– Donald N. Michael, American social psychologist, 1923-2000
What outputs should be delivered from this step?
- The principal output of this step is the use of the results of the evaluation (Step 9, Evaluating Performance) to revise and adapt the marine spatial management plan as part of the continuing management cycle. This step will involve considering the findings to modify management goals and objectives and management actions if they are not moving toward desired outcomes. Resources should be reallocated from what is not working, to what works.
- Another output should be the identification of critical missing information or applied research needs that could reduce uncertainties in the analysis and decision making in the next round of marine planning.
What Is an “Adaptive Approach” to Management?An adaptive approach involves exploring alternative ways to meet management objectives, predicting the outcomes of alternatives based on the current state of knowledge, monitoring to learn about the impacts of management actions, and then using the results to update knowledge and adjust management actions (Williams et al. 2009). An adaptive approach provides a framework for making good decisions in the face of critical uncertainties, and a formal process for reducing uncertainties so that management performance can be improved over time.
The results of performance monitoring and evaluation can and should be used to modify the components of a marine spatial plan, including goals, objectives and management actions. For example, if a management action proves to be ineffective, too expensive to continue, or produces unintended consequences, it should be changed as soon as possible or at least in the next round of plan revision. Similarly, if an objective of achieving 90% of desired outcome proves to be too expensive, then the objective could be reduced to achieving something less at less cost.
DEFINITION: Adaptive management is simply learning from past management actions to improve future planning and management. It is learning by doing.
Adaptive Management: policy as hypothesis, management by experiment
Learning is not a haphazard by-product of mistakes in policy or management. In contrast to the usual system of rewards and advancement, which tends to discourage admission of error, by using adaptive management managers and decision makers view unanticipated outcomes as opportunities to learn, and accept learning as an integrated and valued part of the management process.
Learning while doing accelerates progress towards improved policies and management. Learning is facilitated by feedback obtained from monitoring and evaluation. Without adequate investment in feedback, learning about the consequences of policies or management actions is slow; change is cumbersome and can come too late. The result is a situation where staff simply ‘muddle through’.
Parks Canada 2000
Task 1. PROPOSE CHANGES IN OBJECTIVES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
This task should address two broad questions: First, what has been accomplished through the MSP process and learned from its successes and failures? Secondly, how has the context (e.g., environment, governance, technology, economy—all tracked through state-of-the-environment monitoring) changed since the program was initiated? The answers to these questions can then be used to re-focus planning and management in the future.If the management objectives are not being achieved on schedule (effective), at a reasonable cost (efficient), and with a fair distribution of the costs and benefits of implementation (equitable), the management objectives and management actions should be modified. For example, objectives in the first round of planning may have been too ambitious in trying to achieve too much too soon. Or the cost of implementing a particular management action may have been too high and could have been lower through a different management action. Or the costs of implementing a management action may have fallen disproportionately on a particular group of users or geographic location. If any of these outcomes are apparent, then the management plan should be modified in the next round of planning.
- Modifying MSP goals and objectives (for example, if monitoring and evaluation results show that the costs of achieving them outweigh the benefits to society or the environment);
- Modifying desired MSP outcomes (for example, the level of protection over a large marine protected area could be changed if the desired outcome is not being achieved); and
- Modifying MSP management actions (for example, alternative combinations of management actions, incentives and institutional arrangements could be suggested if initial strategies are considered ineffective, too expensive, or inequitable).
Modifications to the MSP program should not be made in an improvised way. They should instead be made as part of the next round of planning in a continuous process. The management actions of any first MSP program should be viewed as the initial set of management actions that can change the behaviour of human activities toward a desired future. Some management actions will produce results in a short time;
others will take much longer.
Task 2. PROPOSE REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES TO MANAGEMENT ACTIONS THAT APPEAR TO BE WORKING; REDUCE/ELIMINATE RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS TO MANAGEMENT ACTIONS THAT ARE NOT WORKING
– Publius Syrus, Roman slave and poet, 85 BC – 43 AD
Task 3. COMMUNICATE RECOMMENDED CHANGES OF EXISTING SPATIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN TO DECISION MAKERS, PLANNING PROFESSIONALS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The evaluation team, management partners, and stakeholders should meet to discuss the implications for changes in the next round of planning. In discussing these possible changes target audiences should be encouraged to interpret results in such a way that they come to their own findings and conclusions rather than being given the findings and conclusions as interpreted by the evaluation team.Given the participatory nature of adaptive management, evaluation results should be openly shared with target audiences to ensure transparency and accountability (Parks 2011).
Task 4. IDENTIFY NEW INFORMATION OR APPLIED RESEARCH THAT COULD REDUCE UNCERTAINTY IN THE NEXT ROUND OF MARINE PLANNING
As any MSP program matures, the role of applied research similarly evolves, from identifying issues to developing the information needed for management and understanding the results of research, monitoring and evaluation. Reporting on success in management is very important to developing a research agenda; so is reporting on setbacks and failures.Uncertainties always exist with respect to various aspects of developing management actions for any marine area. Therefore, an integral component of a management action includes whatever short- and long-run data collection and applied research is required to have sufficient data or information for MSP or to confirm an assumption made based only on the available information in the initial round of planning. Other uncertainties, such as the relationship between a type of habitat and productivity with respect to a given species, may require data collection and longer-run research.Typically MSP requires a long-term commitment to data collection, management and analysis. But long-term data are frequently not available when MSP is initiated. Often, a data set extending over many decades is needed to understand the significance of human impacts compared to the natural impacts and processes that underpin the functioning of a marine ecosystem. In the meantime, you should exercise caution when interpreting results. Ideally, monitoring and applied research should be supported by long-term funding as part of the core management of the marine area.
Task 5. START THE NEXT ROUND OF MSP
After a short break for R&R (Rest and Recuperation), it’s time to start the next round of marine planning that will build on what you learned during the first found including a revised set of management goals, objectives, and management actions. These will take into account the monitoring, evaluation, and results of new applied research based on the first round, as well as political, economic, and technological changes in the context of MSP.
Fair winds and a following sea!
Holling, C.S. (ed.), 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Wiley: Chichester, UK.
Walters, C., 1986. Adaptive Management: management of renewable resources. MacMillan: New York.
Parks, J., 2011. Adaptive management in small-scale fisheries: a practical approach. In: R.S. Pomeroy and N.L. Andrew, eds. Small-Scale Fisheries Management. CAB International.
Williams, B. K., R. C. Szaro, and C. D. Shapiro, 2009. Adaptive Management. U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive
Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 72 p