The Adaptive Management Process
Adaptive management is difficult to define probably because it is how we imagine all management should be undertaken (although this is not true). It was originally called "adaptive environmental assessment and management".
Adaptive management is a flexible system which is designed to cope with uncertainty and complexity in natural environmental and social systems, by enabling current information, obtained as part of the management process, to be taken into consideration.
In
adaptive management actions are progressively modified according to
the latest and best information.
Others have called it experimental management or even, sometimes in a rather derogative way, "learning by doing". An adaptive management process has two vital components:
a monitoring system which will enable the actual conditions to be defined;
a response system which enables changes in the management actions as a result of feedback from the system in question.
The Model Used in TDA/SAP Activities
Figure 1 shows a suggested model of adaptive management for the TDA/SAP process. Several important points are illustrated.
Adaptive management has to operate over an extended timescale. The project for which it is designed should be long and the proposal is likely to be for a management plan which lasts longer than that. There must be adequate time for impacts, resulting from the management actions, to occur and be assessed.
There must be appropriate mechanisms built in to enable this assessment including the development of long and short term indicators. This includes a monitoring strategy for all the chosen indicators over appropriate timescales to ensure that changes which do occur are noted.
Adaptive management involves not just consideration of natural sciences and ecosystem effects but also wider aspects such as the social effects of particular actions and the impact of differing approaches to governance.
The first step in this model is an initial assessment or statement of the current conditions. This is available in these studies as the TDA. The TDA should contain information about the full range of transboundary problems and where possible their root causes. This assessment should be revised periodically.
Once this has been obtained the next step involves setting objectives, towards which changes will be aimed and against which changes, good or bad, will be compared. Two types of objectives will be necessary:
long-term Ecosystem Quality Objectives (EcoQOs)
short-term operational or management targets
The long term objectives reflect the general goals or vision that is desired for the system some decades in the future (measured in terms of environmental status).
Figure 1 - The TDA/SAP Adaptive Management Model
The short term targets are pragmatic steps along the route to the longer term goals. These short term targets will need to be monitored regularly (using stress reduction and process indicators) to find out whether progress is being made towards the long-term goals, and should be adjusted (or adapted) if necessary to ensure that they lead towards the EcoQOs as rapidly as is practical.
The next stage is to determine what management actions are necessary to enable the objectives to be reached. These actions are drivers of change within the system being managed. The impact of these drivers of change is what should be observed when the system is monitored.
Feedback in adaptive management
Adaptive management is based on the acceptance that people do not always have sufficient knowledge or understanding to reliably manage ecosystems. Indeed we nearly always lack information of one sort or another. Uncertainty and our ignorance means that surprising things happen which we do not expect. Therefore when a decision about an action is taken, a careful assessment is carried out of the impact of that action on the system of concern.
There is then the opportunity to modify the chosen course of action to ensure the overall direction is appropriate and will enable the goals or chosen state to be reached. This requires both a clear vision of the desired outcome of the project, and indicators which reflect unambiguously the impact of the actions taken.
Adaptive management can be active or passive. These are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.
Passive adaptive management is based on formulating predictive models upon which decisions are made about actions to be taken. The system observed is then very carefully monitored and the results compared with the predicted outputs. The predictive model is then scrutinised and revised as appropriate to more accurately reflect the conditions observed in the real world. On the basis of this further action will be proposed.
This is a rigorous scientific process of modelling and prediction, but it does not involve controls or replication and is not random as would be expected in experiments on natural ecosystem functions. This means that while it may be possible to correlate management actions with changes in the observed system it will not enable causal links between action and impact to be made.
Figure 2 - Passive adaptive management
Example
of passive adaptive management: A
Threatened Inter-Tidal Ecosystem Suffering from a Reduction in
Biodiversity Management
actions taken to protect the ecosystem and improve biodiversity
could include excluding people from the area. However, any
improvements could be a result of natural ecosystem changes
associated with weather or more distant drivers such as changes in
socioeconomic conditions leading to a reduction in tourist numbers
and hence to fewer people trampling on the shoreline and disturbing
wildlife.
Using
the passive adaptive management approach it would be difficult to
determine which of these drivers had caused the changes.
At the other end of the spectrum there is active adaptive management. In active adaptive management, management actions are organised so that they present a deliberate scientific experiment with controls and replication of the sites exposed to certain treatments. This again is a rigorous scientific process and in this case it should enable natural disturbances to be more easily identified.
The steps involved in active adaptive management are the same, including monitoring of the system, implementation of the management strategy, observation of changes within the system and re-evaluation of the strategy, but more detailed information about the causes would be sought. Of course this sort of experiment requires far greater resources and could present risks. The controls could involve areas selected for a "do nothing" option but as has been mentioned previously there is no guarantee that this choice would be acceptable in a deteriorating environment.
Figure 3 - Active Adaptive Management
Although using best available information, the detailed TDA on which a SAP is based, may be incomplete or inaccurate. Data about the concentrations of pollutants in sediments may be available for only a small proportion of an estuary, or the data which are available may be 15-20 years old and not reflect current concentrations. This can be a serious problem when project time-scales are short.
It is not always possible to wait until all information has been collected. Indeed, this information may never be collected. It will often be necessary to act early, basing decisions on the best available information. But adopting an adaptive management approach ensures that those involved are prepared to assess the impact of their actions and reconsider whether changes are necessary.
Doing nothing is an option, but is a choice just as deciding to stop some activity is a choice - it is saying ‘let us choose the status quo as our course of action’. Waiting for more data to be gathered may be the chosen option; this also is a choice, and before this option is taken there must be some certainty that the data being collected will address the questions set. Otherwise this is merely a delaying tactic.
Conventional management approaches suffer several weaknesses:-
Conventional management seeks precise predictions and expects that it is possible to know what will happen if certain actions are taken. If the predicted reaction to a policy is not seen, those responsible are shocked and angry with the 'experts' who supplied the predictions.
In conventional management scenarios, a policy will sometimes be chosen which is then considered to be cast in concrete; something which it is not possible to change. Once an issue has been "dealt with" policy makers may be loathe to return to that subject, even if the conclusions are not what was expected. It is very difficult to persuade politicians and civil servants to reopen a file they consider they have dealt with, especially in a single term of office.
Conventional management is based around the political timetable of about five years (one term of office). This is often much too short for management of the majority of water-based issues. A short-term outlook makes it especially difficult to consider transboundary issues.
Very often conventional management plans are seriously limited by data and information which is lacking or which is inadequate. This often leads to policy makers calling for more research to be carried out. This research may or may not be useful but it does not address the existing situation now.