Opening the black box between governance and management: A mechanism-based explanation of how governance affects the management of endangered species.

Good governance is needed to foster good management of the environment. Yet, the link between environmental governance and environmental management has received very little research attention. This paper adopts a mechanism-based framework to unpack the link between the governance and management of species at risk or endangered species in a working landscape. Using species at risk management in the South of the Divide region of southwestern Saskatchewan as a case study, we identified four governance conditions connected by five mechanisms to produce management outcomes. The governance conditions include facilitative leadership, local autonomy, trust, and incentives. The five mechanisms include institutional disruption, institutional crafting and drift, brokerage or bridging, program uptake, and alleviation of fear of harm. We discuss how using a mechanism-based approach could help us better understand the processes within the governance system that trigger particular management outcomes. For example, in this case study, dissatisfied factors disrupt the existing governance arrangements and create new ones that reflect their desire for local autonomy. Local autonomy, in turn, creates an atmosphere for local actors to form coalitions and build trust; trust enhances program uptake and the co-design and co-implementation of incentives, which then alleviates land managers' fear of harm from participating in species at risk management. Our study also suggests that top-down institutions that create room for further institutional work can become acceptable at the local level and enhance endangered species management. We conclude that a mechanism-based explanation can be useful for opening the black box connecting environmental governance and management and offering valuable recommendations to guide policy.

Adaptive co-management of environmental risks in result-based agreements for the provision of environmental services: A case study of the South of the Divide Conservation Action Program.

Environmental risks pose a threat to the achievement of ecosystem outcomes in Results- or Outcome-based Agreements for endangered species conservation on agricultural lands. As a result, environmental risks can deter prospective land managers from participating in Results-based Agreements if not addressed. This qualitative case study examines a Results-based Agreement program implemented by the South of the Divide Conservation Action Program (SODCAP Inc.) in Southwestern Saskatchewan. We contribute to understanding the nature of environmental risks in Results-based Agreements and how SODCAP Inc., an emergent leader in grassroots-focused conservation governance in Southwestern Saskatchewan, works with land managers to address environmental risks. Using drought as an example of environmental risks, the study finds that drought is a common occurrence in the study area; therefore, land managers consider it a critical determinant when deciding to participate in Results-based Agreements. The study also reveals that environmental risks affect land managers involved with Results-based Agreements both by limiting their ability to achieve ecosystem targets and by forcing them to incur extra costs (i.e., extra management and opportunity costs) in their attempt to meet ecosystem targets under drought conditions. Finally, the case study illustrates a participatory and result-enhancing approach adopted by SODCAP Inc., which draws several parallels with adaptive co-management, to manage environmental risks. Our study findings contribute to a relatively limited body of scholarship in environmental risk management in Results-based Agreements. In addition to the study's policy relevance, it also calls for studies into conservation programs that are result-enhancing.