Presented by Alex Kisingo and Lance W. Robinson at the IASC Africa Regional Meeting, Cape Town, South Africa, 9-11 April 2013.

1. Defragmenting Natural Resource Management
at the Landscape-Level:
A Governance Assessment Framework
Alex Kisingo (University of Victoria, Canada)
Lance W. Robinson (International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya)
IASC Africa Regional Meeting
Cape Town
9 to 11 April 2013

2. Governance at the Landscape-Level…
… is critically important but under-studied
It is at landscape level that fragmentation is most
easily seen
Ecosystem boundaries seldom correspond to
human-created boundaries, even to Protected
Area boundaries
Governance at this level can be even more
complex than it is at other levels

3. Models and Strategies for Landscape Level
Ecosystem Based Management (LLEBM)
 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves
 Regional integration for PAs, landscape level
conservation
 Nested watershed management
 Coordination forums
 Unique systems (e.g. Ngorongoro, Tanzania;
Muskwa-Kechika, Canada)

4. Goal of the “LLEBM” Project
To test and refine a framework for assessment
of governance systems for landscape-level
ecosystem-based management

5. Social Phenomena
that Deliver
Governance
Governance
Capacities
Governance Outcomes
(Social functions
that are performed)
Resolving tradeoffs
Effective DecisionMaking
Organizations
Shaping how
power is used
Institutions
Networks
Norms
Governance
processes
Learning
Values
Setting direction
Etc.
Leadership
Assessed according to 7 indicators: deliberation, resources,
linkages, equity, responsiveness, legitimacy and accountability.
Building community
Dimensions of Governance for Assessment

6. Task
Descriptive Questions
Q1. What is the “identity” of
the SES?
Explanation
A description and delineation of
the landscape-level SES that is
being managed.
Q2 . Who are the stakeholders? A list and description of key
stakeholder groups.
Q3. What are the main issues
of the Social- and problems in the SES?
Q4. What are the objectives,
Ecological
interests, and values of the
System
stakeholders?
Description
As seen by the
stakeholder groups.
various
Brief descriptions of what
various stakeholder groups see as
important values and objectives
Q5. What are the
A comparison and discussion of
commonalities and
the above.
contradictions among the
various stakeholders’
objectives, interests and values?

7. Task
Description
of the
Descriptive Questions
Q6. What are the core
organizational and
institutional elements of
the governance system?
Explanation
The organization(s) and/or formal
decision-making mechanisms at the
core of the governance system, any
foundational institution(s) (legislation,
etc.) upon which it/they is/are based,
and their explicit aims.
Landscape
Q7. What are the key
A summary of how governance
Level
mechanisms and strategies mechanisms, processes and rules
influence behavior
Governance used for governance
System
Q8. What are the key
The most important collective
decisions being made that decisions that affect the SES.
affect the SES and the
problems?

8. Task
Evaluative Indicators
Explanation
I-1. Deliberation
The extent to which stakeholders and
decision-makers
engage
in
genuine
deliberation on important issues.
I-2. Resources
Ability of the governance system to generate
financial, human and political resources.
I-3. Linkages
The presence of appropriate linkages among
organizations and institutions, especially
across levels.
Assessment of
I-4. Equity
Whether or not institutional rules are fair and
take account of unequal circumstances in
society.
I-5. Responsiveness
Governance
Whether or not institutional patterns show
response to society.
I-6. Legitimacy
Whether there is public support for the
institutions of the governance system.
I-7. Accountability
Whether or not institutional patterns provide
accountability procedures.
Processes
Fair
Governance

9. Task
Questions/Indicators
Explanation
I-8. Clear scope,
The extent to which decision-making bodies
goals and objectives have clear goals and objectives.
Effective
I-9. Efficiency
Efficiency of
themselves.
I-10. Fit
The extent to which the governance system
fits the SES
I-11. Learning capacity
The extent to which the governance system
promotes learning
I-12. Leadership
The extent to which the governance system
makes room for the emergence of leadership
of various kinds—visionary, entrepreneurial,
and collaborative
Decision-
decision-making
processes
Making
Assessment of
Governance
Capacities

10. Task
Questions/Indicators
I-13. Resolving Tradeoffs
Assessment of I-14. Contributing to just power
Governance
relations
Outcomes
Explanation
The extent to which the GS has resolved
tradeoffs—including tradeoffs among social,
economic and environmental needs, and
tradeoffs among different social groups—in a
way that is equitable and fair, that is
economically rational, and that protects the
environment.
The extent to which the governance system
has placed limits on the use of coercive
power, and to which it has enhanced power as
capacity
I-15. Setting Direction
The extent to which governance has
established a common vision or direction.
I-16. Building Community
The extent to governance system is helping
stakeholders to identify, or create, shared
values and shared identities

11. Criteria for Scoring – Examples
Indicator
1
2
3
4
I-4. Equity
Institutional rules favor
some stakeholders or
communities over
others and perpetuate
unequal circumstances
that already exist in
society.
Institutional rules are
fair for most
stakeholders, communities and sub-groups.
However, no explicit
allowance has been
made or provisions put
in place, for the
unequal circumstances
of some of these
groups.
Institutional rules are
fair for most
stakeholders, communities and sub-groups,
and have made
allowance in modest
ways, for the unequal
circumstances of some
of these groups.
Institutional rules are
fair for all stakeholders,
communities and subgroups, and have
provisions that take
account of the unequal
circumstances of some
of these groups.
I-15. Setting
No articulated vision or
common goals. The
GS provides little
guidance to help
stakeholders prioritize
and strategize.
Limited vision
articulated. Insufficient
detail to guide strategic
decisions or day-to-day
management.
The GS has articulated
a vision and there is
some level of detail to
guide strategic
decisions and day-today management by the
governance system
itself and by
stakeholders.
The GS has articulated
a vision and there is
sufficient detail to
guide strategic
decisions and day-today management by the
governance system
itself and by
stakeholders.
Direction

12. Case Study: Greater Serengeti Ecosystem
in Tanzania
 An ecosystem of great importance
 A significant degree of community level
dissatisfaction
 Ecosystem crosses PA and District boundaries
 Multiple types of PAs, plus land outside of PAs
 The approaches for addressing fragmentation raise
concerns about social justice

13. Greater Serengeti Ecosystem in Tanzania:
the Governance System
 There is a multi-stakeholder forum: SECCF
 Generally though, there is no designed governance
system for the whole ecosystem
 The governance system is ad hoc: a range of actors
(PAs, Districts, SECCF, etc.), relationships among
them, a variety of institutions, etc.
 Our assessment was an assessment of this
governance system.

14. Methods
 Semi-structured interviews
 Structured questions using a Likert scale within the
semi-structured interviews
 Focus group discussions
 85 respondents in total
 Assessment of 16 indicators according to scoring
criteria

15. Summary of Assessment Scores
(Provisional!!!)
Governance Processes
Deliberation
1
Linkages
2
Equity
2
Governance Outcomes
2
Resources
Governance Capacities
Clear scope, goals
and objectives
Efficiency of the
decision-making
processes
3
Resolving tradeoffs
2
2
Contributing to just
power relations
3
Fit
1
Setting direction
1
Responsiveness 2
Learning capacity
2
Building community
2
Legitimacy
3
Leadership
3
Accountability
3

16. Some Surprises
Lowest scores related not to fair governance criteria but to the
coherence of governance at the ecosystem level: resources, fit,
and setting direction
 Essentially, the only body functioning at the Serengeti
ecosystem level is SECCF, and it has minimal resources and
no authority
 The various pieces that together make up the governance
system do not correspond to the Serengeti ecosystem or to
other critical problemsheds
 Thus there is almost no ability for collective setting of
direction at the landscape ecosystem level

17. What the assessment tells us about how to
address fragmentation
 There is some hope and some loose movement
toward ecosystem-based management
 In the Tanzanian context, creation of a purposelydesigned body that is both inclusive and has some
authority, may be politically unrealistic in the
current context
 However, ecosystem level planning processes could
help to push actors toward a more integrated
approach

18. Reflections on the Assessment Framework
 Generally, the approach works, but…
 Objective criteria to obtain quantitative scores from
qualitative data is useful but is not the whole solution
 Some indicators harder to assess objectively than others
 Complementing what we have with qualitative, but
structured, aspects may add value
 A framework that also assesses governance “powers”—
planning, revenue generation, regulation, etc.—may be
more tangible and useful

19. Acknowledgements
The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada
The Serengeti Ecosystem Community Conservation Forum
Our respondents

20. For more information….
http://www.viu.ca/landscapelevel/