|Variable Component Type||Governance System|
|Theme||Institutions (learn about themes)|
|Projects||SESMAD, Fiji fisheries|
|Question||Does this governance system focus exclusively on one target outcome, or on a range of metrics that are interrelated?|
|Select Options||1 Low: One metric for success, 2 Medium: Few metrics for success, 3 High: Many metrics for success|
|Importance||This variable represents a trade-off between two goals: one is optimizing a system for one particular metric, which is generally the way make the system the most productive it can be, at least in the short and medium-term and with respect to this particular metric. On the other hand, many have argued that such optimization, when applied to complex systems, leaves many other important aspects of these systems in poor condition and can lead to a loss of system-wide resilience. There is thus a trade-off implied between efficiency/productivity and resilience that must be struck.|
The diversity of metrics employed to both evaluate management performance, and unavoidably as a result, to guide management decisions, is a defining characteristic of any governance system. Many systems focus on only one metric for performance and optimize the target commons for the management of this metric. Examples of this include single-species fisheries management, many pollution cases that deal with a single target pollutant, much of the governance and management of industrial agricultural, many systems in the history of scientific forestry, and in some cases large-scale water management. A similar situation has occurred in implementations of the endangered species act in the United States, although in these cases the single target species is hoped to be a good indicator of the health of the larger ecosystem. On the other end of the spectrum, more holistic approaches have been more popular, and are often captured by terms such as "ecosystem management", which strive to manage for multiple characteristics of a complex system, rather than one defining metric.
|Conditions for general resilience||Moderate or High|
|Metric diversity, biodiversity loss and resilience||Low|
|Failure of centralized control||Low|
|Individual transferable quotas (ITQs)||Low|
|GMR governance system 1998-current||Medium: Few metrics for success (2)||Lobster, sea cucumber, and tuna are main fishing resources, surveyed for population growth or decline, as well as several health metrics within the populations|
|GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999|
|Magnuson-Stevens Act||High: Many metrics for success (3)|
|Raja Ampat Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Many metrics from social (perceptions) to ecological (turtles, coral, fish spawning)|
|Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Governance system aims to maintain stocks at sustainable levels, but also seeks to limit bycatch, particularly seabird bycatch and the potential impacts of the fishing fleet on the environment.|
|Macquarie Island Nature Reserve Management Plan||High: Many metrics for success (3)||The management plan includes 10 major goals that include include conserving biodiversity, reversing negative conservation trends, maintaining quarantine procedures, limiting impact of tourism and research activities, preserving cultural heritage, and maintaining or improving natural ecological processes that are directly or indirectly related to human disturbance.|
|Community D Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Fish resources are managed with a number of different social, economic and ecological objectives.|
|Community A Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Community members express diverse social, economic and ecological goals for fisheries management.|
|Community G Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Fisheries resources are managed with a number of different social, economic and ecological objectives.|
|Community H Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Fish resources are managed with a number of different social, economic and ecological objectives.|
|Sasi in Tomolol, Misool|
|GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||High: Many metrics for success (3)|
|Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||High: Many metrics for success (3)||MPA manages for a range of outcomes - both ecological and social objectives (including: coral cover, fish spawning, fish abundance, turtles, seagrass, seabird habitat, resource use of users within the park) - although it has been difficult to find this information|
|NWHI Monument Act 2006||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Success metrics range from cultural perseverance in the Monument to ecological health (which includes fisheries, pollution, biodiversity, migratory species, trophic density, etc.)|
|Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Metrics for success include effective education and outreach, resource protection, and research goals. Condition reports includes metrics on offshore and nearsore environments, and assess habitat, biodiversity, key species, human activities and human health, living resources, water quality, and maritime archaeological resources.|
|Community C Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Fisheries resources are managed with a number of different social, economic and ecological objectives.|
|Community B Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Community members express a number of social, economic and ecological goals for fisheries management.|
|Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan||Low: One metric for success (1)||While the MSA specifies success of management plans to focus on 4 areas: prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood, the Council writes that all sectors of the groundfish fishery are currently constrained by the need to rebuild groundfish species that have been declared overfished. Therefore there is an emphasis on rebuilding overfished stocks as a metric for success.|
|Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||High: Many metrics for success (3)||The Environmental Protection Act and the Regulations of 1973 specify what is and is not allowed within the Nature Reserves. Therefore, there are no formal “goals for management” for which to gauge success. The ongoing monitoring program does keep track of a few metrics for each of several species (e.g. number of dens, litter size, cub survival for polar bears). The Governor also collects information of many social indicators on Svalbard. Despite the lack of formal management goals, there are many metrics of success (including various species of marine fauna, pollution levels, hunting, fishing, cruise traffic, etc.).|
|Seaflower MPA Act 2005||Missing||NO DATA|
|Community E Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Local fisheries are managed with a number of different social, economic and ecological objectives.|
|Community F Governance System||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Fisheries within the LMMA are managed with a number of different social, economic and ecological objectives.|
|Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||High: Many metrics for success (3)||A variety of ecological factors are monitored, inlcuding fisheries lobster, sea cucumber, and movements of migratory species sharks, turtles. Water quality. Also Galapagos Report 2011-2012 includes sections on tourism and poverty - so assume some social metrics also measured.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||High: Many metrics for success (3)||Management plans include a wide range of goals, including preservation of species and habitats, and the elimination of invasive species and minimization of potential threats. The management plan adopts an ecosystem-based approach to management and aims to coordinate regulations with the nature reserve and CCAMLR.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||High: Many metrics for success (3)||The Plan of Management is written to conform to the Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) best practice model for performance reporting in natural resource management (ANZECC 1997) with an emphasis on measurable performance indicators, targets and monitoring. The Plan of Management is a statutory document intended to be in force for a long period of time, so therefore, the performance assessment details are to be presented in a separate document to allow for new knowledge and feedback to management during the duration of the Plan. Wherever possible, the research requirements are to be closely linked to the performance assessment requirements of the Park. Criteria and Priorities for the GABMP Performance Indicators are outlined in the 2000 - 2005 Management Plan with primary goals for each protection zone and the whole park along with possible research and performance assessment priorities. In the 2005 - 2012 Management Plan, a Performance Assessment Framework was developed by the Director of National Parks that consists of seven Key Result Areas and sets out prescriptions on how each one will be managed.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||High: Many metrics for success (3)||The MPA management plan includes a variety of inter-related goals for biodiversity conservation, sustainable management, protection of areas occupied by species during different life history stages (e.g., juveniles toothfish grounds, nesting areas for seabirds, foraging areas for birds and mammals), reduction of invasive species threats, and more.|
|Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan||High: Many metrics for success (3)||AFMA aims to maintain stocks at sustainable levels, while also attempting ecosystem based management. This includes having bycatch limits and mitigation measures for avoiding seabirds.|
|Cenderwasih governance system|
|The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) Fisheries Department’s Falklands Interim Conservation and Management Zone (FICZ)||Medium: Few metrics for success (2)||“At the introduction of the Fisheries regime in 1987, the management objectives were stated (Anon., 1989) as being: 1) To conserve the resource, and thus ensure its continued productivity. 2) To maintain the economic viability of the fisheries as a whole. 3) To enable the Falklands to enjoy greater benefits from the resource. These objectives are still relevant today.” (Barton 2002) ITQ goals include: diversification, economic performance, research and development investment, increased international competitiveness, government income increases, environmental stewardship (Harte and Barton 2007a). Primary goal: Stability. Achieved.|
|California Department of Fish and Wildlife Market Squid Fishery Management Plan||Medium: Few metrics for success (2)||Primarily ecosystem health and stock health. The MLMA calls for achieving its primary goal of sustainability by meeting several objectives: • preventing overfishing; • rebuilding depressed stocks; • ensuring conservation; • promoting habitat protection and restoration. Capacity Goal: maintain a sustainable squid resource and provide for a fishery that is diverse, stable, and profitable. (FMA 2005)|
|New Zealand Quota Management System||Low: One metric for success (1)||Our goal is to have New Zealanders maximising benefits from the use of fisheries within environmental limits. Has multiple Use Outcomes, Environment Outcomes, and Governance Outcomes. However: In reality the squid management has one outcome: Reduce sea lion mortality. (Other goal is to manage the TACC, but less so in reality). Greater outcomes and goals, but less in reality.|
|Caeté-Taperaçú Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Brazil||High: Many metrics for success (3)|
|Indonesian Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture|
|Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving||Low: One metric for success (1)|
|Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica||Medium: Few metrics for success (2)|
Basic:A basic variable describes essential and basic background information for a component.
Biophysical:Biophysical variables describe just that: important biophysical properties, largely of environmental commons, that are not captured by a more specific theme.
Causation:A variable with this theme describes issues of causality, which is a complex subject. Most basically this theme is associated with variables that describe different types of causation and different types of causes of environmental problems.
Context:contextual variable relates the component with which it associated to the social and/or ecological setting of a particular interaction and/or case.
Ecosystem services:Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or describe the provision of important ecosystem services by a natural resource.
Enforcement:Enforcement involves several different processes, including monitoring for violations of rules, sanctioning violators, and conflict resolution mechanisms involved in this process. Variables that relate to any of these processes should be attached to this theme.
External:Variables with this theme relate a component to processes external to the case with which the component is associated.
Heterogeneity:Variables with this theme describe important ways in which the member of an actor group differ from each other.
Incentives: This theme is associated with variables that are not directly related to institutions and rules, but which still play a role in affecting the incentives that commons users have to ameliorate or exacerbate the commons they use.
Institutional-biophysical linkage:This is a sub-theme of the institutions theme, and describes those variables that ask about the relationship between a set of institutions and a biophysical aspect of a commons.
Institutions:Variables with this theme describe the social institutions (rules, property rights) that are used to organize and direct human behavior. It does not include monitoring and enforcement of these institutions, as these are associated with the Enforcement theme.
Knowledge and uncertainty:Variables with this theme describe levels of knowledge that actor groups have regarding a commons, as well as factors that affect how much uncertainty there is in the status and dynamics of that commons.
Leadership:Leaders play an important role in commons management, most traditionally by providing for public goods needed to organize commons users. But there are other possible roles, and variables associated with this theme can relate to any role that a leader might play in an interaction.
Outcomes:This theme is attached to variables that deal with any outcomes that are produced by the actions of relevant actors in an interaction.
Resource renewability:Variables associated with this theme deal with the ability of a natural resource to be highly productive and renewable.
Social capital:Social capital captures the processes that enable the members of an actor group to work effectively together. Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or in some way express the level of social capital among members of a group.
Spatial:Variables associated with the Spatial theme describe important spatial patterns or dynamics, such as the spatial heterogeneity of a commons, or whether or not a user group resides within a particular commons.
Technology:This theme is attached to variables that consider the role that technology and infrastructure have in affecting commons outcomes.