Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution: Learning from seals and salmon

J. R. A. Butler, J. C. Young, I. A.G. McMyn, B. Leyshon, I. M. Graham, I. Walker, J. M. Baxter, J. Dodd, C. Warburton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

By linking iterative learning and knowledge generation with power-sharing, adaptive co-management (ACM) provides a potential solution to resolving complex social-ecological problems. In this paper we evaluate ACM as a mechanism for resolving conservation conflict using a case study in Scotland, where seal and salmon fishery stakeholders have opposing and entrenched objectives. ACM emerged in 2002, successfully resolving this long-standing conflict. Applying evaluation approaches from the literature, in 2011 we interviewed stakeholders to characterise the evolution of ACM, and factors associated with its success over 10 years. In common with other ACM cases, triggers for the process were shifts in slow variables controlling the system (seal and salmon abundance, public perceptions of seal shooting), and exogenous shocks (changes in legal mandates, a seal disease outbreak). Also typical of ACM, three phases of evolution were evident: emerging local leadership preparing the system for change, a policy window of opportunity, and stakeholder partnerships building the resilience of the system. Parameters maintaining ACM were legal mechanisms and structures, legal power held by government, and the willingness of all stakeholders to reach a compromise and experiment with an alternative governance approach. Results highlighted the critical role of government power and support in resolving conservation conflict,
which may constrain the extent of local stakeholder-driven ACM. The evaluation also demonstrated how, following perceived success, the trajectory of ACM has shifted to a ‘stakeholder apathy’ phase, with declining leadership, knowledge exchange, stakeholder engagement, and system resilience. We discuss remedial actions required to revive the process, and the importance of long term government resourcing and alternative financing schemes for successful conflict resolution. Based on the results we present a generic indicator framework and participatory method for the longitudinal evaluation of ACM applied to conservation conflict resolution.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)212-225
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Environmental Management
Volume160
Early online date2 Jul 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2015

Fingerprint

comanagement
Seals
Conservation
learning
stakeholder
leadership
conflict
governance approach
Fisheries
trajectory
fishery
Trajectories

Keywords

  • Evaluation
  • Governance
  • Indicators
  • Livelihoods
  • Monitoring
  • Resilience
  • Wildlife conflict

Cite this

Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution : Learning from seals and salmon. / Butler, J. R. A.; Young, J. C.; McMyn, I. A.G.; Leyshon, B.; Graham, I. M.; Walker, I.; Baxter, J. M.; Dodd, J.; Warburton, C.

In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 160, 01.09.2015, p. 212-225.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Butler, J. R. A. ; Young, J. C. ; McMyn, I. A.G. ; Leyshon, B. ; Graham, I. M. ; Walker, I. ; Baxter, J. M. ; Dodd, J. ; Warburton, C. / Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution : Learning from seals and salmon. In: Journal of Environmental Management. 2015 ; Vol. 160. pp. 212-225.
@article{50c8e4c99dcf4132b518b39573267c9e,
title = "Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution: Learning from seals and salmon",
abstract = "By linking iterative learning and knowledge generation with power-sharing, adaptive co-management (ACM) provides a potential solution to resolving complex social-ecological problems. In this paper we evaluate ACM as a mechanism for resolving conservation conflict using a case study in Scotland, where seal and salmon fishery stakeholders have opposing and entrenched objectives. ACM emerged in 2002, successfully resolving this long-standing conflict. Applying evaluation approaches from the literature, in 2011 we interviewed stakeholders to characterise the evolution of ACM, and factors associated with its success over 10 years. In common with other ACM cases, triggers for the process were shifts in slow variables controlling the system (seal and salmon abundance, public perceptions of seal shooting), and exogenous shocks (changes in legal mandates, a seal disease outbreak). Also typical of ACM, three phases of evolution were evident: emerging local leadership preparing the system for change, a policy window of opportunity, and stakeholder partnerships building the resilience of the system. Parameters maintaining ACM were legal mechanisms and structures, legal power held by government, and the willingness of all stakeholders to reach a compromise and experiment with an alternative governance approach. Results highlighted the critical role of government power and support in resolving conservation conflict,which may constrain the extent of local stakeholder-driven ACM. The evaluation also demonstrated how, following perceived success, the trajectory of ACM has shifted to a ‘stakeholder apathy’ phase, with declining leadership, knowledge exchange, stakeholder engagement, and system resilience. We discuss remedial actions required to revive the process, and the importance of long term government resourcing and alternative financing schemes for successful conflict resolution. Based on the results we present a generic indicator framework and participatory method for the longitudinal evaluation of ACM applied to conservation conflict resolution.",
keywords = "Evaluation, Governance, Indicators, Livelihoods, Monitoring, Resilience , Wildlife conflict",
author = "Butler, {J. R. A.} and Young, {J. C.} and McMyn, {I. A.G.} and B. Leyshon and Graham, {I. M.} and I. Walker and Baxter, {J. M.} and J. Dodd and C. Warburton",
note = "Acknowledgements We are grateful to Oana Racu (Scottish Government) and Jackie Anderson (Marine Scotland Science) for the provision of seal shooting data and salmon catch statistics, respectively. Three reviewers provided valuable comments which improved the paper. The study was conducted during the course of the authors' professional roles and without specific project funding.",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.019",
language = "English",
volume = "160",
pages = "212--225",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Management",
issn = "0301-4797",
publisher = "ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution

T2 - Learning from seals and salmon

AU - Butler, J. R. A.

AU - Young, J. C.

AU - McMyn, I. A.G.

AU - Leyshon, B.

AU - Graham, I. M.

AU - Walker, I.

AU - Baxter, J. M.

AU - Dodd, J.

AU - Warburton, C.

N1 - Acknowledgements We are grateful to Oana Racu (Scottish Government) and Jackie Anderson (Marine Scotland Science) for the provision of seal shooting data and salmon catch statistics, respectively. Three reviewers provided valuable comments which improved the paper. The study was conducted during the course of the authors' professional roles and without specific project funding.

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - By linking iterative learning and knowledge generation with power-sharing, adaptive co-management (ACM) provides a potential solution to resolving complex social-ecological problems. In this paper we evaluate ACM as a mechanism for resolving conservation conflict using a case study in Scotland, where seal and salmon fishery stakeholders have opposing and entrenched objectives. ACM emerged in 2002, successfully resolving this long-standing conflict. Applying evaluation approaches from the literature, in 2011 we interviewed stakeholders to characterise the evolution of ACM, and factors associated with its success over 10 years. In common with other ACM cases, triggers for the process were shifts in slow variables controlling the system (seal and salmon abundance, public perceptions of seal shooting), and exogenous shocks (changes in legal mandates, a seal disease outbreak). Also typical of ACM, three phases of evolution were evident: emerging local leadership preparing the system for change, a policy window of opportunity, and stakeholder partnerships building the resilience of the system. Parameters maintaining ACM were legal mechanisms and structures, legal power held by government, and the willingness of all stakeholders to reach a compromise and experiment with an alternative governance approach. Results highlighted the critical role of government power and support in resolving conservation conflict,which may constrain the extent of local stakeholder-driven ACM. The evaluation also demonstrated how, following perceived success, the trajectory of ACM has shifted to a ‘stakeholder apathy’ phase, with declining leadership, knowledge exchange, stakeholder engagement, and system resilience. We discuss remedial actions required to revive the process, and the importance of long term government resourcing and alternative financing schemes for successful conflict resolution. Based on the results we present a generic indicator framework and participatory method for the longitudinal evaluation of ACM applied to conservation conflict resolution.

AB - By linking iterative learning and knowledge generation with power-sharing, adaptive co-management (ACM) provides a potential solution to resolving complex social-ecological problems. In this paper we evaluate ACM as a mechanism for resolving conservation conflict using a case study in Scotland, where seal and salmon fishery stakeholders have opposing and entrenched objectives. ACM emerged in 2002, successfully resolving this long-standing conflict. Applying evaluation approaches from the literature, in 2011 we interviewed stakeholders to characterise the evolution of ACM, and factors associated with its success over 10 years. In common with other ACM cases, triggers for the process were shifts in slow variables controlling the system (seal and salmon abundance, public perceptions of seal shooting), and exogenous shocks (changes in legal mandates, a seal disease outbreak). Also typical of ACM, three phases of evolution were evident: emerging local leadership preparing the system for change, a policy window of opportunity, and stakeholder partnerships building the resilience of the system. Parameters maintaining ACM were legal mechanisms and structures, legal power held by government, and the willingness of all stakeholders to reach a compromise and experiment with an alternative governance approach. Results highlighted the critical role of government power and support in resolving conservation conflict,which may constrain the extent of local stakeholder-driven ACM. The evaluation also demonstrated how, following perceived success, the trajectory of ACM has shifted to a ‘stakeholder apathy’ phase, with declining leadership, knowledge exchange, stakeholder engagement, and system resilience. We discuss remedial actions required to revive the process, and the importance of long term government resourcing and alternative financing schemes for successful conflict resolution. Based on the results we present a generic indicator framework and participatory method for the longitudinal evaluation of ACM applied to conservation conflict resolution.

KW - Evaluation

KW - Governance

KW - Indicators

KW - Livelihoods

KW - Monitoring

KW - Resilience

KW - Wildlife conflict

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.019

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.019

M3 - Article

VL - 160

SP - 212

EP - 225

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 0301-4797

ER -