Return to Adaptive Management Page

BENCHMARKS FOR ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AGAINST AN ‘IDEAL’ ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL

R. S. Horsfield

May 1998

BENCHMARKS FOR ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AGAINST AN ‘IDEAL’ ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROTOCOL

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to begin the development of a set of performance indicators by which environmental management policies and practices can be ‘benchmarked’ against an ‘ideal’ adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM) program.

These indicators will then be evaluated by using them to appraise the policies and strategies adopted by two Councils in their management of an estuarine system within their jurisdiction. One, Wyong Shire Council (WSC), has adopted an AEAM approach in the restoration and management of the Tuggerah Lakes (TL) on the Central Coast. The other, the Shoalhaven City Council (SCC), has followed the more traditional path in the development of an estuary management plan for the St Georges Basin (SGB) on the near South Coast.

The contents of the paper are :

• •  
  • Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management
  • •  
    • historical development
    •  
    • definition
    •  
    • characteristic features

• •  
  • ‘First draft’ benchmarks, or performance indicators, for the appraisal of the development and implementation of an environmental management plan against an ‘ideal’ Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management practice

• •  
  • An evaluation of the performance indicators through the application of a derived questionnaire to the past process and present practice of Wyong Shire Council and Shoalhaven City Council in their respective management of the Tuggerah Lakes and the St Georges Basin estuarine systems

• •  
  • Discussion and conclusions concerning the future development of benchmarks for Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management

  Go to top of page

2. ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Holling (1978) begins his overview of AEAM with the somewhat startling statement that "environmental assessment…should be replaced". What was so obviously wrong with the practice in Canada two decades ago to elicit such an indictment of what is still considered the sine qua non for any development or management strategy ? Are the same deficiencies in the process still evident in the practice of environmental management in the context of development in NSW at the present time?

2.1 The historical development of AEAM

The evolution of adaptive management approaches has been traced by several authors (eg Gilmour and Geering 1991,Iles 1996, McLain and Lee 1996) - a brief summary is given here.

"People have (always) altered the environment on which we all continue to depend" through the development of food and other resources to make it "a better place to live in" (Holdgate 1978). Unfortunately we have "shown considerably less skill in devising schemes for sustaining the harvest over long periods of time" (Walters 1986). Up until the early part of the twentieth century "either no thought was given to the long term, or the resources were considered so abundant as to be inexhaustible".

By the middle of this century there was a realisation that resources, even renewable ones, are finite and basic research was established into many ecosystems of commercial interest. Management practices were claimed to have "developed into truly scientific disciplines" (Walters 1986).

In the late 1960’s it had begun to be apparent to some that there were fundamental flaws in the earlier development of resource sciences - the substantial omission of socio-economic considerations from management activities and that they failed to take seriously the inherent uncertainty in the managed system. The forming of a group to address specific questions identified in a 1974 workshop convened by the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment led to the publication of the landmark book "Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management" (Holling 1978). From this time on the concept and practice of AEAM began to take shape, notable among the many papers detailing specific applications to particular environmental problems are the analyses and syntheses of Walters (eg 1986, 1997).

Much of the early work in developing the principles of AEAM was in the context of fisheries management. Since then it has been extended to a wider range of environmental and resource management problems, Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1: Some Applications of AEAM

2.2 Defining Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management

Descriptions and definitions of AEAM abound in the literature of the last several years (eg Allen 1996 (a), Allen 1996 (b), BCFS 1996, Bormann et al. 1994, CEQ 1996, Gilmour and Deering 1991, Doolan, Grayson & Blake unpub., Halbert 1993, Iles 1996, Lee 1993, ONF 1996, Peterson 1996, SPSFP 1995, Walters 1986). Two definitions are given in Table 2.2:

TABLE 2.2: Two Definitions of EAM

Other descriptions of AEAM include additional features or seek to define it by identifying "what it is not" (Holling 1978). In the next section an attempt is made to characterise the essential features of AEAM so that a set of benchmarks can be developed against which the success, or at least the usefulness, of management policies and practices might be measured.

2.3 The Characteristic Features of Adaptive Environmental Management

From the two quoted definitions and others the following are characteristic features of AEAM, they are arranged in a sequence reflecting how the process might be implemented in any given situation:

• •  
  • the active involvement of a wide spectrum of interested parties, the stakeholders, from the beginning of any planning process, these include community members who are affected directly by the problem and its management (Gilmour 1998)

• •  
  • the inclusion of environmental, ecological, economic, historical, political, physical, social and cultural conditions in the (assessment and) management process (Iles 1996)

• •  
  • the use of a structured workshop approach with all, or at least representative, stakeholders involved in a cooperative rather than an adversarial process (Gilmour and Walkerden 1994)

• •  
  • the development of "computer models to build synthesis and an embodied ecological concensus" (Peterson 1996) - a number of alternative models is preferred to single model so that the robustness of predictions under extreme conditions can be assessed (Holling 1978, Scandol 1998)

• •  
  • the recognition and acceptance of uncertainty (Wynne 1992) - even embracing it as an opportunity to learn more about the system/problem and to adapt management strategies accordingly (Walters and Holling 1990)

• •  
  • management is linked to appropriate temporal and spatial scale (Peterson 1996) and does not focus exclusively on "the short term and the local" (Gunderson, Holling & Light 1995)

• •  
  • the recognition that management policies are experiments (Lee 1993) and are not fixed sets of actions (Holling 1978)

• •  
  • "monitoring (is) designed as a part of active interventions to achieve understanding and to identify remedial response" (Gunderson, Holling & Light 1995)

  Go to top of page

3. Benchmarks for ‘Ideal’ Adaptive Environmental Assessment

and Management

Despite Holling’s (1978) early assertion that there are "relevant background principles (and) information" and that the ecological, economic, social and physical aspects of a particular environmental assessment are not unique, Iles (1996) maintains that "there is no standard model of adaptive management. Instead the focus is on creating a management process closely attuned to the particular conditions of a setting that is often local, but may encompass broader scales".

Is there hope of defining a generic AEAM process and of developing a set of benchmarks by which managers, policy makers, developers and the community can appraise the management of an environment or resource in which all have an interest? This paper is premised on the belief that there is - the features set out in the preceding section do define a generic AEAM process and do allow the definition of specific benchmarks, or performance indicators, for appraising any management strategy.

In this context it is significant that Holling (1995) recognises that maintaining, renewing or restoring institutional flexibility is equally as important as doing so for the ecological attributes in a region - he observes that both "the way ecosystems are organised" and "the way (they) are managed" are "the consequence of the natural workings of any complex, evolving system". Specifically with respect to strategies adopted to manage ecological variables he has observed that they "inexorably led to less resilient ecosystems, more rigid management institutions, and more dependent societies". Walters (1997) is hardly more optimistic when he describes both research and management stakeholders as "(showing) deplorable self-interest (and) seeing adaptive-policy development as a threat to existing research programs and management regimes"

In developing benchmarks it is useful therefore also to identify the "barriers and bridges" to effective adaptive management as they are identified by these ‘fathers of AEAM’.

Holling lists the following characteristics which lead to "crisis, conflict, and gridlock":

• •  
  • A single target and piecemeal policy
  •  
  • A single scale of focus, typically on the short term and the local
  •  
  • No realisation that all policies are experimental
  •  
  • Rigid management with no priority to design interventions as ways to test hypotheses underlying policies

To these can be added the following from Walters’ 1997 paper:

• •  
  • More detailed modelling has proceeded as an end in itself on the assumption that it can be substituted for field experimentation to define "best-use" policies on the false premise that it results in progressively more accurate predictions
  •  
  • An unwillingness to manage experimentally on the fallacious assumption that a "sound baseline option" is known and that AEAM is relatively expensive
  •  
  • Strong opposition to experimental policies by people protecting various self-interests in management bureaucracies, often based on a belief that "single best judgements" are necessary to maintain credibility and the adoption of adversarial mechanisms rather than cooperative win-win pathways
  •  
  • Deep value conflicts within the community of ecological and environmental management interests leading to compromise policies which may give lose-lose outcomes for all ecological interests

It is apparent from both the characteristic features identified in section 2.3 and the barriers listed above that any set of benchmarks to indicate the performance of an environmental management program must address firstly, the ecosystem and its response to the management strategies, and secondly, the institutional response to the management process itself. In setting out benchmarks derived from these features and barriers it is convenient to group them under several headings with specific indicators to be defined in relation to these two aspects:

• •  
  • The identification and scoping of the environmental problem through an interactive workshop of all stakeholders
  •  
  • The development of a number of alternative models and the elimination of some through a process of invalidation
  •  
  • The development of policy and strategy to manage adaptively the problem
  •  
  • The implementation of policy and strategy in the management of the problem
  •  
  • Institutional mechanisms for the long term evaluation and adaptation of management policy and strategy

Concerning the last category it appears that there is scant attention in the literature to the question of establishing in agencies mechanisms by which the necessary perseverance in adaptive management practices can better be assured. That management will most likely have to be maintained over time periods of decades and beyond the tenure of the initiating personnel makes this an important consideration.

The Tables 3.1 to 3.5 contain a number of ‘indicator questions’ by which a council’s practice can be benchmarked against an ‘ideal’ practice of AEAM

TABLE 3.1: Benchmarks for Identification and Scoping of the Environmental Problem

TABLE 3.2: Benchmarks for the Development and Invalidation of Models

The key issue at the stage of the development of policy and management strategies is that they incorporate explicitly the principles of AEAM. Policy needs to define the intent to make these features characteristic of the management plan as it is implemented and continued into the future. The strategies themselves must incorporate mechanisms to maintain flexibility, accountability and transparency into the future. These mechanisms could include: establishing clear lines of responsibility; setting up independent ‘watchdog’ committees with stakeholder participation; requiring, through legislation or other statutory means, regular reporting to the responsible authority and consequent public reporting; mandatory periodic reassessment of policy and management for endorsement of continued implementation.

TABLE 3.3: Benchmarks for the Development of AEAM Policy and Strategies

The indicators set out in Table 3.4 below should all be applied in the context of two key questions addressed to the management authority (BCFS 1997):

• •  
  • has there been evident innovation and learning in the management process?
  •  
  • has an organisational culture of learning and responsiveness been fostered?

TABLE 3.4: Benchmarks for the Implementation of AEAM Policy and Strategies

As indicated above there appears to have been scant attention in the literature to the sort of institutional mechanisms which might provide for the long term evaluation and adaptation of management policy and strategies beyond the tenure of the people who developed and first implemented them. That there is a problem in this area is indicated by the failure of the majority of programs examined by Walters (1997). The problem is not helped by the evident inability of most politicians to see beyond the next election and the developers’ desire for short term gain without concern for future consequences.

At the state government level some US legislatures have included the requirement of review after a fixed time period for the renewal of funding (Gilmour 1997). This would appear not to be an option for a local government authority which is funding the management process from its rating revenue - in such a situation other mechanisms must be established that will act so as to foster the flexibility and learning that characterises AEAM. The design of such mechanisms is itself part of the adaptive management process and the challenge is to establish ‘fixed’ procedures which foster ‘flexible’ responses at ongoing policy, planning and implementation stages.

Some possible approaches have been mentioned in section 3.3 above, the benchmarks set out below include these. Maintaining the desired institutional flexibility and responsiveness in the face of the evolution of the managed ecosystem and its socio-economic milieu will require their continued evaluation and adaptation as part of the AEAM process. Because of the exploratory nature of this category of indicators they are simply stated as questions without categorisation into the groups used in earlier sections.

TABLE 3.5: Benchmarks for Institutional Mechanisms to facilitate long term evaluation and adaptation of Management Policy and Strategies

TABLE 3.5 (cont.): Benchmarks for Institutional Mechanisms to facilitate long term evaluation and adaptation of Management Policy and Strategies

It is obvious that many of the responses to the above indicator questions will necessarily be subjective. Their usefulness will also be dependent on the influence in the institution of the manager charged with the oversight of the program. Nonetheless these limitations should not be a deterrent from attempting to initiate and evolve appropriate mechanisms to maintain the desired flexibility and responsiveness of management concurrently with the implementation of the adaptive management program itself.

Go to top of page

4. AN EVALUATION OF ESTUARY MANAGEMENT BY TWO NSW COUNCILS

In response to the adverse effects of catchment development on tidal rivers and coastal lakes over the last two or three decades the NSW Government has implemented an Estuary Management Policy which promotes cooperation between local government bodies, other government authorities and any interested parties in the development of long term management plans for the many estuarine systems along the State’s coast.

A Draft Estuary Management Plan for the St Georges Basin has been prepared for the Shoalhaven City Council (Webb, McKeown & Associates 1996). This plan has been the focus for field work undertaken by students in the Unit GSE 807 over the last several years and an analysis has been published (Horsfield and Fanning 1988).

The ‘Adaptive Environmental Assessment And Management Program’ for the Tuggerah Lakes and their catchment is one of several environmental programs being undertaken by the Wyong Shire Council (WSC 1995, WSC 1998) as part of an "Integrated Strategic Approach to Environmental Management" (DEST 1996). The AEAM program was established with input from a number of GSE staff (eg James 1996, Macquarie Research 1995, Walkerden 1996) following earlier reports on ecological and socio-economic issues in the shire (eg Batley et al. 1997, Boake 1991, Cardew et al. 1992, IDCTL 1971, King and Hodgson 1995) and an already established restoration program (Long 1993, WSC 1990).

The indicators set out in Tables 3.1 to 3.5 in the last section have been incorporated into a seven page questionnaire which has been evaluated though applying it to the two council management programs:

• •  
  • The questionnaires were completed by the author through reference to the cited published material relating to each management plan.

• •  
  • The respective officers responsible for the plans in the two councils were contacted and asked to respond to the questions from their own experience of developing and implementing the plan.

A copy of the questionnaire and the two covering faxes sent to the Council officers are included in an appendix and the results considered in the final sections below.

Go to top of page

5. DISCUSSION

It is apparent that the form of the questions in the questionnaire is unsatisfactory. The author found that it was difficult in most cases to determine definite answers to many of the questions from the published material relating to the AEAM process adopted by the WSC. In the case of the DEMP prepared for the SCC two factors made it impracticable to give meaningful responses: In the first instance the consultants followed the ‘traditional’ process in the preparation of the plan; most of the questions in the first sections, dealing with the development of models, policy and plans were either "not applicable" or had to be answered in the negative even if some of the indicators of AEAM were in fact incorporated in the more traditional approach. Secondly the plan has not yet been implemented so that the last sections of the questionnaire cannot be answered at present.

It must also be said that subsequent to faxing the questionnaires to the two Council officers the author felt that some of the questions, perhaps a majority, would be interpreted as critical of their practices in the admittedly difficult task of managing complex ecosystems in an equally complex socio-economic context. At the time of finalising this paper only one of the officers has returned a completed questionnaire. He too found many of the questions inappropriately worded and focused and also made several fundamental criticisms of the assumptions underlying them, these are now considered.

Greg Walkerden (private communication 1998) completed the questionnaire and made the following comments:

• •  
  • The use of "all possible" applied to factors, scales and stakeholders is "absurd of course". Point taken - the intent was to establish how widely the scoping process cast its net. Certainly ‘possible’ meaning "that may be or exist" is clearly unrealistic, the use of ‘feasible’ may serve the intent without the impossibility. The relevant questions in Table 3.1 and the Appendix have been so amended.

• •  
  • The use of "appropriate" to describe models, policy and a management plan "is … overused" and causes the questions to "go to value judgements about the project" (emphasis his). Again the point is taken. However it seems difficult to avoid some sort of judgement in appraising any plan, both before and during implementation. A plan may be patently ‘inappropriate’ simply because it specifies strategies which will/do not meet stated objectives and there would appear to be a continuum of possibilities between this and one which is ‘completely successful’ in the event. Indeed the concurrent criticism - also accepted - that the questions admit of only "black and white vs appreciating shades of grey" would seem to necessitate a value judgement in assessing what shade fairly describes the situation.

• •  
  • The comment is made on p4: "Since when did AEAM imply/require having "the" Management Plan as an output!". Agreed that a rigid and inflexible management plan is the antithesis of what AEAM is striving for, it is not clear that flexibility implies no plan. Using "the" to specify whatever plan was adopted was not intended to imply either that it was the ‘final solution’ or that it was immutable. The emphasis in the question was intended to be on the planned provision of mechanisms for the continued involvement of all stakeholders.

• •  
  • Concerning the last five questions on ‘Institutional Culture’ the comment is that they are "not self-auditing questions. They are questions a third party reviewer might ask themselves as the last step : making their judgement." This is of course one possibility, the other is that the responsible officer within the institution might reflect on the previous year’s activities and make some assessment from his or her point of view in response to these questions. The very process of ‘self appraisal’ through reflection is a helpful, if sometimes painful, experience to modify one’s attitudes and practices.

Go to top of page

6. CONCLUSIONS

It is evident that much more work is needed than can be completed at present in the development of satisfactory benchmarks for the planning and practice of AEAM. That this is the case should not be surprising as AEAM itself is premised on embracing uncertainty and the desirability of involving as many stakeholders as possible in the process. These should be no less true for the development of benchmarks, or performance indicators, for the resulting management process as it evolves in response to the changes in the managed system and its wider social environment. In view of the rather disappointing ‘success’ of such programs in the past and the apparently strong tendency to institutional inflexibility over time (Walters 1997), the enterprise would seem to be a worthwhile one. Perhaps the way ahead is to incorporate the development of such indicators for the management process itself, together with those for the managed system, in the AEAM process from the very beginning. Certainly in the present attempt the involvement of more interested parties is needed.

Go to top of page

7. References

Allen W 1996 "Introduction: community-based adaptive natural resource management" Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd., http://www.landcare.cri.nz/kip/prograt.htm 14 August 1997

Allen W 1996 "Monitoring and evaluation for adaptive natural resource management" Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd., http://www.landcare.cri.nz/kip/mon.htm 14 August 1997

Andrews A K, G T Auble, R A Ellison, D B Hamilton, J E Roelle, D R Marmorek & O L Loucks 1981 "Impacts of Acid Precipitation on Watershed Ecosystems: An Application of the Adaptive Environmental Assessment Process" in W J Mitsch, R W Bosserman & J M Klopatek (Eds.) Energy and Ecological Modelling; Developments in Environmental Modelling 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam 393 - 400

Batley G, N Body, B Cook, L Bibb, P M Fleming & R Skyring 1994 Ecology of the Tuggerah Lakes System: A Review with Special reference to the Impact of the Munmorah Power Station Stage 1 Report prepared for the Electricity Commission of NSW, Wyong Shire Council and the State Pollution Control Commission

Boake M 1991 Report: On condition of Wyong Shire’s Water Supply Catchment for Wyong Shire Council

Bormann B T, P G Cunningham, M H Brookes, V W Manning, and M W Collopy 1993 "Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest" USDA For, Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-341

British Columbia Forest Service 1996 "Definitions of Adaptive Management" http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/AMDEFS.HTM 19 August 1997

British Columbia Forest Service 1997 "Introductory Guide to Adaptive Management" http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/introgd/intro.htm 20 August 1997

CALFED 1997 "Ecosystem Restoration" http://calfed.ca.gov/alternat/ecosystem.html 14 August 1997

Cardew R, P Fanning, K Castle & Hirst Consulting Services Pty Ltd 1992 Wyong Urban Growth Study A report prepared for the NSW Department of Housing, Public West Division, Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney

Collier M P, R H Webb and E D Andrews 1991 "Experimental flooding in Grand Canyon" Scientific American 276 (1) 66 -73

Council for Environmental Quality 1996 "An adaptive-learning management model for NEPA compliance" http://www.fs.fed.us/workshop/get/ecotopic27/1.html 14 August 1997

Department of the Environment and Sport 1996 Integrated Environmental Management, Best Practice Case Studies in Local Government - The Wyong Experience http://www.erin.gov.au/anvironment/potfolio/dest/dest/ch8_wyon.htm 20 August 1997

Doolan J M, R B Grayson & T Blake (unpub): "Application of AEAM (Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management) to Water Resource Management: a Case Example - Water Quality Management in the Latrobe River".

Gilmour A J 1997 Lecture in GSE 811 Coastal Management, Semester 2 1997

Gilmour A J 1998 Lecture 1 of GSE 812 Adaptive Management, March 1998

Gilmour A J and D Geering 1991"The Application of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management Techniques to the Management of the Macquarie Marshes, New South Wales" Transactions of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering GE15 (2) 121 - 125

Gilmour A J and G Walkerden 1994 "A structured approach to conflict resolution in EIA: the use of Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM)" Computer Support for Environmental Impact Assessment B-165,Proceedings of the IFIP TC5/WG5.11 Working Conference on Computer Support for Environmental Impact Assessment. CSEIA 93, Como Italy, 6-8 October 1993, 199 - 210

Gunderson L H, C S Holling and S S Light (Eds.) 1995 Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions Columbia University Press, New York

Halbert,C L 1993 "How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia" Reviews in Fisheries Science, 1 261 - 283

Hilborn R and C J Walters 1992 Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics & Uncertainty Chapman & Hall, London 487 - 514

Holdgate M Foreword in Holling C S (Ed.) 1978 Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management John Wiley and sons, Chichester

Holling C S (Ed.) 1978 Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management John Wiley and sons, Chichester

Horsfield R S and P Fanning 1998 An Analysis of the Draft Estuary Management Plan for the St Georges Basin GSE Publication no. 9801, Macquarie University

Iles A T 1996 "Adaptive management: making environmental law policy more dynamic, experimentalist and learning" Environmental and Planning Law Journal 13 (4) 288 - 307

Inter-Departmental Committee of the NSW government 1979 Tuggerah Lakes Study Report

James R 1996 Estuaries, Eutrophication and Tuggerah Lakes Final Report for Wyong Shire Council, AEAM Program for Tuggerah Lakes system and associated catchments, Macquarie Research Ltd, Macquarie University, Sydney

King R J and B R Hodgson 1995 "Tuggerah Lakes System, New South Wales, Australia" in A J McComb (Ed.) 1995 Eutrophic Shallow Estuaries and Lagoons CRC Press, 19 - 29

Lee K N 1993 Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment Island Press, Washington DC

Long M 1993 The Tuggerah Lakes Restoration Project Wyong Council

Macquarie Research Ltd 1995 Description of the Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (AEAM) Programme for Tuggerah Lakes system and associated catchments for Wyong Shire Council, Macquarie Research Ltd, Macquarie University, Sydney

McLain R J and R G Lee 1996 "Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls" Environmental Management 20 (4) 437 - 448

Olympic National Forest 1996 "Concepts in Ecosystem Management Adaptive Management" http://www.olympus.net/onf/ecomgt/unecosys/adapt.htm 14 August 1997

Peterson G 1996 CDF Briefing Paper "Adaptive Management" http://risc.tcd.ufl.edu/cdf/library/briefing/adaptive_mgmt.html 14 August 1997

Shindler B, B Steel & P List 1996"Public judgements of adaptive management: a response from forest communities" Journal of Forestry 94 4 - 12

Scandol J 1998 "Systems Analysis" Lecture to GSE 812 on 7 April 1998

Walkerden G 1996 Tuggerah Lakes and Catchment AEAM Simulation Model: Software Documentation Final Report for Wyong Shire Council, AEAM Program for Tuggerah Lakes system and associated catchments, Macquarie Research Ltd, Macquarie University, Sydney

Walkerden G 1998 Comments and responses to A Questionnaire for Benchmarking Estuary / Coastal Lakes Management Plans against an ‘Ideal’ AEAM Program

Walters C J 1986 Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources Macmillan Publishing Company, New York

Walters C J 1997 "Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems" Conservation Ecology [on line] 1 (2): 1 : http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1

Walters C J, L Gunderson and C S Holling 1992 "Experimental policies for water management in the Everglades" Ecological Applications 2 189 - 202

Walters C J and C S Holling "Large-Scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing" Ecology Vol. 71, No. 6, 2060 - 2068

Webb, McKeown & Associates 1996 St Georges Basin Draft Estuary Management Plan prepared for The Council of the City of Shoalhaven

Wieringa M J and A G Morton 1996 "Hydropower, Adaptive Management, and Biodiversity Environmental Management 20 (6) 831 - 840

Wynne B 1992 "Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm" in Global Environmental Change, Butterworth-Heinemann 111 - 127

Wyong Shire Council 1990 Tuggerah Lakes Restoration Program

Wyong Shire Council 1998 State of the Environment 1996 - 1997

APPENDIX

A Questionnaire for

Benchmarking Estuary / Coastal Lakes Management Plans against an ‘Ideal’ AEAM Program

EVALUATION of

AGAINST AEAM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

1. Benchmarks for Identification and Scoping of the Environmental Problem

•  
• Were all feasible biological, physico-chemical, economic, sociological, political, historical and cultural factors canvassed?

YES ( ) COMMENT:

NO ( )

•  
• Were all feasible temporal and spatial scales considered?

YES ( ) COMMENT:

NO ( )

•  
• Were irrelevant factors omitted while retaining sufficient breadth of scale for useful predictions?

YES ( ) COMMENT:

NO ( )

•  
• Were all feasible interested parties included in a series of interactive workshops from the outset?

• •  
  • managers YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • policy makers YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • specialists YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • community groups/representatives YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • developers YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • others: specify _________________________ YES ( ) NO ( )

COMMENT

2. Benchmarks for the Development and Invalidation of Models

•  
• Have a number of alternative models appropriate for assisting in management decisions been developed?

YES ( ) COMMENT:

NO ( )

•  
• Has the rejection of invalidated models resulted in an acceptable level of confidence in the predictions of those which remain?

YES ( ) COMMENT:

NO ( )

•  
• Do all participants in the workshops believe ‘they have been heard’ and their concerns addressed adequately?

YES ( ) COMMENT:

NO ( )

•  
• Did all participants have sufficient opportunity to explore the predictions of the models to their expressed satisfaction?

YES ( ) COMMENT:

NO ( )

3. Benchmarks for the Development of ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT Policy and Strategies #1

•  
• Was an appropriate Policy developed which explicitly includes the principles of ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT?

• •  
  • uncertainty acknowledged YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • knowledge gaps identified YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • management objectives defined YES ( ) NO ( )

•  
• Was an appropriate Management Plan developed incorporating the principles of ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT?

• •  
  • strategy able to meet objectives YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • actions clearly defined YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • benefit-cost analysis completed YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • risk analysis completed YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • appropriate monitoring included YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • feedback mandated YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • responsibility assigned YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • continued stakeholder participation YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • mechanism for adjustment defined YES ( ) NO ( )

COMMENTS

3. Benchmarks for the Development of ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT Policy and Strategies #2

•  
• Was the development of Policy transparent to all stakeholders? YES ( ) NO ( )

•  
• Did all stakeholders have the opportunity for continued YES ( ) NO ( )

contribution to the process of Policy development?

•  
• Does the Management Plan provide mechanisms for the continued involvement of all stakeholders through such things as:

• •  
  • knowledge of results of monitoring YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • opportunity for feedback to the responsible manager(s) YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • participation in the processes of Policy YES ( ) NO ( )

•  
• Is the periodic reassessment of both policy and YES ( ) NO ( )

management plans a statutory requirement?

COMMENTS

4. Benchmarks for the Implementation of ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT Policy and Strategies

•  
• Is the Management Policy periodically evaluated with the explicit purpose of addressing questions related to:
•  
• new uncertainties identified YES ( ) NO ( )
•  
• new knowledge acquired YES ( ) NO ( )
•  
• extent to which the management YES ( ) NO ( )

•  
• Is the Management Plan periodically evaluated with the explicit purpose of addressing questions related to:
• •  
  • the ability of the defined strategy to meet objectives YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • clarity and effectiveness of actions YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • accuracy of benefit-cost analysis YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • accuracy of the risk analysis YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • appropriateness of the current monitoring program YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • effectiveness of feedback to management YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • effectiveness of the assigned responsibilities YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • continued stakeholder participation YES ( ) NO ( )
  •  
  • responsiveness to change of the mechanisms YES ( ) NO ( )

for adjustments to policy and management practices

•  
• Are procedures in place which make the implementation

of Policy transparent to all stakeholders? YES ( ) NO ( )

•  
• Are procedures in place which allow all stakeholders

the opportunity for continued contribution to the

process of Policy development? YES ( ) NO ( )

•  
• Are the planned mechanisms for the continued involvement of all stakeholders actually working? That is, are stakeholders satisfied with the provision of such things as:

•  
• results of monitoring YES ( ) NO ( )
•  
• opportunity for feedback to the responsible manager(s) YES ( ) NO ( )
•  
• participation in the processes of Policy YES ( ) NO ( )

5. Benchmarks for Institutional Mechanisms to facilitate long term evaluation and adaptation of Management Policy and Strategies

Legislative and Statutory Requirements from State Authorities

•  
• For what, if any, State authority or authorities are there legislative or statutory requirements for periodic evaluation and reporting of the implementation and outcomes of the environmental management program?

•  
• If there are, what aspects are included (in terms of the indicators in section 3.4 above) and how is the evaluation and reporting managed within the managing institution?

Go to top of page

Internal Institutional mechanisms

•  
• Is there a statutory requirement for the internal periodic

•  
• Does the managing institution have a clearly defined

•  
• What mechanisms (structures, procedures, publications) within the managing institution specifically are directed to the maintenance of the following?

• •  
  • utilisation in the management model(s) of data acquired in the environmental monitoring program

• •  
  • transparency of management activities through publication of the actions and outcomes of the management strategy

• •  
  • two-way communication between the institution and the stakeholders

• •  
  • management of costs associated with the program and accountability to the institution’s constituents (in the case of a local council, the ratepayers)

• •  
  • re-evaluation of the model(s) being used to assist management decisions

• •  
  • reassessment of management priorities and actions in the light of the evolution of the managed ecosystem and its socio-economic context

Go to top of page

Institutional Culture

Can the institutional culture fairly be described in the light of the previous year’s implementation of the management program as one in which its personnel are?

•  
• responsive to challenges arising from the management

•  
• learning from their experience in managing the system YES ( ) NO ( )
•  
• flexible in their implementation of management strategies

as the system evolves YES ( ) NO ( )

•  
• innovative in their planning of actions in response to

•  
• open and willing to share knowledge gained and difficulties

encountered YES ( ) NO ( )

Go to top of page

Return to Adaptive Management Page