Kelp forests are highly productive habitats which support important marine species and ecosystem services including coastal protection and carbon storage. Demand is increasing for commercial products from wild and cultivated kelp, however questions remain on how harvesting of wild kelp can be managed and governed in a sustainable and adaptive way. This paper analyses and contrasts the institutional arrangements for wild kelp harvesting in Scotland and Norway by examining three recent governance processes through document analysis and participant observation. We investigate to what extent the regimes display three foundational aspects of adaptive governance: local governance and participation; the use of knowledge; and legal adaptive capacity. Industrial harvesting has been underway for decades in Norway but is not yet practiced in Scotland, although kelp availability and traditional usage are similar. In Scotland, following extensive public objection in response to proposed industrial harvesting, a legal restriction was adopted in 2019 that prohibits industrial harvesting of whole plants, and the regulatory regime remains under review. In Norway, governance of kelp harvesting is designed to be adaptive and inclusive through periodic review of regional harvesting regulations, yet has not been adjusted despite contestation from stakeholders. In both cases, adaptive governance processes are indicated but are not influential on outcomes. Our paper reveals several obstacles to knowledge-based adaptive governance in practice. First, it is insufficient to create the processes of engagement and participation - these must be empowered to influence governance and remain legitimate. In both cases, the regimes remain hierarchical and dominated by central agencies, even though structures for local governance are available. Second, integrating scientific and local knowledge was shown to be difficult, and mechanisms to debate and negotiate risks and benefits were lacking. In each case, diverging perspectives on kelp harvesting were sustained even though final outcomes were reached, and consensus was elusive. Third, adaptive capacity of applicable legal instruments is of crucial importance, with differences apparent in capacity to enable on-going revision (as in Norway) and limit future change (in Scotland). Poor co-ordination between legal instruments also leads to complications between actors with different mandates and policy objectives. Recommendations are made for an adaptive approach to protect and manage kelp as a critical habitat.

海带森林是高产的栖息地，支持重要的海洋物种和生态系统服务，包括海岸保护和碳储存。对来自野生和栽培海带的商业产品的需求正在增加，但如何以可持续和适应性的方式管理和管理野生海带的收获仍然存在问题。本文通过文件分析和参与观察检查了三个最近的治理过程，分析和对比了苏格兰和挪威野生海带收获的制度安排。我们调查了这些制度在多大程度上展示了适应性治理的三个基本方面：地方治理和参与；知识的运用；和法律适应能力。挪威的工业收获已经进行了几十年，但在苏格兰尚未实施，尽管海带的可用性和传统用法相似。在苏格兰，在公众对拟议的工业采伐提出广泛反对后，2019 年通过了一项法律限制，禁止对整株植物进行工业采伐，监管制度仍在审查中。在挪威，海带捕捞的治理旨在通过定期审查区域捕捞法规来实现适应性和包容性，但尽管利益相关者存在争议，但尚未进行调整。在这两种情况下，都指出了适应性治理过程，但对结果没有影响。我们的论文揭示了实践中基于知识的自适应治理的几个障碍。首先，创建参与和参与的过程是不够的——必须授权这些过程影响治理并保持合法性。在这两种情况下，尽管可以使用地方治理结构，但体制仍然是等级制度并由中央机构主导。其次，整合科学和地方知识被证明是困难的，并且缺乏讨论和协商风险和收益的机制。在每种情况下，即使达成了最终结果，关于海带收获的不同观点仍然存在，而且难以达成共识。第三，适用法律文书的适应能力至关重要，在推动持续修订（如在挪威）和限制未来变化（在苏格兰）的能力方面存在明显差异。法律文书之间的协调不力也会导致具有不同任务和政策目标的行为者之间的复杂化。