Adaptive Co-management of Natural Resources: A Solution or Problem? Tendayi Gondo Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Venda, Private Bag X5050. Thohoyandou 0950, Limpopo Province, South Africa Telephone: +2715 962 8576 OR +27826611558; Fax: +2715 962 8597; E-mail: tendayi.gondo@univen.ac.za, gondotee@gmail.com KEYWORDS Adaptive. Co-management. Natural Resource Management. Experiences ABSTRACT Natural resource management issues are increasingly viewed from the complex systems theory. There is general consensus among scientist that complex systems are not amenable to conventional resource management approaches that stresses on command-and-control. This has triggered a search for novel governance approaches that are more suited to complexity and uncertainty. Adaptive co-management (ACM) has emerged as a recent interdisciplinary response to this need. However, concepts associated with ACM are relatively new and quickly expanding from multiple perspectives. Consequently the successes and failures of such a methodology has varied from one study to the next. The analysis critiques the utility of such an approach and eventually argues that ACM of natural resources is not necessarily a solution but part of the problem itself. A Delphi method was applied to gather the knowledge of experts in adaptive management. The panel of experts was drawn from East and Southern African researchers whose experiences with the tool had been documented in a series of publications. Such analysis was complemented by evidence drawn from a sample of case studies in the same field. The difficulties faced by the (ACM) practitioners during the implementation phase as well as the evaluation of the associated benefits suggest there is an urgent need to fix the leaking buckets, before sharing optimism that currently characterize the orthodox and ideals of this methodology. Failure to do so (it seems) will see the approach running the risk of being a hollow marketing tool rather than a viable tool. INTRODUCTION There is general consensus among Natural Resource Management (NRM) practitioners that the emergency or rather the advent of complex- ity and uncertainty in NRM requires the adop- tion of response options that are interdiscipli- nary and adaptive in nature. Such an approach (it would seem) can best be explained from the complex systems theory. According to Plummer and Armitage (2007), complex systems under- standing imply a world characterized by dy- namic, non-linear interactions, discontinuities, and surprises. A continued drum beat of failure in numerous NRM efforts that has character- ized many countries over the past two or so de- cades has raised insurmountable euphoria among NRM practitioners about the incorpora- tion of adaptive principles in dealing with com- plexity and uncertainty. It is, therefore, not sur- prising how the new concept of adaptive co- management (ACM) of natural resources has taken centre stage in NRM discourse (Plummer and Armitage 2007; Bruns 2008). Central to the concept is the recognition that natural eco-sys- tems are complex adaptive systems that require approaches that go beyond command and con- trol strategies to encompass flexible governance solutions that have ability to respond to envi- ronmental feedbacks (Gadgil et al. 2003; Olsson 2004; Plummer and Armitage 2007). Such flex- ible governance systems are touted for provid- ing an ideal platform where institutional ar- rangements are tested and revised in a dynamic and self organized process of experimentation (Folke and Environmental 2002). Conventional approaches are often said to be devoid of such a trial and error component and subsequently are lacking the much needed dynamism (Moberg and Galaz 2005). Beyond the orthodox and ideals of ACM is, however, a group of critics sharing skepticism on the utility of the tool (Walters 1997; Dukes et al. 2001; Few 2001; Stankey et al. 2003; Walker and Hurley 2004; Bormann et al. 2007). Perhaps at a more theoretical level one can ar- gue that concepts associated with adaptive co- management are relatively new and quickly ex- panding from multiple perspectives (Plummer and Armitage 2007). To this end they are there- fore liable to misinterpretation by NRM. Per- haps what is appealing about the controversies surrounding the concept, is the paucity of tan- gible, compelling evidence to underpin the util- ity of the concept (Walters 1997; Stankey et al. 2003). Unless scientists and policy makers come up with a convincing result based evaluation methodology to objectively take stock of the © Kamla-Raj 2011 J Hum Ecol, 33(2): 119-131 (2011)