Community based natural resource management (CBNRM) is often criticised for its unpredictability, begging the much-asked question: why do some strategies for management perform better than others? Some have answered this question by developing institutional design principles while others have critiqued the underlying assumptions of CBNRM. However, Armitage believes that this question also needs to be addressed by analysing the exogenous and endogenous variables that influence people to act collectively, respond to changing circumstances, build capacity and promote learning for adaptation in management practices. In this article, he draws on examples from Canada and Indonesia to examine the relationship between adaptive capacity, CBNRM success, and the socio-institutional factors that determine collective action. Adaptive capacity is defined by Armitage as the aspect of resource management that reflects learning and an ability to experiment and cultivate innovative solutions in complex and ecological circumstances. In a CBNRM setting this capacity depends on the ability to act collectively in the face of various internal and external threats to the use and protection of common resources.

CBNRM efforts in Nunavut of Northern Canada take place in an institutional and legal framework where the rights and responsibilities of communities and organizations are fairly well defined. With the passing of the Nunavit Final Agreement in 1993, a legal document requiring the development of new forms of collaboration among Inuit communities and government entities in the context of wildlife management and protected areas, community based management efforts have been more formalized and intensified. However, being in the centre of complex and rapidly evolving dynamics of intense resource development and economic growth, the community faces many new external and internal changes that put stress on CBNRM efforts. The North of Canada is the focus of oil and natural gas exploration, mineral extraction, wildlife harvesting, fisheries development, and tourism all totalling billions of dollars and the promise of thousands of jobs. As Armitage states, such changes have a fundamental affect on CBNRM performance because they influence the social processes and institutional forms that shape collective action and the capacity for communities and organizations involved to adapt. Such socio-ecological conditions are not always understood in the design of CBNRM institutions or the discourse within the region.

In Indonesia, institutional and legislative basis for CBNRM is less developed than in Canada. As such, it faces different challenges to adaptive capacity. Unlike Canada, the rights of local communities and indigenous groups in Indonesia to actively participate in the management and protection of resources are not well defined. With recent changes in the government, from central to local, even more uncertainty has arisen around CBNRM, with new laws providing only a rough framework for new management regimes. As such, it is extremely difficult for communities to foster opportunities for collective action. In addition, these changes and uncertainty also undermine long standing traditional resource management institutions, practices and the “collective memory” required for adaptation.

In conclusion, Armitage stresses that a focus on adaptive capacity can help establish where external authorities need to act and where community based organizations should have a lead role. Different players in CBNRM will have different capabilities to adapt to variability and threats in ways that encourage positive outcomes. Highlighting such differences can aid in the development of crucial links, and the elimination of unnecessary links between multilevel governance systems in CBNRM.

Prepared by Erin Smith