Adaptive Management Approach
The conjunctive water management framework recognises a need for a simple check list of activities set out in a logical order. This gives the opportunity for those involved in water resource management to assess and revise their position within the overall scheme of sustainable water management. The philosophy of adaptive management is followed where policies and practices are continually improved by learning from the outcomes of previous work. The process is iterative and aspects of the management process are revisited and reviewed.
Adaptive Management is an approach that involves learning from management actions, and using that learning to improve the next stage of management (Holling, 1978).
It is "learning to manage by managing to learn" (Bormann et al, 1993).A feedback loop is incorporated into the management process. This recognises that there are inherent uncertainties in our understanding of catchment processes, the priorities and perspectives of water users, the impact of water management options and future changes and threats. There is constant change in our knowledge about complex natural systems which themselves are dynamic and community priorities, perceptions and expectations also change (Pagan and Crase, 2004). This means that conjunctive water management needs to be flexible and be able to evolve.
The ideals of adaptive management have recently become popularised in natural resource management. Ludwig et al (1993) provide some practical advice when working towards effective management:
- Include human motivation and responses as part of the system to be studied and managed.
- Act before scientific consensus is achieved. Calls for additional research may be delay tactics.
- Rely on scientists to recognise problems but not to remedy them. The judgement of scientists is often heavily influenced by their training in their respective disciplines, but the most important issues involving resources and the environment involve interactions whose understanding must involve many disciplines.
- Question claims of sustainability. Claims that basic research will lead to sustainable resource use may lead to false complacency.
- Confront uncertainty. Effective policies are possible under conditions of uncertainty, but they must take uncertainty into account. Consider a variety of plausible hypotheses about the world; consider a variety of possible strategies; favour actions that are robust to uncertainties; hedge, favour actions that are informative; probe and experiment; update assessments and modify policy accordingly; and favour actions that are reversible.
The second point is the premise of the Precautionary Principle:
The Precautionary Principle is applied "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
Table 1 gives a worked example of applying the Precautionary Principle in the context of conjunctive water management.
| Condition | Summary | Precaution | Conjunctive Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uncertainty of risk | Existence of risk cannot be proven | Response to situations of potential risk | Extent to which near stream groundwater pumping depletes stream flow is not known |
| Scientific assessment of likely harm | Good reason to believe that there might be harmful effects | Definition and evaluation of uncertainties by scientific experts | Quantification of magnitude and timing of stream flow depletion through monitoring, field investigations and predictive models |
| Serious and irreversible damage (short or long-term) | Likelihood of serious or irreversible effects on life and health of individuals, vital natural resources, species preservation, climate, ecosystem balanc | Determination of a threshold of non-negligible damage | Assessment indicates that groundwater pumping can seriously degrade in-stream aquatic ecosystems particularly during extreme low-flow conditions |
| Proportionality of measures | Measures taken to avoid likely harm should take impact on society into account | Identification of socioeconomic sacrifices required to adapt the precaution, careful evaluation of precautionary measures available and active review | Consideration of impact of reduced water access by consumptive users during drought period |
| Shifting burden of proof | Those who may cause serious damage show that it is unlikely | Hazard creators assume costs of risk assessment; proof of zero risk is not realistic | Onus of proof is that aquifer is assumed to be connected to stream, unless proven otherwise |
Relevant Links
NeWater New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty
References
Andorno R, 2004. The precautionary principle: a new legal standard for a technological age. Journal of International Biotechnology Law 1, 11-19.
Bormann BT, Cunningham PG, Brookes MH, Manning VW, Collopy MW, 1993. Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forestry Services General Technical Reprot PNW-GTR-341.
Holling CS, 1978. Adaptive environmental management and assessment. Wiley, Chichester.
Ludwig D, Hilborn R, Walters C, 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation and conservation: Lessons from History. Science 260, 17-18.
Pagan P, Crase L, 2004. Does adaptive management deliver in the Australian water sector. 48th Annual Conference of Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Melbourne, 11-13 February 2004