Adaptive Governance and Evolving Solutions to Natural Resource Conflicts (WP 07/03)

Abstract#

New Zealand is facing increasing challenges in managing natural resources (land, freshwater, marine space and air quality) under pressures from domestic (population growth, agricultural intensification, cultural expectations) and international (climate change) sources.

These challenges can be described in terms of managing ‘wicked problems’; i.e. problems that may not be understood fully until they have been solved, where stakeholders have different world views and frames for understanding the problem, the constraints affecting the problem and the resources required to solve it change over time, and no complete solution is ever actually found. 

Adaptive governance addresses wicked problems through a framework to engage stakeholders in a participative process to create a long term vision.  The vision must identify competing goals and a process for balancing them over time that acknowledges conflicts cannot always be resolved in a single lasting decision.  Circumstances, goals and priorities can all vary over time and by region.  The Resource Management Act can be seen as an adaptive governance structure where frameworks for resources such as water may take years to evolve and decades to fully implement.

Adaptive management is about delivery through an incremental/experimental approach, limits on the certainty that governments can provide and stakeholders can demand, and flexibility in processes and results.  In New Zealand it also requires balancing central government expertise and resources, with local authorities which can reflect local goals and knowledge, but have varying resources and can face quite distinct issues of widely differing severity.

It is important to signal the incremental, overlapping, iterative and time-consuming nature of the work involved in developing and implementing adaptive governance and management frameworks.  Managing the expectations of those involved as to the nature of the process and their role in it, and the scope and timing of likely outcomes, is key to sustaining participation.

Acknowledgements#

I would like to thank David Galt in particular, Sue Powell, Rienk Asscher and Michele Lloyd for comments made on drafts of or presentations on this paper.

Disclaimer#

This document was commissioned by the New Zealand Treasury.  However, the views, opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in it are strictly those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent and should not be reported as those of the New Zealand Treasury.  The New Zealand Treasury takes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in, or for the correctness of, the information contained in this paper.

1  Introduction#

New Zealand has immediate and increasing economic and ecological problems arising from the way we manage and use our natural resources including freshwater, soils, marine space and fisheries.[1]The use of some natural resources in some areas is now at or above the sustainable level, so will need to be reduced (e.g. water from ground or surface sources). At the same time new demands are appearing, environmental expectations are rising, and the role of a robust environment in supporting social, economic and recreational outcomes is becoming clearer.

To meet these conflicting demands, even in part, requires re-allocating resources to higher value activities, and improving the efficiency of resource management and use.[2]These conflicting demands are common internationally as demand for higher quality environmental outcomes mirrors rising national income (Rothenburg 2003, p6).[3]  The concept of a ‘wicked’ problem (see Glossary) appears relevant.

A comprehensive response needs a vision that can draw together the full range of challenges and identify the responses needed.‘Adaptive governance’ (see Glossary) is the evolution of institutions (in the widest sense of agencies, laws, rules and norms) to move us closer to an optimum balance of goals over time.At the same time we need an ‘adaptive management’ response (see Glossary) to break the responses into practical steps, and allow for local differences in circumstances and goals.

The paper is therefore focused on processes to link institutions, goals and disciplines and does not attempt to provide rigorous economic analysis of all the concepts reviewed and how they might be applied.

Section 2 assesses current pressures in New Zealand and the issues that have emerged from them. Section 3 discusses the process of understanding goals and defining a vision, including core concepts such as sustainable development, adaptive governance and resilience (the glossary in section 7 defines these and other key terms).Section 4 deals with tools relevant to delivering on the vision and overcoming the many challenges involved.

Section 5 draws together implications for future paths in New Zealand’s approach to natural resource management in terms of the “big picture” and “delivery” at both central and local government levels.Section 6 concludes.

2  New Zealand’s Natural Resource Management Challenges#

New Zealand is facing fundamental pressures on its natural resources of varying intensity by area.The necessary responses are likely to be both time and cost intensive for regulators and users, given the value of the resources involved and the scale and length of life of the associated investments. This makes the resilience of any new management systems particularly important for future economic growth and environmental outcomes. This section therefore attempts to identify the key issues involved in managing change in those systems and ensuring that the systems endure and achieve their goals.[4]

2.1  Impacts of change and making it last#

Institutions can be formal or informal, organisational or in the form of customary practices.Whatever form they take, however, the depth of institutional change that is called for can translate directly to the level of time and effort required to make that change endure.

In terms of natural resource management in New Zealand, this relationship can be usefully portrayed in terms of Williamson’s levels of social analysis as summarised in Table 1.  The different social levels illustrated in Table 1 evolve intermittently and at different rates, with time lags in the interactions between them.

Source: (Williamson 2000)

Pressures within levels 1 and 2 can normally be managed within existing institutions.  However some pressures (whether physical or social/cultural[5]) can require more substantive responses.  Responding to pressures, without first identifying how deeply the response will affect the existing institutions, risks generating a response from stakeholders which may defeat the purpose of the reform itself.[6]

Certainty and fairness

Certainty and fairness are also both important in making change last.  Certainty is particularly difficult to deliver in environmental policy design (Table 2) and the issues involved are discussed further in the sections on complexity and sustainable development.

Several dimensions of certainty are relevant.  The first dimension is certainty about the length of the process itself.  A fast process delivers an earlier outcome, thereby minimising the period when stakeholders don’t know what their future rights and obligations will be.  This limited duration of uncertainty reduces delays in investment and foregone use. 

Source: (Pindyck 2006)

The second dimension is certainty about the durability of the new regime and the security of any rights created under it, both of which can be undermined by the ability to push change through rapidly or frequently.This type of uncertainty can have long-run costs through limiting the type and level of investment.

The final dimension is certainty about the outcomes of change, which may or may not be desirable to individual parties, but is definitely relevant to perceptions of procedural fairness.If a process is seen to have a predetermined outcome, or be biased towards particular outcomes or parties, that will affect the acceptance of the change itself.

The durability dimension of certainty overlaps with the question of procedural fairness which can be seen as an outcome in itself, although its importance can vary widely.  A clearly defined process for input by those affected, and transparent consideration of views, can reduce the stresses of designing and implementing change.  

“Individuals gain procedural utility from such participation possibilities over and above the outcome generated, because they provide a feeling of being involved and having influence, as well as of inclusion, identity and self-determination” (Frey 2004).  The extent to which perceptions of procedural fairness can be achieved will be influenced by the circumstances at hand, including urgency and economic constraints, but boosting such perceptions can increase the resilience of policy.

Real or perceived breaches of procedural fairness on the other hand can lead to exhaustive appeals and other opposition, as well as having long lasting effects in reducing the openness of the group in question, or other observers, to future action.  New Zealand examples include the construction of the Clyde Dam and the diversion of Whanganui River water into the Tongariro hydro scheme.

The change process

The design of change processes also needs to recognise that they do not take place in a static environment.  Users and regulators of resources will themselves be responding to pressures through developing new technology, applying new techniques and policies, or modifying contractual structures or pricing.[7]  Identifying the appropriate government responses is unlikely to be straightforward, and government intervention risks crowding out private or community responses by acting too soon or being unnecessarily restrictive. 

Sequencing of change can be a controversial topic but there is at least some evidence that the order in which measures are taken is less important than the overall completeness of the package (stability, reformed property rights, and effective institutions) and its tailoring  to the physical, institutional and political characteristics at hand (Rozelle 2004).  Designing change so that it reflects external trends and interfaces with them as smoothly as possible is therefore desirable.

2.2  Can our institutions adapt?#

So is it possible to design a regulatory environment (institutional and legal) for natural resources that can adapt smoothly to changing circumstances without undermining investment incentives, ecological viability and the New Zealand way of life?

As a first step toward answering that (rather large) question, this section discusses New Zealand’s current resource management frameworks. The remainder of the paper then explores available concepts and experience before trying to pull an answer together.

New Zealand has tightly knit central government institutions and interest groups.Individual experts and officials can stay in place for some time and have good linkages, and relevant groups can be easy to draw together. There is a risk that individual animosities or limited institutional capability will be difficult to address in such small groups, but no solid evidence of that occurring.

The concentration of most resource management issues under a single statute (the RMA) and of most operational activities within regional councils is one clear advantage. Another is the catchment basis of regional council boundaries which brings most water related issues under one jurisdiction, avoiding a overseas problem found overseas of having multiple venues to challenge decisions (Scholz 2005).[8]  Potential downsides include too great a burden on council resources (which vary widely) and divergences between regional and national priorities and interests.

RMA – strengths and weaknesses

The Resource Management Act (RMA) is the core legislation for natural resource management in New Zealand.[9]It emphasises consultation, local democracy and balancing objectives, and can be seen as a framework for identifying goals, rights and responsibilities and managing their evolution through public planning processes.

The RMA incorporates a concept of nested institutions, with national guidance framing regional decisions and local implementation. It also offers a participative approach, including iwi (tribal) plans and community submissions, with flexibility for plans to adapt and their interpretation to evolve as goals and circumstances change.

At the same time the RMA demonstrates the difficulties and costs of such integration in terms of the time lags involved and remaining inconsistencies in application of the framework between sectors and across the country.The administering councils also have varying capabilities and priorities which can frustrate resource users. The RMA also has drawbacks in managing long-term resource allocations as rights have limited duration and tend to be allocated administratively.

Overall, though, after difficult adjustment periods, the various stakeholders in regimes such as the RMA and the Fisheries Act appear to understand the legal instruments involved, their relative roles in the various process and the rights and obligations held. They and the government have made a substantial investment in that institutional structure.Even at the highest conceptual level, interpretations of key terms such as sustainable management” have been explored and developed over time to form a common understanding[10].

These legislative regimes can cope with many low level changes without major disruption. Their resilience to more substantive change has not been fully tested. For example the question of security of water rights relating to investments such as those in hydro dams which outlive the legislation that governs them remains open.[11]Where such unresolved conflicts affect significant investment decisions there will be an incentive to generate one-off solutions (e.g. the special legislation to develop a water plan for the Waitaki catchment). If one-off solutions proliferate, however, or have particularly large impacts, they may undermine the broader regimes.

A unique New Zealand challenge?

Beyond the RMA and government structure issues, another important aspect of the New Zealand situation is that we have relied to a greater extent than more intensively developed nations on the geographical segregation of natural resource uses to minimise potential conflicts.

The move to separate commercial forestry areas from the conservation estate a generation ago, and the historic separation of farming and conservation activities, make New Zealand practice very different to what is common in more densely populated societies such as in Europe.[12]

New Zealand is now, however, reaching the limits of its ability to expand commercial and recreational use of natural resources (e.g. freshwater and coastal space) in some regions without significant levels of direct conflict between competing users and interests. In a sense the ‘frontier’ is closing and reopening it will require institutions that can better facilitate changing resource use.

Adopting the multifunctionality approach used in Europe (paying farmers separately for environmental outcomes and their agricultural products) is problematic due to the lesser degree of overlap between agricultural and conservation goals in New Zealand, the potential for subsidies to become a trade policy rather than environmental tool, and the risk that ill-designed subsidies may generate more environmental damage than environmental good. Therefore we need another route to manage our growing use conflicts.

What we need

Whatever route New Zealand takes in addressing its natural resource management challenges must have the resilience to cope with shifting scientific understanding and inherent gaps in information, be able to adequately identify and allow for potential future pressures,[13]and manage stakeholder conflicts (particularly gaps between scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders).[14]

It will also require a more explicit trade-off between providing certainty to stakeholders on the one hand and safeguarding flexibility for regulators to adapt policy to changing circumstances on the other hand. Longer term permits support investment but can hinder change (Berardo 2005). Those with significant investments and supply obligations may value adaptive approaches only if they include stability for them (over the life of a project at least) or at least a stable framework for managing change during a project. Such design issues should be considered whenever rights structures are being designed.

That unavoidable trade-off becomes “less favourable, the further is the initial allocation of rights from the socially optimal allocation”, making early action desirable where institutions or transaction costs prevent self-adjustment (Quiggin 2006, p430).[15]Water policy in New Zealand may now be facing such legacy issues with demand to take water exceeding supply and runoff from land use at unacceptable levels in some areas.

Overall, the tight-knit nature of New Zealand’s central government structures and the integrated legislative framework may help pull together the necessary natural resource management responses and maintain those responses over the length of time needed to generate meaningful results.[16]

The major question addressed in the remainder of this paper is whether and how international experience can help us do so.

3  Adaptive Governance - Defining a Vision#

Does international experience offer frameworks and tools that can help us identify and meet the challenges we face in managing demands on our natural resources? This section looks at lessons available in managing the frameworks challenge while the next deals with tools.

The first stage in identifying and meeting the challenges ahead is to acknowledge the complexity of what is being managed; i.e. interacting social and ecological processes operating at national, regional and local level and evolving over months, years or decades. Water use for example can involve dams that last a hundred years, millions of dollars to convert an extensive pastoral farm to intensive irrigated dairying, and groundwater impacts that may take decades to emerge.

The next stage is to define what we mean by sustainable development and determine what exactly we are trying to preserve or create; this can then lead on to decisions about whether to promote resilience or adaptability in policies, institutions and ecosystems.

So how do we manage complexity, what is sustainable development, what does resilience really mean, and how can the necessary vision be pulled together and sustained?

3.1  Managing complexity#

Growing pressures on natural resources are a worldwide issue. Common problems include competing objectives from the same resources (e.g. irrigation, electricity generation, wildlife preservation, canoeing and fishing), growing public expectations of access to nature and for its preservation and business demands for investment certainty.

All of these demands exist in a context of growing volatility in environmental systems (e.g. more extreme weather shifts), and a growing risk of state changes (e.g. a change in dominant plant or animal species) because ecosystem resilience has been reduced (Folke 2005). These factors combine and interact to create the ‘wicked’ problems we now face.

Complexity is inherent in ecosystems because of external impacts (e.g. irrigation can deplete groundwater and can lead to contamination in streams), uncertain internal interactions (what are the critical functions performed by any given plant or animal and how is it affected by land use changes?) and threshold effects (e.g. lake eutrophication[17]once pollution reaches certain levels or the effect of over-fishing of predator species on the makeup of marine populations).

Scale issues can be spatial; e.g. the need to manage air quality in cities, water systems at the catchment level, and climate change globally. They can also be temporal; e.g. time lags in ecosystem changes and investment decisions.[18] Where issues must be managed across multiple scales, this puts pressure on management structures to co-ordinate and sustain efforts.

Finally social and ecological changes interact. Social components of social-ecological systems include diverse groups of varying size (families, fishers or boaties, tribes, etc), with different goals and impacting the environment through different practices (e.g. agriculture, hunting, walking and swimming. Likewise ecosystems operate at many different overlapping scales. Social behaviours shape and are shaped by the environment, and social and cultural values also slowly shift over time. Managing either social or ecological effects without accounting for the other risks ultimate failure.

Traditional approaches to public policy face difficulties in addressing natural resource pressures because of the above issues. This is a concern if it is correct to argue that “evidence points to a situation where periods of abrupt change are likely to increase in frequency, duration and magnitude” (Folke 2005, p442),[19]such as the more volatile weather that has been predicted as a consequence of climate change.

Complexity can of course be managed and is. Effectively managing complex interactions and competing objectives requires integrating multiple levels of government, resources users and stakeholders, in a manner that does not result in ‘paralysis by analysis’ or ‘consultation fatigue’.

Such an integrated approach includes balancing multiple overlapping goals, comprehending ecological and social conditions that are changing in uncertain ways, incorporating evolving scientific understanding and multiple data sources, and increasing the resilience of policy frameworks and ecosystems. This challenge can be argued to be beyond the scope of traditional ‘scientific management’ approaches and single purpose statutes and agencies (Brunner 2005).

There is some literature, and limited experience, on describing the task discussed above and developing a framework within which to address it. Core concepts from this literature and experience include sustainable development, resilience and ‘adaptive governance’.

3.2  Sustainable development#

So what are we trying to achieve in this complex world? The simple answer is sustainable development. Even commonly accepted definitions of that term, however, raise questions given uncertainties about the longer-term impact of activities and debates around the relative weightings of future and present needs.

Other complicating factors include incompatible demands (e.g. clear-cutting of timber versus carbon sequestration), demand exceeding supply in the absence of appropriate price signals and rights (e.g. for water in fast-growing urban areas), limited scientific understanding of ecological conditions, and the interaction of social constraints and ecological conditions (Brunner 2005).[20]

Sustainable development is therefore “a ‘wicked’ or unstructured problem for government”, but it can still provide a useful wider focus for coordination of long-term policies (Kemp 2003, p2).[21] Such a focus role fits well with an adaptive policy framework that recognises a range of goals but does not itself attempt to resolve them. Rather it allows the appropriate resolution to vary regionally and over time and is resilient to change in goals and circumstances.

This type of role moves us from trying to deliver equilibrium outcomes or particular “desirable states” to “resilience analysis, with a simultaneous focus on adaptive ... governance” (Walker 2004). In other words rather than try to produce a particular environmental equilibrium, we should aim to develop a regulatory regime that can adapt itself to changing social and environmental conditions, and to put the ecosystem into a state where it can cope with shocks.

An example of such a regime could involve specifying the level of resource use permitted (e.g. water abstracted from an aquifer) based on rolling measures of rainfall with buffers built in to prevent a collapse in pressure. Abstraction rights could then be traded and send signals about scarcity that would encourage efficient use.

One of the key factors in unsustainable resource use tends to be lack of price signals regarding the scarcity of resources (e.g. water) or the third-party impacts of an activity (e.g. runoff into waterways).

3.3  Resilience and realistic goals#

That fact that answers can vary by location and time is a primary reason why ‘resilience’ in institutions, societies and ecosystems is at the core of sustainable development policy. The goal of assessing and actively managing resilience is therefore to increase the capacity of regulatory regimes and the underlying social-ecological systems[23]to absorb shocks without environmental degradation or triggering a state change.[24]We therefore preserve our options for the future.

A more formal hypothesis is that “because of positive feedbacks causing non-linear dynamics and regimes shift in social-ecological systems a resilience approach will be required for guiding management and policy towards sustainability” (Folke 2006).

To put it another way, ignorance of what drives ecosystem change increases the importance of giving ourselves more margin for error. If we make a mistake, a more resilient policy regime or ecosystem may give us time to correct it. An example is adapting to the consequences of climate change. A better system for managing water use, such as designing water use rights to allow for flow variation, or facilitating infrastructure investment, can help farmers deal with the greater volatility of water availability that climate change is likely to bring.

Resilience is used here rather than robustness because of the longer-term focus on institutions that can able to adjust to changing goals and circumstances, rather than developing a single lasting solution. While robust institutions are desirable at any point in time or even over lengthy periods to minimise the frequency of change, the reality of change and the ability to accommodate it needs to be recognised and built in.

Preserving our options like this is itself a demanding task. It requires us to focus on resilience at multiple scales, understand natural processes and socio-economic drivers and take account of multiple possible outcomes, system dynamics, uncertainties and thresholds.

Simply putting together the ecological, biological and social science information to support such an approach is a major challenge (Hughes 2005) but can be done or at least begun. Environmental classifications, data collection, research and development of policy responses all form part of the mix.

If the necessary understanding can be achieved, the next step of actually building resilience is also complex. It requires recognising the interdependence of social systems with nature, providing for flexible collaboration, and creating indicators of change and thresholds for action (Folke 2002b).

Examples could include providing planners with methods for determining environmental flows in different types of water-bodies, requiring comprehensive and consistent metering of water takes, and providing alternative allocation methodologies to suit different hydrological circumstances and use combinations.

A further challenge is the tension between building the resilience of an existing system and building its capacity for major transformation if resilience proves insufficient (Walker 2004). Too rigid a system may collapse completely in response to a major external shock such as climate change.[26]

This then raises the question of what are we trying to sustain? “Valued environments are typically products of the co-evolution of human and semi-natural systems” with greatly varying ability to recreate them (if possible) (Hodge 2004, p339). An example is the current state of the South Island high country after more than century of extensive sheep farming. Are we trying to set that (or some other status quo) in stone, or to build the dynamic capacity of ecosystems to survive in whatever form best suits changed conditions?

Climate change will increasingly face us with such decisions. We may increasingly be faced with considering how long we can afford to defer a change in a particular system (years or decades?), or of deciding how we want to shape that change.

3.4  Adaptive governance and defining a vision#

The above discussions have illustrated the complexities involved in understanding and applying concepts such as sustainable development and resilience.

Doing so in practice and over time needs a secure foundation such as an agreed vision that recognises the complexity of the challenges and goals faced, allows for their evolution, and balances demands for resilience and adaptability in policies and outcomes.

Defining such a vision, and sustaining it over the timeframes and geographical dimensions (local/national/global) required, calls for a robust governance structure.

Adaptive governance aims to create institutions that can bring together a range of stakeholders and knowledge, commit to action at the necessary spatial and temporal scales (e.g. in New Zealand at the national, regional, territorial authority or community level), and evolve as demands and circumstances change. [28]

An adaptive governance structure would need to co-ordinate multiple stakeholders, perspectives, knowledge bases and goals across levels of government, national and regional dimensions. It would also support multiple policy instruments, communications methods, participation processes and timelines. Co-ordination and integration are major challenges but also unavoidable ones.

New Zealand’s existing tightly knit central government structures and integrated RMA framework, as discussed previously, put us in a good starting position to try and meet the challenges of adaptive governance. Central-local government relationships, and the balance between consistency and local variation, remain challenges.

4  Adaptive Management – Delivering the Vision#

If the governance challenges of natural resource management can be met, and an overall vision of what is to be achieved can be provided, then the next challenge is to create the management structures and tools to deliver that vision.

So what does adaptive management look like, what scope is there for flexible and incremental approaches to policy, what are the specific challenges posed by such approaches and what tools exist to meet them?

4.1  Adaptive Management#

Adaptive management can mean different things to different people, but the focus here is on sustainably managing natural resources; e.g. “there is a need for water rights systems that can adjust over time, not freezing into a single equilibrium pattern of allocation, but adaptively responding to continuing shifts in water availability, demand, and societal priorities” (Bruns 2005, p296-297).

Traditional approaches such as “scientific management” and centralised prescriptive regulation have limited effectiveness in responding to ecological problems across different scales, particularly in interpreting and responding to ecological feedback or intersecting issues (e.g. managing groundwater and surface flows, salinisation and nutrient enrichment, seasonal or annual rainfall variations, differences in agricultural practices or recreational demands, and urban growth).

One response to conflict is risk aversion, such as strong interpretations of the ‘precautionary principle’ which require action and place the burden of proof entirely on proponents of an activity to prove its safety (Paterson 2006). This tendency can be particularly prominent when faced with the risk of state changes in ecosystems (where the thresholds for change and its likely magnitude may be unknown and the change irreversible; e.g. collapse of an aquifer). Prescriptive precautionary measures may achieve their goal but carry the risk of doing so at an unnecessarily high cost.

A key element of an adaptive approach, on the other hand, is to lower the cost of collaboration and conflict resolution through legislation and policies which support and enable creativity in delivery (Folke 2005). Local experiments can often inform national policies, and vice versa, as part of a strategic approach to innovation.

Enabling creativity can require treating policies as hypotheses, and individual government actions as experiments, placing stress on traditional government procedures (Folke 2005). Formal governmental institutions can often have difficulty with incorporating flexibility into systems that require assurance that proper procedures were followed, that those procedures were fair and efficient, and are expected to deliver certainty in outcomes. At the same time, the reality is often that practical delivery of government decisions and services is more flexible, pragmatic and driven by unofficial social norms than the official picture would suggest.

The effort of enabling flexibility, however, can be rewarded over time. Diversity (in institutions, responses and outcomes) can function as a form of insurance against policy or implementation failure, as long as the risks of duplication, inconsistency and transaction costs are well managed (Folke 2005).[29]

Adaptive management does not mean a free-for-all. To be effective over time, adaptation must be guided by a consistent vision, aim at achieving an agreed set of outcomes and keep stakeholders engaged. Delivering it requires increasing the formal or informal ‘adaptive capacity’ of institutions (Folke 2002b), allowing them to live with change, combine different knowledge systems and encourage diversity.

Any viable framework for adaptive management must take into account the interaction of ecological and social constraints. Sustainable development means “co-optimizing economy and environment” (Kemp 2003), or in simpler terms delivering the combination of economic and ecological outcomes that maximises sustainable national welfare.

Local solutions

Viewing a social-ecological system as a whole also may open up alternatives to a stark choice between open access and central control. Locally evolved solutions (e.g. rules for inshore fisheries) may demonstrate high resilience.[30] Such local solutions recognise the extent to which “collective management and governance of common pool resources emerges from interactions between people linked in communities. There are formal and informal rules … cultural and social norms and … laid out by organisations, legislation or government departments” “often observable only at the community level” (Straton 2005, p40-41).

Local solutions do, however, often require wider support in such areas as effective and low-cost monitoring and verification, a moderate pace of change, frequent communication, low exclusion costs and user support for monitoring and enforcement (Dietz 2003). They may also depend on an assurance that outcomes will be respected by higher levels of government and sustained over time.

Distinguishing real examples of delegated authority to co-management groups, from stakeholder consultation bodies set up to reduce conflicts, can help manage expectations and avoid disruptive disillusionment (Folke 2005). This includes clearly identifying whether the involvement of stakeholders is sought purely for consultation, to carry out a particular function, or as part of a truly interactive process. Over-promising on participation can be worse than not having it at all.

Transition, experimental and incremental processes

As noted above, experimental or incremental approaches are an important component of an adaptive natural resource policy because of the extent of uncertainty and the degree of variation in causes and outcomes.[32]

Some material uses the terminology ‘transition management’ which may be more palatable to some interests, but there is a real argument that processes such as sustainable development either cannot be managed but just influenced, or have no actual stable end point so can not really be seen as transitional.[33]

Whatever the terminology, adaptive or transitional proposals can be evaluated for immediate impacts and contributions to the overall goal but do not necessarily involve a pre-selected path to that goal. The approach is incremental, shaped by long-term thinking (Kemp 2003). [34]

5  Future Paths for New Zealand#

Going back to the discussion of New Zealand’s natural resource management needs earlier in this paper, the overall goal was to build in the potential for more flexibility without undermining those areas where certainty is essential, with an intermediate objective of building resilience.  This goal is driven by the growing awareness of approaching problems (Folke 2005) and the need to co-optimise economic and environmental outcomes (Kemp 2003).   

A key theme identified is a long-term vision within which experimental and incremental (adaptive) approaches to regulation can be applied.[52]  Such approaches are consistent with government efforts to boost innovation in New Zealand but may require a greater tolerance of diversity in regulation over time. 

Freshwater[53] and the marine environment[54] may be examples of where adaptive approaches can be applied.  Both the oceans and water debates involve multiple perspectives, conflicting interests, strongly held values, uncertainty over impacts, multiple agencies and levels of government, and long time frames. 

Progress on oceans policy has been slow and interrupted but each stage has built on work to that point, and provided an overall vision.  In water policy, after extensive public consultation and stakeholder engagement, Cabinet has endorsed an approach to work with stakeholders to deliver guidance to support changes to water management to address quantity and quality issues.  Table 5 illustrates key implications for New Zealand drawn from the discussions above. 

Sources: developed for this paper.

Lake Taupo and the Rotorua lakes have also demonstrated the value of an incremental or experimental approach with long time lags and different models to reflect local circumstances.[55]Both lakes have also required new approaches to governance such as a Trust jointly funded by central, regional and local government to address water quality issues in Lake Taupo, and the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Joint Committee.[56]

Adaptive approaches have also been adopted at the regional level for urban planning with the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy noting that “adaptable mechanisms means being able to select a range of appropriate techniques to implement the strategy over its 50-year lifetime”.[57] Those techniques include statutory and non-statutory mechanisms such as plans, strategies, design guides, road pricing, public funding, memorandums of understanding and joint ventures.

Delivering real progress from adaptive approaches, rather than policy paralysis and endless consultation, requires balancing broad participation with effective action. This task may be easier at the vision level in New Zealand than larger countries because we are a small country with a strong central government. Conversely, actual delivery may be harder in a system that so extensively delegates environmental decisions to the local level. Resolving the relative roles of central and local government in environmental management has been a key issue in the processes cited above, and is likely to remain so.

6  Conclusion#

The discussion in this paper has illustrated the range of issues involved in delivering robust and effective responses to ‘wicked’ problems, focusing on using natural resource management issues such as water and land use.   

It has shown that achieving and applying agreement on the problems faced and how to address them requires linking vision and implementation in a mutually reinforcing process over what may be quite lengthy periods.  Such a linkage requires an informed consensus of stakeholders and effective institutions, as well as recognition that it will often not be possible to agree on a single set of outcomes at any point in time or resolve conflicts among those outcomes in any single lasting set of decisions. 

Rather, any vision may recognise conflicting demands and a process for balancing them over time.    The RMA can be seen as providing such a structure.  Adaptive management approaches more broadly attempt to deal with such conflicts, within the overall vision, through a wide and flexible policy toolkit and processes to incorporate changes in science, information, and socio-economic and environmental priorities. 

The necessary institutions are likely to involve varying levels of central government, local government and stakeholder involvement to suit the specific circumstances.  Such variations may require explicit acceptance of a more flexible and diverse system of governance for environmental issues in New Zealand as demonstrated in the Fiordland, Lake Taupo and Rotorua Lakes initiatives cited earlier. 

Actions should avoid imposing unnecessary limitations on future options but facilitate evolution of appropriate solutions over time (which may vary by region).   This is not about “picking winners” but letting winners emerge and evolve over time in response to changing demands and opportunities – what can be seen as experimental/incremental policy or institutional learning. [58]

Such an approach requires policy frameworks that acknowledge the need for flexibility and incorporate informal and formal institutions with incentives to seek realistic compromises, and able to make adjustments when required.  It also requires a flexible toolkit, ranging from regulation (prescriptive or outcome-based), to market instruments that can signal changing conditions to users and encourage and reward innovative responses, and informal or non-binding tools such as agreed strategies.  Whatever tools are used need to be well grounded and sustained over the longer term.

Finally, it is important to signal the incremental, overlapping, iterative and time-consuming nature of developing and implementing adaptive governance and management frameworks.  Managing the expectations of those involved as to the nature of their roles (e.g. consultative or decision-making), and the limited scope of likely outcomes from any individual project, is key to sustaining such complex processes over what may be decades rather than years of development and implementation.

7  Glossary#

8  References#

Andrew, Simon (2005) "Fenholloway river initiative: Collaborative problem-solving within the permit system." in John and Stiftel Scholz, Bruce ed Adaptive governance and water conflict: New institutions for collaborative planning (Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future): 274.

Berardo, Ramiro (2005) "The east central Florida regional water supply planning initiative - creating collaboration." in John and Stiftel Scholz, Bruce ed Adaptive governance and water conflict: New institutions for collaborative planning (Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future): 274.

Brouwer, Floor ed (2004) Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment: Governance, policy and multifunctionality. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)

Brouwer, Floor and Van de Straaten, Jan ed (2002) Nature and agriculture in the European union: New perspectives on policies that shape the European countryside. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)

Brouwer, R; Turner, R; Georgiou, S and van den Bergh, J (2003) "Integrated assessment as a decision support tool." in R.Kerry Turner, van den Burgh, Jeroen and Brouwer, Roy ed Managing wetlands: An ecological economics approach (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 318.

Brunner, Ronald; Steelman, Toddi; Coe-Juell, Lindy; Cromley, Christina; Edwards, Christine and Tucker, Donna (2005) Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making. (New York: Columbia University Press).

Bruns, Bryan Randolph; Ringler, Claudia; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela; ed (2005) Water rights reform: Lessons for institutional design. (Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI))

Coe-Juell, Lindy (2005a) "The 15-mile reach: Let the fish tell us." in Ronald; Steelman Brunner, Toddi; Coe-Juell, Lindy; Cromley, Christina; Edwards, Christine and Tucker, Donna ed Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making (New York: Columbia University Press).

Coe-Juell, Lindy (2005b) "The Oregon plan: A new way of doing business." in Ronald; Steelman Brunner, Toddi; Coe-Juell, Lindy; Cromley, Christina; Edwards, Christine and Tucker, Donna ed Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making (New York: Columbia University Press).

Cook, David and Lonsdale, Mark (2006) "A strategic protection approach to biosecurity: Policy implications of an 'immune system' model for addressing the risks and consequences of invasive species  http://www.Aomevents.Com/aares2006/papers/cook.Pdf.")

Cooper, Joseph Perali, Frederico and Veronesi, Marcella ed (2006) Integrated assessment and management of public resources. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)

Cromley, Christina (2005) "Community-based forestry goes to Washington." in Ronald; Steelman Brunner, Toddi; Coe-Juell, Lindy; Cromley, Christina; Edwards, Christine and Tucker, Donna ed Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making (New York: Columbia University Press).

Dedekorkut, Aysin (2005) "Suwannee river partnership: Representation instead of regulation." in John and Stiftel Scholz, Bruce ed Adaptive governance and water conflict: New institutions for collaborative planning (Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future): 274.

Dietz, Thomas; Ostrom, Elinor and Stern, Paul (2003) "The struggle to govern the commons." Science 302(5652): 1907-1912.

Edelenbos, Jurian (2005) "Institutional implications of interactive governance: Insights from Dutch practice  http://www.Blackwell-synergy.Com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00268.X/pdf." Governance: an international journal of policy, administration, and institutions 18(1): 111-134.

Edwards, Christine (2005) "Grassbanks: Diffusion and adaptation from the radical center." in Ronald; Steelman Brunner, Toddi; Coe-Juell, Lindy; Cromley, Christina; Edwards, Christine and Tucker, Donna ed Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making (New York: Columbia University Press).

Folke, Carl (2002a) "Ecological principles and environmental economic analysis." in Jeroen van de Bergh ed Handbook of environmental and resources economics (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 1300.

Folke, Carl (2006) "Research program: Resilience and sustainability - integrated research on social-ecological systems  http://www.Ecology.Su.Se/projects/projects.Asp?Id=85." Centre of Excellence - Resilience and Sustainability: Integrated Research on Social-Ecological Systems)

Folke, Carl; Carpenter, Steve; Elqvist, Carl; Gunderson, Lance; Holling, CS; Walker, Brian; Bengtsson, Jan; Berkes, Fikret; Colding, Johan; Danell, Kjell; Falkenmark, Malin; Gordon, Line; Kasperson, Roger; Kautsky, Nils; Kinzig, Ann; Levin, Simon; Maler, Karl-Goran; Moberg, Fredrik; Ohlsson, Leif; Olsson, Per; Ostrom, Elinor; Reid, Walter; Rockstrom, Johan; Savenije, Hubert, and Svedin, Uno (2002b) "Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformation." http://www.unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/sustainable-development/resilience-sd.pdf>

Folke, Carl; Hahn, Thomas; Olsson, Per and Norberg, Jon (2005) "Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30(November): 441-473.

Frey, Bruno Matthias, Benz and Stutzer, Alois (2004) "Introducing procedural utility: Not only what but also how matters." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (formerly Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft)(160): 377-401.

Guerin, Kevin (2003a) "Encouraging quality regulation: Theories and tools." Wellington, New Zealand Treasury, Working Paper No 03/24. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-24>

Guerin, Kevin (2003b) "Property rights and environmental policy: A New Zealand perspective." Wellington, New Zealand Treasury, Working Paper No 03/02. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-02>

Guerin, Kevin (2004) "Theory vs reality: Making environmental use rights work in New Zealand." Wellington, New Zealand, New Zealand Treasury, Working Paper No 04/06. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2004/04-06>

Hodge, Ian (2004) "Methodology and action: Economic rationales and agri-environmental policy choices." in Floor Brouwer ed Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment: Governance, policy and multifunctionality (Northampton: Edward Elgar): 360.

Hughes, Terence P; Bellwood, David; Folke, Carl; Steneck, Robert and Wilson, James (2005) "New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(7): 380-386.

Kemp, Rene and Loorbach, Derk (2003) "Governance for sustainability through transition management." (Maastricht)

Leitman, Steven (2005) "Apalachicola -Chattahoochee-flint basin: Tri-state negotiations of a water allocation formula." in John and Stiftel Scholz, Bruce ed Adaptive governance and water conflict: New institutions for collaborative planning (Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future): 274.

Luijt, Jan and van der Hamsvoort, Carel (2002) "The pivotal role of the agricultural land market in the Netherlands." in Floor and Van de Straaten Brouwer, Jan ed Nature and agriculture in the European union: New perspectives on policies that shape the European countryside (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 299.

MAF policy (2006) "Bridging the gap between environmental knowledge and research, and desired environmental outcomes to achieve sustainable land management." Wellington. http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/land-management/bridging-the-gap/index.htm>

Matthews, Robin and Selman, Paul (2006) "Landscape as a focus for integrating human and environmental processes." Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2): 199-212.

Olsson, Per; Folke, Carl and Berkes, Fikret (2004). . Environ. Manage. 34, 75-90 (2004) "Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems." Environmental Management 34: 75-90.

Ozawa, Connie (2005) "Putting science in its place." in John and Stiftel Scholz, Bruce ed Adaptive governance and water conflict: New institutions for collaborative planning (Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future): 274.

Painter, D.B.M. and Bright, J.C. (2006) "Participatory & adaptive management of groundwater allocation: A Selwyn catchment case study." (Christchurch NZWWA Water Conference 2006)

Paterson, Deborah (2006) "Precaution: Principles and practice in Australian environmental and natural resource management." Manly, Presidential Address, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, 50th annual conference. >

Pero, Lionel (2005) "From governance rhetoric to practical reality: Making community-based natural resource management decision-making work." Griffith Journal of the Environment(1): 1-30.

Pindyck, Robert (2006) "Uncertainty in environmental economics." NBER, Working Paper No. 12752. http://papers.nber.org/papers/w12752.pdf>

Quiggin, John (2006) "Repurchase of renewal rights: A policy option for the national water initiative." The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 50(3)(September): 425-435.

Rothenburg, Lawrence (2003) "Putting adaptive governance in perspective.")

Rozelle, Scott and Swinnen, Johan F.M. (2004) "Success and failure of reform: Insights from the transition of agriculture." Journal of Economic Literature 42(2): 403-456.

Scholz, John and Stiftel, Bruce ed (2005) Adaptive governance and water conflict: New institutions for collaborative planning. (Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future)

Shaw, W.Douglas (2005) Water resource economics and policy: An introduction. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

Shortle, James and Abler, David (2002) "Agriculture and the environment." in Jeroen van de Bergh ed Handbook of environmental and resources economics (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 1300.

Steelman, Todd and Tucker, Donna (2005) "The Camino-Real: To care for the land and serve the people." in Ronald; Steelman Brunner, Toddi; Coe-Juell, Lindy; Cromley, Christina; Edwards, Christine and Tucker, Donna ed Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making (New York: Columbia University Press).

Strang, Veronica (2004) The meaning of water. (Oxford: Berg).

Straton, Anna and Gerritsen, Rolf (2005) "Using network theory to analyse adaptive resource governance and distribution.")

Turner, R; Brouwer, R; Georgiou, S, Baterman, I; Langford, I, Green M and Voisey, H (2003) "Management of a multi-purpose, open access wetland: The Norfolk and Suffolk broads, UK." in R.Kerry Turner, van den Burgh, Jeroen and Brouwer, Roy ed Managing wetlands: An ecological economics approach (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar): 318.

van der Meer, Marc; Visser, Jelle, Wilthagen, Ton; van der Heijden, Paul (2004) "Adaptive and reflexive governance - changing boundaries of national social-economic decision making in the Netherlands.")

Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; and Kinzig, A (2004) "Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems." Ecology and Society 9(2).

Williamson, Oliver (2000) "The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead." Journal of Economic Literature XXXVIII(September 2000): 595-613.