible ramifications of different management options. Essentially, the managers use the model as a learning tool to evaluate alternative decision strategies. However, the main challenge for adaptive forest management is for forest managers and policymakers to admit that, individually and collectively, we seldom know for sure the best thing to do, and that it is generally acceptable to make mistakes so long as we learn from them (Duinker et al. 2003). Traditional forestry calls for managing relatively simple systems at the tree and stand levels, so tools were developed to address the questions arising from such a system. Adaptive management calls for managing a more complex system, the whole forest ecosystem and not just the population of trees, so we need different and more complex tools at both the smaller and larger spatial and temporal scales to deal with this added complexity. Some of these tools are computer models. It is important to distinguish between models used for understanding and those used for prediction (Bunnell 1989). Models for understanding are most useful as a research tool to help comprehend, collect and link previously isolated bits of knowledge and to identify gaps where more work is needed. Such mechanistic models often fall far short of making realistic predictions, but their benefits often come from development of the model, a practice which forces one to organise and articulate the relationships among processes. On the other hand, there are models created to make predictions and help managers in making decisions based on our best understanding of the various processes or situations. Predictive models are often purely statistical rather than mechanistic, and may or may not help explain the system under study; this is not their goal. In forestry, as in many technical disciplines, models are usually made of mathematical equations. The complexity of these equations and of the data being processed usually requires the

108


use of a computer. Models are usually used to predict and understand the effects of some phenomenon, based on a series of hypotheses that are considered relevant. From the stand to the landscape scale, however, the ability to model the relevant biological and ecological processes that are affecting forest dynamics varies. While at the stand level more mechanistic and deterministic models can be used, at the landscape scale empirical and stochastic models need to be considered. At the stand level, one can assume that most of the important processes and environmental conditions can be treated as part of a closed system. This is not the case at the landscape scale, where natural disturbances can propagate into a region from its surroundings (i.e., landscapes and landscape processes are more appropriately portrayed as an open system) (Messier et al. 2003). Models in forestry can vary from very simple regression models to the very complex and from simulation at the level of the leaf to that of a whole landscape. Such models can operate at various temporal (from seconds to decades) and spatial (from mm2 to km2) scales, depending on the phenomenon being simulated. They are used by forest ecologists and foresters to predict the growth rate or productivity of a forest stand, plan harvest schedules over a landbase, or evaluate the potential impact of various forest development patterns on wildlife. Models are never totally wrong or totally right. What is important when using models, and especially in a context of developing an adaptive management strategy, is the ability to determine and control the error associated with them. They must therefore be evaluated in relation to specified objectives and their capacity to realistically simulate the main processes that are of interest (Messier et al. 2003).

2. Simulation models and adaptive management Simulation models can organise the complexity of information and data into a coherent tool for analysing systems at these various scales. The effective use of simulation modelling in the analysis of living systems requires, however, knowledge of the biological and ecological processes, a comprehension of the relationships among these processes by means of system analysis and the operational translation of these relationships using statistics and mathematics. Therefore, forest models are a powerful tool available to the manager, to be used in concert with observation, personal experience and experimentation to improve the understanding of forest dynamics and to assist in the development of sustainable management over a greater area and longer time period (Messier et al. 2003). Models complement empirical work on ecological processes and give insight into the dynamics of complex ecological systems. As Bossel (1991) states, forest modelling allows us to move from description toward explanation. Models are simplified representations of some aspects of reality that are developed to describe, analyse, understand or predict the behaviour of something (Grant et al. 1997). Models are useful for various kinds of representation, from a very qualitative or conceptual description of a

109


phenomenon to a very detailed mathematical simulation of its dynamics. Models are widespread in everyday and technical usage. A mathematical model is like a verbal model, but using more concise, precise and deductive language. The term model refers to any “analytical” or “mathematical” representation that quantifies response variables using mathematical equations, while the term “simulation model" refers to the generation of response variable values specifically by numerical approximation using a computer program (Haefner 1996). Too frequently, impact predictions in environmental assessments consist of vague generalization that are so imprecise that they can never be shown wrong (Beanlands and Duinker 1984). Forecasts, on the other hand, can be quantitatively states as testable hypotheses (Baskerville 1985). For adaptive managers, it is far preferable to be quantitative and wrong than qualitative and untestable. There are several possible ways of predicting the way a system will respond to a management strategy. Many management strategies, however, are undertaken on scales that make replication impossible. Given this limitation, the management team must decide on the best means of providing a control. Developing a mathematical model to test the effects of alternative strategies, and using a “no intervention” option as a reference, on the other hand, provides the most defensible means of preparing predictions (Duinker 1989). Using forecast derived from mathematical simulation models allows the management team to predict the impacts of alternatives without causing potentially irreversible harm to the system. The modelling process is relatively inexpensive and today usually does not require equipment more complex than a desktop computer. Most importantly, simulation models require he explicit description of system interactions in a quantitative, measurable way (Duinker 1989).Modelling forces the recognition of errors in the management team’s understanding of a system (Baskerville 1985). Thus, if the model produces simulations that are out of line with the observed behaviour of the system, it is usually an indication that the model and some of its underlying assumptions require adjustment. Predictions based on an explicit model can be tested by comparing them against performance of the real system that is determined through monitoring of selected variables (Blanco et al. 2007). While modelling is a powerful tool to use for producing forecasts, the predictions developed will only be as good as the model that generated them (Kimmins 2004). Many foresters tend to regard simulation models as esoteric and abstract, driven by parameters of which they have little knowledge and often no way of measuring. Therefore, the future of simulation models lies in producing models which are relevant to the practitioner, with output information that can be understood or applied to everyday practices. In short, models must be simple, reliable and produce answers in a form that is understandable and applicable for foresters. As the paradigm shift to ecosystem management takes hold, foresters will need to deal with values other than

110


wood production, such as species composition, stand structure, landscape fragmentation, soil nutrient reserves, water quality, and aesthetics. With this growing expectation for protecting, tracking, and managing diverse and complex forest values, the need for modelling, simulation models, and other sophisticated management tools is on the increase.

3. Models developed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Simulation Group at UBC Following the main objective of producing tools to help managers in achieving their objectives of sustainable forest management in an adaptive framework, several models have been produced and developed (Messier et al. 2003, Blanco et al. 2005). As an example of this activity, the Forest Ecosystem Management Simulation Group at the University of British Columbia has established several collaborative modelling projects with government and industry that can be used as predicting tools in adaptive management programs. The models FORECAST (a non-spatial stand-level forest ecosystem management model, Kimmins et al. 1999) and LLEMS (a spatialexplicit landscape-level forest ecosystem management model, Seely et al. 2007), have been calibrated for a variety of forest ecosystems in Canada, China, Cuba, Spain, Norway and the UK. Its biomass-based approach has proven useful for assessing the consequences of forest management on carbon storage (Seely et al. 2002).

FORECAST FORECAST is a stand-level forest growth model oriented to forest management. This model has been designed to simulate a broad variety of forest systems with the aim of comparing different management options and assess their effects of forest productivity, stand dynamics and a broad variety of biophysical indicators. This model follows a hybrid approach, in which local data on growth and yield (obtained from traditional growth tables or from chronosequence studies) are used to calculate rates of key ecosystem processes related to productivity. This information is combined with data describing decomposition rates, nutrient cycling, light competition and other ecosystem properties, allowing simulating forest growth under different management options. Depending on simulated species, plant populations in understory are generated from seeds or from vegetative reproduction (rhizomes or tubers). Decomposition is simulated by several components of aboveground biomass which are transferred after dying to a series of different litterfall types. These litterfall types decompose and change their chemical composition following rates defined by empirical data, coming from field work or literature. As an ecosystem-level model, FORECAST data demands for calibration are higher than for traditional growth and yield models. Data needed are tree height, stand density, size distribution

111


in the stand, biomass accumulation, nutrient concentration, foliar leaching, litterfall production rates, nutrient inputs from mineralization and atmospheric decomposition, foliage photosynthetic adaptation and other different info on physical and chemicals properties of the stand to be simulated. For more info on data needed for calibration, see Kimmins et al. (1999). Because FORECAST is a management model, it can simulate a broad variety of forest management options, including fertilization, partial cuttings, pruning, mixed stands, etc. Disturbances such as fire, windthrow or insect defoliation can also be simulated. Timber volume predictions by FORECAST are limited by potential production of the species included in the simulation, which are described with the calibration data. Tree growth and yield in complex stands is based on the simulation of competition among plant species for limiting resources such as light and nutrients. Biological properties of simulated species determine their relative competitiveness. A more detailed description of the model and more details on calibration can be found in Kimmins et al. (1999) and Seely et al. (2002). FORECAST is used in two steps, a first phase of calibration and a posterior phase of simulation and result analysis. In the calibration phase, data defining biomass accumulation in trees and companion plant species are gathered. Together with data on foliage response to light, moisture and soil nutrients, litterfall decomposition and other environmental variables, these data are used to estimate rates for the key ecosystem processes which should reproduce the observed patterns. Then, those rates internally calibrate the simulation of ecosystem processes in FORECAST. The simulation phase is completed with the establishment of initial conditions for posterior simulations, reflecting the history of management and natural disturbances in the stand to be simulated. In the second step, the actual simulation is carried out. Annual potential growth is derived from foliar photosynthetic production. The production capacity of a given foliar biomass is assumed to be dependent on nitrogen content, corrected by shelf-shading. Photosynthetic rates are defined by kilogram of foliar biomass, a good measurement of photosynthetic activity (Brix 1971, Agren 1983). Finally, one of the most important characteristics of FORECAST is its capacity to simulate changes in site quality along rotation length, taking into account reduction of nutrient availability, changes in decomposition rates, etc. By this way, predictions are improved when compared to traditional growth and yield models, which usually lack of the capacity of predicting changes in site quality due to management activities, a key feature in adaptive management studies. This model has been widely used in a broad variety of management options, such as: (1) use of soil organic matter as an indicator of sustainability of different management options at stand level (Morris et al. 1997, Seely and Welham 2006); (2) assessment of capacity to fix carbon in boreal ecosystems (Seely et al. 2002); (3) analysis of the utility of two-step harvest system in mixed stands (Welham et al. 2002); (4) study of fire and harvest on long-term productivity in pine forests (Wei et al. 2003); (5) application of a decision support tool which uses a diarchy of

112


spatial and non spatial models to evaluate different forest management strategies with multiple objectives (Seely et al. 2004); (6) projection of productivity in poplar forests under short-term rotations (Welham et al. 2006) and (7) analysis of possible causes of productivity decline in Chinese fir (Bi et al. 2007). In all those works, the model worked in a more than acceptable way, producing realizable predictions, as described in a validation work carried out in Douglas fir plantations. (Blanco et al. 2007).

LLEMS LLEMS (Local Landscape Ecosystem Management System) is the last component of the family of models developed by The Forest Ecosystem Management Simulation Group (UBC). LLEMS is conceptually connected to the other models, such as FOECAST. This model has been specifically designed to help forest managers to analyze long-term impacts on sustainability indicators by variable retention harvest plans. LLEMS has been designed on a SIG platform to facilitate the union between different models already developed and spatial data from forest inventories, with the aim of developing a tool of forest management analysis. This decision support tool is based on ecological knowledge, is spatially explicit and it can be used in the analysis of a variety of different management plans. This model operates at intermediate spatial scale, equivalent to big stands or a Group of stands (from 20 to 2000 hectares). Although LLEMS has been developed using several models already developed, the development of a methodology to deal with spatial interactions of the ecological processes simulated is a significant scientific advance compared to a simple union of pre-existent models. Forest growth is simulated in LLEMS by applying FORECAST to individual pixels or groups of pixels with similar ecological features. The main components of LLEMS are focused on the simulation of forest regeneration, growth and development, a visual interface to use the model, Tools to export results to other visualization Systems.

4. Final considerations If credible models can be linked to visualization systems, models can also help to communicate the possible outcomes of alternative management scenarios to non-technical stakeholder groups (Messier et al. 2003). This is very important when developing adaptive management plans in which communication between different stakeholders with different levels of technical skills may be challenged by difficulties in transferring information among them. Since the main users of the above mentioned models and modelling tools are forest managers, it is important that the flow of information between scientists building the models and forest managers that need them be

113


improved in order to build better more goal orientated models. We also need to provide managers not only with quantitative predictions, but also with information about the certainty of our prediction (Blanco et al. 2007). A precise prediction that is very uncertain might not be better than a loose prediction that is more certain. In this regard, model development is mirroring the maturation of our own views regarding the roles of chance and variability in the maintenance of ecosystem integrity. Empirical research indicates that most ecosystems and landscapes can exhibit a wide range or stable or semi-stable states that we would consider more or less healthy; various methods of historical reconstruction and monitoring are now being used to describe a natural range of variability for numerous bioindicators (Messier et al. 2003). Likewise, models are becoming more stochastic, and (even when run on spatial databases) now are often designed to portray an array of possible outcomes. Expectations regarding our ability to control boreal landscapes are maturing as well, with modelling tools helping forest managers make decisions in terms of probabilities and ranges of potential future states, and visualizations helping foresters to communicate possible forest futures to non-foresters. Following this approach, our research group has linked FORECAST to several models to scaleup FORECAST predictions and to produce spatially-explicit predictions of future growth (Figure 1). FORECAST, a non-spatial simulator, can be used to predict future forest growth of several stand types. These predictions can be linked to ATLAS (Nelson 2003), a landscape-level model which uses polygons of different types to predict future timber harvested in a specific area. FORECAST’s predictions can also be used to simulate each one of the pixels that are used by SIMFOR (Daust and Sutherland 1997), a landscape-level model of biodiversity, to simulate future conditions of biodiversity in a given landscape. In addition, FORECAST output can be used to feed the Stand Visualization System (SVS, McGaughey 1997) to create visual representations at stand level. Finally, FORECAST is used as the core engine of LLEMS, simulating forest growth for each pixel represented in LLEMS in a more integrated fashion than when externally linking FORECAST to other models. Similarly, LLEMS output has been linked to CALP-Forester (Cavens 2002), to create landscape-level visualizations to improve the capacity to communicate model output for presentations to public stakeholder groups. By this way, other groups rather than scientists and technical managers can have a much better idea of future forest conditions under different management alternatives, and therefore they participation in the process of adaptive management is greatly improved. Regardless which method is used to predict, the system must be monitored (i.e., time-series field data must be taken) to ground-test and possible revise predictions. Only then can managers judge whether their predictions were accurate, and whether the management scheme needs to be altered to meet the stated objectives. Forecasting and monitoring are thus key, inextricably linked components of adaptive management (Duinker 1989). Evaluation of the appropriateness of implemented actions therefore necessarily involves measuring the actual performance of a

114


managed system and comparing that performance with the predictions made through incisive systems-analytical forecasting (Duinker an Trevisan 2003). In addition, a major focus of our work on FORECAST and LLEMS in the future is to test its predictive ability against historical data sets of natural and managed forests in New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Finland, Cuba and Spain, in addition to the tests already done in China (Bi et al. 2007), and Canada (Blanco et al. 2007, Seely et al. 2008).

115

Figure 1. Links between different forest models used at UBC.


116


A conservation framework for northeastern BC Fred L. Bunnell1, L. Kremsater2 1

Honorary professor, 2Sustainable Forest Project Manager Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada 1 [email protected], [email protected]

The goal is to create a framework that would conserve biodiversity within an area of about 18 million ha in the northeastern portion of British Columbia, covered primarily by boreal forest and various forms of wetlands. Primary land use activities are forestry, oil and gas exploration and development, with modest amounts of agriculture. Although mineral exploration and forest extraction are equally wide-spread, forestry activities are more readily regulated, so focus is on the impact of forest planning and practice on biodiversity. This program was initiated about 3 years after The Forest Project (The name changed to The Forest Strategy partway through) and incorporated lessons learned within the former. The major industrial partner is Canadian Forest Products, the largest forest company in BC. The three primary indicators of success are those of The Forest Project. The goal was to simplify application of these so that they could be effectively applied to 18 million ha. The size of the area presents a challenge to implementing adaptive management and monitoring. The initial approach was to create a Species Accounting System that assigned species to monitoring groups. The system itself is intended to1: 1. estimate approximate amounts and location within the TFL of suitable habitat for all2 forestdwelling vertebrates; 2. permit ‘scaling up’ of monitoring findings over the entire TFL, providing estimates of the amount of suitable habitat, including where and when, over the entire area; 3. provide credence to Indicators 1 and 2 by evaluating species associations with those measures; 4. provide trend estimates for species (as data are accumulated); 5. focus more expensive effectiveness monitoring on areas of greatest uncertainty; and 1 Bunnell, F.L. and P. Vernier. 2007. Monitoring vertebrates on TFL 48. Centre for Applied Conservation Research University of British Columbia. 21 pp.

▪ Vernier, P. & F. Bunnell. 2007.

Using species monitoring and map-based data in a coarse-filter approach to sustaining biodiversity. BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management (in press). 2 Group 4 species are an exception because their habitat is too finely discriminated to be included in GIS layers. For these species specifically designed Standard Operating Procedures are being created so appropriate action can be undertaken when that habitat is encountered in the field.

117


6. be self-correcting and increase the credibility of the system as data are acquired. The approach assigns species to the least costly form of monitoring appropriate to the species’ natural history. The accounting system incorporates five groups of species determined by their response to forest practice and their accessibility to monitoring. The five monitoring groups are: Group 1 – generalists, species that inhabit many habitat types or respond positively to forest practices; Group 2 – species that can be statistically assigned to broad forest types (e.g. older conifer stands); Group 3 – species with strong dependencies to specific elements (e.g. snags or shrubs), so may be useful in effectiveness monitoring; Group 4 – species restricted to specialized and highly localized habitats; and Group 5 – species for which patch size and connectivity are important (patches > 2 ha). Group 6 is included for completeness. It contains species known or expected to occur in the area, but that are not dependent upon forested environments. Developing credible assignments of species to these groups has the compelling advantages of including all forest-dwelling species and associating species with the least costly form of monitoring. Once there is confidence in the assignment of species to groups, focal species can be selected that are most informative for particular questions about the impacts of forest practices. Initial assignment to groups was focused on vertebrates and based on natural history and experience in monitoring. Simple surveys were employed to test the assignment of bird species (the richest component of vertebrate biodiversity) to these groups, and found assignments, including to 7 broad forest types, to be accurate in 83% of species tested. The next broad step was evaluate whether existing forest planning and practices appeared likely to sustain the species. Consequences of specific practices are related to specific monitoring groups (which are gradually being refined to incorporate non-vertebrate species). Two forms of monitoring are emphasized: implementation monitoring to assess whether planning and practices are being implemented as planned and effectiveness monitoring to determine whether they are attaining desired outcomes. Both implementation and effectiveness monitoring is being refined, guided by the Species Accounting System. For example, it was clear early in the program that some species required special treatment (Group 4 species) and specific forestry practices were developed for them.

118


The size of the area also meant that somewhat different issues are encountered within different forest types, topography, disturbance histories and social concerns. The overall monitoring design thus includes a core program of indicators that are applied throughout the 18 million ha area and specific indicators for conditions unique to smaller regions. The core indicators are useful only if the monitoring continues long enough to yield returns to the forest industry. That is a challenge because some impacts of forest practice require a long time to develop. We attempted to meet that challenge in two ways. First, we designed monitoring so that it is as cost effective as we could make it. Second, by ensuring that even though utility of monitoring is intended to be long term, the design yields some quick answers to questions believed important by the forest industry. These questions vary across the entire area and may require some trade-off between sustaining the core monitoring program and focusing on specific questions. However, they help to maintain industry’s financial commitment to monitoring. A further advantage is gained from including questions specific to regional practices. These questions typically present research challenges that can engage researchers and their strengths into the broader program.

119


The Forest Project Fred L. Bunnell1, L. Kremsater2 1

Honorary professor, 2Sustainable Forest Project Manager Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada 1 [email protected], [email protected] This project extended over an area of about 1.1 million ha of forested land on the coastal mainland and larger islands of British Columbia. It began with the decision of the forest operator, MacMillan Bloedel, to dramatically change its forest practices with the hope of evading confrontations with environmental non-government organizations and increasing its market share. MacMillan Bloedel was subsequently acquired by Weyerhaeuser and ultimately Western Forest Products, but key elements of the project continue. MacMillan Bloedel announced, in June 1998, that it would no longer clearcut coastal forests anywhere in British Columbia. The company recognized that actions for sustaining biological diversity and other forest values include both long-term forest planning and short-term practices. To sustain the entire mix of desired values it chose to reserve more old growth from harvest through a system of Stewardship zones and to implement variable retention instead of clearcutting. Three Stewardship zones were established: 1) The Timber zone is the primary source of economic values, and its primary goal is commercial timber production; 2) The Habitat zone has as its primary goal the conservation of wildlife and other organisms comprising biological diversity. It is viewed as an area where refinements to practice can be implemented as guided by results of monitoring; and 3) The Old-growth zone is intended primarily to maintain late seral forest conditions, so relatively little wood is removed from the zone. The first widespread application of variable retention was undertaken. Although well-reasonedi the approach had never been attempted before. MacMillan Bloedel met the challenge of assessing consequences of their new approach by creating ‘The Forest Project’. Primary objectives of The Forest Project were to make variable retention operational and create an effective approach to adaptive management, including a cost-effective monitoring program. The novel approaches to forest planning and practice had not been assessed. For both economic and ecological reasons, it was imperative that they be assessed. The most effective assessment procedure was adaptive management which required new structures to facilitate it and a strong emphasis on monitoring. The most contentious issue was maintaining biodiversity. A criteria and indicators approach was employed:

120


Criterion: Biological diversity (native species richness and its associated values) is sustained within the tenure. Indicator 1: Ecologically distinct ecosystem types are represented in the non-harvestable land base of the tenure to maintain lesser known species and ecological functions. Indicator 2: The amount, distribution and heterogeneity of stand and forest structures important to sustain native species richness are maintained over time. Indicator 3: The abundance, distribution and reproductive success of native species are not substantially reduced by forest practices. Adaptive management programs most commonly fail through lack of will or because institutional structures fail to connect scientific findings to changes in activities.ii The company recognized this problem and created three new structures to make the program work: Adaptive Management Working Group, Variable Retention Working Group, and the International Scientific Advisory Panel. The Adaptive Management Working Group was comprised primarily of researchers, including academics, consultants, employees of the company, representatives of companies with adjacent tenure, and government representatives. Initially, the group had two purposes. First, to create an approach to adaptive management for biodiversity including the objective, indicators of success in attaining that objective and efficient means of assessing the indicators. Its second purpose was to design and implement pilot studies that would determine an efficient design for the adaptive management program. The Variable Retention Working Group was composed of practitioners – those who had to implement the new planning and practices. Early discussions in the Variable Retention Working Group focused on how to make the new practices work. With time and demonstrated ability to make new practices work, discussions focused increasingly on conflicts between economic return and sustaining biodiversity – illustrating that a wicked problem remains wicked. While broad elements of the new approach and specifics of the monitoring design were developed by the Adaptive Management Working Group, the innovation and the practicality of making new practices work operationally resided primarily in the Variable Retention Working Group. Company personnel who attended both groups helped maintain communication between them. Such linkage is necessary to ensure that scientific findings do feed back to management action, and close the loop in the adaptive management process. The International Science Panel was created to provide credibility through quality control and to provide guidance from a breadth of experience. The Panel also helped evaluate the credibility

121


of any findings of the program that were contrary to existing policy or regulations. The issue of managing to sustain biodiversity is value laden and must connect with (and perhaps influence) government regulation and policy. Those features determined the composition and means of selecting the Panel. Panel members included both internationally recognized scientists and personnel of provincial and federal government agencies. There were 12 members – four chosen by the company, four chosen by environmental non-government organizations and four selected by government agencies (two provincial and two federal). The Panel met and reviewed progress every one or two years. Each year Panel membership was altered somewhat to ensure a breadth of viewpoints, but a core group was retained. Scientists on the Panel have been drawn from Australia, Europe, Canada, and the United States. The project is entering its 8th year. Its nature, successes and failures have been described.iii Notes i

Recommendations regarding variable retention were developed by The Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. Additional reviews were done by Beese & Zielke 1998 and Bunnell et al. 1998. ii Lee, 1993,1999; Lee & Lawrence 1986; Ludwig et al. 1993; Stankey & Shindler 1997 iii Beese, W.J., B.G. Dunsworth, K. Zielke, & B. Bancroft. 2003. Maintaining attributes of old-growth forests in coastal B.C. through variable retention. Forestry Chronicle 79: 579-578. ▪ Bunnell, F.L. 2005. Indicators for sustaining biological diversity in Canada's most controversial forest type - coastal temperate rainforest Ecological Indicators 8:149-157. ▪ Bunnell, F.L. 2005. Adaptive management for biodiversity in managed forests – it can be done. Pp. 3-11 in C.E. Peterson and D.A. Maguire (eds.)Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry: Proceedings of a conference. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-635. Portland, OR. ▪ Bunnell, F.L., and B.G. Dunsworth. 2004. Making adaptive management for biodiversity work: the example of Weyerhaeuser in coastal British Columbia. Forestry Chronicle 80:37-43. ▪ Bunnell, F.L., and L.L. Kremsater. 2003. Resolving forest management issues in British Columbia. Pp. 85-110 , in D. B. Lindenmayer and J.F. Franklin (eds.) Towards forest sustainability. CSIRO Publishing & Lone Pine Press. ▪ Bunnell, F., G. Dunsworth, D. Huggard, & L. Kremsater. 2003. Learning to sustain biological diversity on Weyerhaeuser’s coastal tenure. Nanaimo, BC: Weyerhaeuser. Chapters paginated separately. Available at: www.forestbiodiversityinbc.ca ▪ Huggard, D., Dunsworth, G., Herbers, J., Klenner, W., Kremsater, L., and Serrouya, R. 2006. Monitoring ecological representation in currently non-harvestable areas: four British Columbia case studies. Forestry Chronicle 82:383-394

122

123

124