Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

Abstract

Clement, S., Moore, S.A., Lockwood, M. and Mitchell, M. (2015)Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity.Policy Sciences, 48 (4 Mitchell) AbstractThe poor performance of biodiversity institutions has prompted calls for reform. Adaptive governance has been promoted as a means of supporting improved biodiversity outcomes. However, incorporating adaptive elements into biodiversity governance has been a challenge. In particular, efforts to make institutions more 'adaptive' often fail to account for existing capacity and context--specific factors. Clear guidance on how to move from general, ambitious adaptive governance prescriptions to specific, context--dependent recommendations is needed. This paper demonstrates how insights from pragmatism can inform an approach for designing institutional reforms that address current shortcomings in adaptive governance approaches. This design scaffolds reform options on a platform of existing competency and institutional legacy. Informed by the results of a prior institutional diagnosis, reform development followed a three--stage process: defining plausible reform spaces; identifying reform possibilities within these spaces; and elaborating reform options. Two very different landscapes provided the case studies: a highly modified agricultural landscape, where private landholders are responsible for managing biodiversity as a public good; and a group of national parks, where the state holds primary responsibility. The reforms in the agricultural landscape build on successful landholder and organizational efforts to self--organize and pursue innovative solutions, while those for the protected area enable greater managerial discretion and address the challenges of working across multiple government jurisdictions. This context--driven approach draws on insights from pragmatism to provide guidance on the design of institutional reforms that meet the demands of adaptive governance in a way that is both systematic and realistic.

A diagnostic framework for biodiversity conservation institutions

“…The intention of the framework is not to prescribe an ideal governance form, but to enable an understanding of the current system and build a strategy to foster more adaptive institutions on this foundation (Clement et al 2015b). As with other conceptual frameworks, the analyst should choose the unit of analysis at the outset, with the framework flexible enough to apply to a particular organizational unit or to a sub national or national biodiversity governance system.…”

“…The methods accompanying each step are given in the following section. They were largely qualitative, and included document analysis, a novel linguistic tool (Clement et al 2015c) in depth interviews, and focus groups (Clement et al 2015b). Table 2.…”

“…Step 5 Identify potential governance reforms that can build adaptive capacity and address areas of poor performance, building on current strengths (Clement et al 2015b). Best practice case studies from elsewhere can inform this process, as can workshops and focus groups.…”

“…Weak authority, interplay with powerful economic development and irrigation institutions, and the failure to institutionalize self organizing efforts were found to be particularly salient issues in the diagnosis of Midlands biodiversity institutions (Clement et al 2015a(Clement et al , 2015b(Clement et al , 2015d. Unclear roles and responsibilities, as well as whether power and authority were sufficiently strong (Section 3.3.2) to buffer key ecological and political drivers (Section 3.5.2),…”

“…Step 5 The results from the interviews, application of the Institutional Grammar Tool and document analysis helped identify areas of both strength and weakness, important for both diagnosis and designing institutional reforms (Clement et al 2015b). …”