Defragmenting Natural Resource Management
at the Landscape-Level:
A Governance Assessment Framework
Alex Kisingo (Universi...
Governance at the Landscape-Level…
… is critically important but under-studied
It is at landscape level that fragmentatio...
Models and Strategies for Landscape Level
Ecosystem Based Management (LLEBM)
 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
 Regional integr...
Goal of the “LLEBM” Project
To test and refine a framework for assessment
of governance systems for landscape-level
ecosys...
Social Phenomena
that Deliver
Governance

Governance
Capacities

Governance Outcomes
(Social functions
that are performed)...
Task

Descriptive Questions

Q1. What is the “identity” of
the SES?

Explanation

A description and delineation of
the lan...
Task

Description

of the

Descriptive Questions

Q6. What are the core
organizational and
institutional elements of
the g...
Task

Evaluative Indicators

Explanation

I-1. Deliberation

The extent to which stakeholders and
decision-makers
engage
i...
Task

Questions/Indicators

Explanation

I-8. Clear scope,

The extent to which decision-making bodies
goals and objective...
Task

Questions/Indicators
I-13. Resolving Tradeoffs

Assessment of I-14. Contributing to just power

Governance

relation...
Criteria for Scoring – Examples
Indicator

1

2

3

4

I-4. Equity

Institutional rules favor
some stakeholders or
communi...
Case Study: Greater Serengeti Ecosystem
in Tanzania
 An ecosystem of great importance
 A significant degree of community...
Greater Serengeti Ecosystem in Tanzania:
the Governance System
 There is a multi-stakeholder forum: SECCF
 Generally tho...
Methods
 Semi-structured interviews
 Structured questions using a Likert scale within the
semi-structured interviews
 F...
Summary of Assessment Scores
(Provisional!!!)
Governance Processes

Deliberation

1

Linkages

2

Equity

2

Governance Ou...
Some Surprises
Lowest scores related not to fair governance criteria but to the
coherence of governance at the ecosystem l...
What the assessment tells us about how to
address fragmentation
 There is some hope and some loose movement
toward ecosys...
Reflections on the Assessment Framework
 Generally, the approach works, but…
 Objective criteria to obtain quantitative ...
Acknowledgements
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada
The Serengeti Ecosystem Community Conservat...
For more information….

http://www.viu.ca/landscapelevel/
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Defragmenting natural resource management at the landscape-level: A governance assessment framework

607 views

Published on

Presented by Alex Kisingo and Lance W. Robinson at the IASC Africa Regional Meeting, Cape Town, South Africa, 9-11 April 2013.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
607
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
16
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Defragmenting natural resource management at the landscape-level: A governance assessment framework

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

×