Lecture 10: Policy and Science in the Great Lakes

Facilitated by Dr. Gail Krantzberg

ADAPTIVE COMANAGEMENT

I enjoyed the focus on our local Great Lakes: a history of issues, the development of policies (i.e. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement [GLWQA]), and the numerous remaining issues unaddressed by the GLWQA thereby calling for its revision.

One of the concepts being recommended for revising the management of the Great Lakes is "adaptive co-management." As most new jargon does, it looked flashy and sounded 'right', but it was meaningless to me. And so to remedy my ignorance, I read, and now I share.

Adaptive co-management (AcM) has been defined as "a process by which institutional arrangements and ecological knowledge are tested and revised in a dynamic, ongoing, self-organized process of learning-by-doing" (Olssen et al., 2004, p. 75). Attributes of AcM include: dynamic learning process (as opposed to stagnant); horizontal and vertical collaboration; and management structures that are flexible, evolving, and context appropriate (i.e. place-based). It couples learning and action. AcM attempts to deal with uncertainty, flex with changing conditions, and respond to the anthropogenic activities affecting biological processes on every scale.

An interesting aspect of AcM theory is that management responses (to ecosystem change) are tuned to match the dynamics of the ecosystem.

First, ecosystem dynamics need to be understood, and due to their complexity this requires collaboration. According to Olssen et al. (2004), this knowledge is stored in a ‘social memory,’ i.e., it is captured, embedded, and emerges in public debate and decisions regarding responses to ecological change. With practice this collaborative learning process matures. And while it’s maturing, it embeds (management) practices which cultivate the ecological memory. Thus, in theory, this learning/management process is self-strengthening. The degree to which management responds to environmental feedback and provides further sustainable direction is the degree to which it is successful.

What I find interesting is the active link between learning and doing. Each reinforces the other. It sounds simple enough. As we learn about a lake ecosystem, for example, our dealings with it ought, and ought to be able, to incorporate new information. (There has to be room for a knowledge broker somewhere in there.) Considering the other priorities of decision-makers, I can see how this sort of knowledge can become quite contentious. I also see the decision-maker’s need for continuing education and diverse networking. And I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt the scientists and other learners to acquaint themselves with commerce and management either.

If you’re interested in further reading, Olssen et al. (2004) exemplify this management model with case studies from Sweden and Canada and suggest seven essentials for the emergence of self-organized, adaptive comanagement systems.

---

Olssen P, Folke C, and Berkes F (2004). Adaptive comanagement strategies for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1), 75-90.