31
Bridging organisations Lecture for Module 10, Adaptive Governance 2014-02-21 Thomas Hahn [email protected] 1
| Date post: | 11-May-2015 |
| Category: |
Education |
| Upload: | victor-galaz |
| View: | 696 times |
| Download: | 1 times |
Bridging organisations
Lecture for Module 10 Adaptive Governance 2014-02-21
Thomas Hahn
thomashahnstockholmresiliencesuse
1
Outline
1 ldquoRepetitionrdquo ndash Economics paradigms WEF and Green Economy
2 SES ndash the context of bridging organisations
3 Individuals or organisations
4 Limitations of Adaptive Governance and collaboration within bridging organisations
5 Do we study systems or agents with intentions
6 Resilience and political ecology
Degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being
ldquoThe total economic value associated with managing ecosystems more sustainably is often higher than the value associated with conversionrdquo (Opportunity cost)
ldquoConversion may still occur because private economic benefits are often greater for the converted systemrdquo (external costs)
ldquoGovernments should first stop subsidies to such conversions then subsidize production of ecosystem servicesrdquo (incentives)
(How are the values in the table estimated)
Economics is not equal to money
The Biosphere
The Economic System
The Social System
air
soil minerals plants animals micro-organisms
biological diversity
water
nutrients
biogeochemical cycles
ecosystem functioning thresholds
decomposition
EcolEcon Human wellbeing depend on the Biosphere
regardless whether we understand it or not
NeoclassEnvEcon The value of nature depends on human
preferences
Neoclassical economics versus Democracy
bull Example (Survey 1997) Swedish citizens think it should not be allowed ndash to build mosques in Sweden ndash to have homosexual teachers at primary
school bull These large minority opinions are contrary
to the Swedish constitution Conclusion many people have ldquowrongrdquo preferences ie their preferences should not be given moral weight in formulation of policy goals
46
39
Million-dollar questions bull Should we adapt the Swedish constitution to accommodate
these values that violate human rights
bull Sustainable development may not be supported by citizens (eg rising taxes on fossil fuel) Could sustainability or the integrity of ecosystems be framed as human rights-issues (constitutional issues) eg the right to breathe fresh air the right to clean ground and surface water Implications on property rights
bull If value systems are hierarchical (human rights democracy sustainability are ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo) then these ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo could be used to direct frame and constrain policy options as well as choices by consumers Just like our constitution frames legislation
ldquoNobelrdquo Prizes in Economics 1 Kenneth Arrow 1972 (social choice ecol-econ) 2 Gunnar Myrdal 1974 (inst econ questioned ldquovalue-
freerdquo) 3 Herbert Simon 1978 (bounded rationality) 4 James Tobin 1981 (ldquoTobin taxrdquo) 5 Douglass North 1993 (institutional economics) 6 Amartya Sen 1998 (re-define efficiency ethics fixed
preferences narrow self-interest) 7 Joseph Stiglitz 2001 (Development IMF critic) 8 Daniel Kahneman 2002 (testing theory in experiments) 9 Elinor Ostrom 2009 (Challenged ldquothe tragedy of the
commonsrdquo and its assumption of narrow self-interest)
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Outline
1 ldquoRepetitionrdquo ndash Economics paradigms WEF and Green Economy
2 SES ndash the context of bridging organisations
3 Individuals or organisations
4 Limitations of Adaptive Governance and collaboration within bridging organisations
5 Do we study systems or agents with intentions
6 Resilience and political ecology
Degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being
ldquoThe total economic value associated with managing ecosystems more sustainably is often higher than the value associated with conversionrdquo (Opportunity cost)
ldquoConversion may still occur because private economic benefits are often greater for the converted systemrdquo (external costs)
ldquoGovernments should first stop subsidies to such conversions then subsidize production of ecosystem servicesrdquo (incentives)
(How are the values in the table estimated)
Economics is not equal to money
The Biosphere
The Economic System
The Social System
air
soil minerals plants animals micro-organisms
biological diversity
water
nutrients
biogeochemical cycles
ecosystem functioning thresholds
decomposition
EcolEcon Human wellbeing depend on the Biosphere
regardless whether we understand it or not
NeoclassEnvEcon The value of nature depends on human
preferences
Neoclassical economics versus Democracy
bull Example (Survey 1997) Swedish citizens think it should not be allowed ndash to build mosques in Sweden ndash to have homosexual teachers at primary
school bull These large minority opinions are contrary
to the Swedish constitution Conclusion many people have ldquowrongrdquo preferences ie their preferences should not be given moral weight in formulation of policy goals
46
39
Million-dollar questions bull Should we adapt the Swedish constitution to accommodate
these values that violate human rights
bull Sustainable development may not be supported by citizens (eg rising taxes on fossil fuel) Could sustainability or the integrity of ecosystems be framed as human rights-issues (constitutional issues) eg the right to breathe fresh air the right to clean ground and surface water Implications on property rights
bull If value systems are hierarchical (human rights democracy sustainability are ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo) then these ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo could be used to direct frame and constrain policy options as well as choices by consumers Just like our constitution frames legislation
ldquoNobelrdquo Prizes in Economics 1 Kenneth Arrow 1972 (social choice ecol-econ) 2 Gunnar Myrdal 1974 (inst econ questioned ldquovalue-
freerdquo) 3 Herbert Simon 1978 (bounded rationality) 4 James Tobin 1981 (ldquoTobin taxrdquo) 5 Douglass North 1993 (institutional economics) 6 Amartya Sen 1998 (re-define efficiency ethics fixed
preferences narrow self-interest) 7 Joseph Stiglitz 2001 (Development IMF critic) 8 Daniel Kahneman 2002 (testing theory in experiments) 9 Elinor Ostrom 2009 (Challenged ldquothe tragedy of the
commonsrdquo and its assumption of narrow self-interest)
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being
ldquoThe total economic value associated with managing ecosystems more sustainably is often higher than the value associated with conversionrdquo (Opportunity cost)
ldquoConversion may still occur because private economic benefits are often greater for the converted systemrdquo (external costs)
ldquoGovernments should first stop subsidies to such conversions then subsidize production of ecosystem servicesrdquo (incentives)
(How are the values in the table estimated)
Economics is not equal to money
The Biosphere
The Economic System
The Social System
air
soil minerals plants animals micro-organisms
biological diversity
water
nutrients
biogeochemical cycles
ecosystem functioning thresholds
decomposition
EcolEcon Human wellbeing depend on the Biosphere
regardless whether we understand it or not
NeoclassEnvEcon The value of nature depends on human
preferences
Neoclassical economics versus Democracy
bull Example (Survey 1997) Swedish citizens think it should not be allowed ndash to build mosques in Sweden ndash to have homosexual teachers at primary
school bull These large minority opinions are contrary
to the Swedish constitution Conclusion many people have ldquowrongrdquo preferences ie their preferences should not be given moral weight in formulation of policy goals
46
39
Million-dollar questions bull Should we adapt the Swedish constitution to accommodate
these values that violate human rights
bull Sustainable development may not be supported by citizens (eg rising taxes on fossil fuel) Could sustainability or the integrity of ecosystems be framed as human rights-issues (constitutional issues) eg the right to breathe fresh air the right to clean ground and surface water Implications on property rights
bull If value systems are hierarchical (human rights democracy sustainability are ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo) then these ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo could be used to direct frame and constrain policy options as well as choices by consumers Just like our constitution frames legislation
ldquoNobelrdquo Prizes in Economics 1 Kenneth Arrow 1972 (social choice ecol-econ) 2 Gunnar Myrdal 1974 (inst econ questioned ldquovalue-
freerdquo) 3 Herbert Simon 1978 (bounded rationality) 4 James Tobin 1981 (ldquoTobin taxrdquo) 5 Douglass North 1993 (institutional economics) 6 Amartya Sen 1998 (re-define efficiency ethics fixed
preferences narrow self-interest) 7 Joseph Stiglitz 2001 (Development IMF critic) 8 Daniel Kahneman 2002 (testing theory in experiments) 9 Elinor Ostrom 2009 (Challenged ldquothe tragedy of the
commonsrdquo and its assumption of narrow self-interest)
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
The Biosphere
The Economic System
The Social System
air
soil minerals plants animals micro-organisms
biological diversity
water
nutrients
biogeochemical cycles
ecosystem functioning thresholds
decomposition
EcolEcon Human wellbeing depend on the Biosphere
regardless whether we understand it or not
NeoclassEnvEcon The value of nature depends on human
preferences
Neoclassical economics versus Democracy
bull Example (Survey 1997) Swedish citizens think it should not be allowed ndash to build mosques in Sweden ndash to have homosexual teachers at primary
school bull These large minority opinions are contrary
to the Swedish constitution Conclusion many people have ldquowrongrdquo preferences ie their preferences should not be given moral weight in formulation of policy goals
46
39
Million-dollar questions bull Should we adapt the Swedish constitution to accommodate
these values that violate human rights
bull Sustainable development may not be supported by citizens (eg rising taxes on fossil fuel) Could sustainability or the integrity of ecosystems be framed as human rights-issues (constitutional issues) eg the right to breathe fresh air the right to clean ground and surface water Implications on property rights
bull If value systems are hierarchical (human rights democracy sustainability are ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo) then these ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo could be used to direct frame and constrain policy options as well as choices by consumers Just like our constitution frames legislation
ldquoNobelrdquo Prizes in Economics 1 Kenneth Arrow 1972 (social choice ecol-econ) 2 Gunnar Myrdal 1974 (inst econ questioned ldquovalue-
freerdquo) 3 Herbert Simon 1978 (bounded rationality) 4 James Tobin 1981 (ldquoTobin taxrdquo) 5 Douglass North 1993 (institutional economics) 6 Amartya Sen 1998 (re-define efficiency ethics fixed
preferences narrow self-interest) 7 Joseph Stiglitz 2001 (Development IMF critic) 8 Daniel Kahneman 2002 (testing theory in experiments) 9 Elinor Ostrom 2009 (Challenged ldquothe tragedy of the
commonsrdquo and its assumption of narrow self-interest)
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Neoclassical economics versus Democracy
bull Example (Survey 1997) Swedish citizens think it should not be allowed ndash to build mosques in Sweden ndash to have homosexual teachers at primary
school bull These large minority opinions are contrary
to the Swedish constitution Conclusion many people have ldquowrongrdquo preferences ie their preferences should not be given moral weight in formulation of policy goals
46
39
Million-dollar questions bull Should we adapt the Swedish constitution to accommodate
these values that violate human rights
bull Sustainable development may not be supported by citizens (eg rising taxes on fossil fuel) Could sustainability or the integrity of ecosystems be framed as human rights-issues (constitutional issues) eg the right to breathe fresh air the right to clean ground and surface water Implications on property rights
bull If value systems are hierarchical (human rights democracy sustainability are ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo) then these ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo could be used to direct frame and constrain policy options as well as choices by consumers Just like our constitution frames legislation
ldquoNobelrdquo Prizes in Economics 1 Kenneth Arrow 1972 (social choice ecol-econ) 2 Gunnar Myrdal 1974 (inst econ questioned ldquovalue-
freerdquo) 3 Herbert Simon 1978 (bounded rationality) 4 James Tobin 1981 (ldquoTobin taxrdquo) 5 Douglass North 1993 (institutional economics) 6 Amartya Sen 1998 (re-define efficiency ethics fixed
preferences narrow self-interest) 7 Joseph Stiglitz 2001 (Development IMF critic) 8 Daniel Kahneman 2002 (testing theory in experiments) 9 Elinor Ostrom 2009 (Challenged ldquothe tragedy of the
commonsrdquo and its assumption of narrow self-interest)
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Million-dollar questions bull Should we adapt the Swedish constitution to accommodate
these values that violate human rights
bull Sustainable development may not be supported by citizens (eg rising taxes on fossil fuel) Could sustainability or the integrity of ecosystems be framed as human rights-issues (constitutional issues) eg the right to breathe fresh air the right to clean ground and surface water Implications on property rights
bull If value systems are hierarchical (human rights democracy sustainability are ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo) then these ldquooverarching ideologiesrdquo could be used to direct frame and constrain policy options as well as choices by consumers Just like our constitution frames legislation
ldquoNobelrdquo Prizes in Economics 1 Kenneth Arrow 1972 (social choice ecol-econ) 2 Gunnar Myrdal 1974 (inst econ questioned ldquovalue-
freerdquo) 3 Herbert Simon 1978 (bounded rationality) 4 James Tobin 1981 (ldquoTobin taxrdquo) 5 Douglass North 1993 (institutional economics) 6 Amartya Sen 1998 (re-define efficiency ethics fixed
preferences narrow self-interest) 7 Joseph Stiglitz 2001 (Development IMF critic) 8 Daniel Kahneman 2002 (testing theory in experiments) 9 Elinor Ostrom 2009 (Challenged ldquothe tragedy of the
commonsrdquo and its assumption of narrow self-interest)
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
ldquoNobelrdquo Prizes in Economics 1 Kenneth Arrow 1972 (social choice ecol-econ) 2 Gunnar Myrdal 1974 (inst econ questioned ldquovalue-
freerdquo) 3 Herbert Simon 1978 (bounded rationality) 4 James Tobin 1981 (ldquoTobin taxrdquo) 5 Douglass North 1993 (institutional economics) 6 Amartya Sen 1998 (re-define efficiency ethics fixed
preferences narrow self-interest) 7 Joseph Stiglitz 2001 (Development IMF critic) 8 Daniel Kahneman 2002 (testing theory in experiments) 9 Elinor Ostrom 2009 (Challenged ldquothe tragedy of the
commonsrdquo and its assumption of narrow self-interest)
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Paradigm critique in economics
bull The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom for her analysis of economic governance especially the commonsldquo
bull Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) ldquoprotective beltrdquo assumption of narrow self-interest
bull Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational Hence people may overcome the ldquotragedy of open accessrdquo (Nash equilibrium)
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Paradigm critique in economics
Core Utility maximization
Self-interest Rational choice
Spontaneous order Equilibrium
Protective belt assumptions
Narrow self-interest Sometimes broad self-interest
Full rationality Bounded rationality
Non-cooperation Sometimes cooperation
Economic man Political-economic man
Full information Information economics
Only utilitarian ethics Rights-based approaches
Objective market prices Prices depend on institutions Conclusion The neoclassical core has been
re-defined when ten important assumptions have been questioned
Natural capital can be substituted for Limited substitutability
Linear change Tipping points
Exponential growth is good Growth can be uneconomic
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
8 worst Global Risks
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based 1 Water supply crises 2 Rising greenhouse gas emissions 3 Failure of climate change adaptation 4 Extreme volatility in energy and agriculture prices 5 Food shortage crises
Non-ecosystem-based risks 6 Chronic fiscal imbalances 7 Major systemic financial failure 8 Severe income disparity
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
2010 = end of the neoliberal era
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics TEEB 2009 and GE 2011
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Green Economy is (or should be) About using environmentalecological economics as a tool
for (social and ecological) sustainable development Get the institutions right (prices will followhellip) Reduce subsidies to fossil fuels (US$ 650 billion annually)
and replace by Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind (30devd + 17devg countries have used this)
Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market (protected areas standards etc) Technology transfer etc Presented as more efficient (economically + ecologically)
than the rdquoBrownrdquo Economy but what about equity
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
httpwwwetcgrouporgennode5296
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue
Herersquos an example from Ghana
Logical but assumeshellip
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Fiscal reforms are necessary buthellip
BBC Africa 2012-01-02 ldquoOrdinary Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areasrdquo
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al 2006 HumEcol)
Social norms and rules
Management actors organizations
Ecosystem processes + services
Know-ledge
systems
External drivers change
and surprise
The capacity to generate valuable ecosystem services depends on ecosystem processes as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to
govern people manage ecosystems and handling surprises
Capacity for dealing with governmental policies
social unrest global market demands
climate change
etc
Flexible institutions adaptive governance
Multilevel governance legal and financial support
Adaptive management
Knowledge generation
Adaptive management
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Social-ecological systems (SES) Three core features 1 society and nature represent truly interdependent social-
ecological systems (SES) 2 social-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems 3 cross scale and dynamic interactions represent new
challenges for governance and management in relation to interdependent SES and ecosystem services
These three core features provide a broad research direction and will continue to serve as a significant attractor that allows for emergence of diverse approaches from different disciplines within a common framing The content and direction of the framing is a central identity of the SRC that distinguishes SRC research from multidisciplinary collaborations in sustainability science (Stockholm Resilience Centre Action Plan 2010-2013)
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Search on Scopus for rdquoadaptive governancerdquo AND ecosystems (2011)
1 Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Folke C Hahn T Olsson P Norberg J 2005 Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 pp 441-473 300 2 Resilience The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses Folke C 2006 Global Environmental Change 16 (3) pp 253-267 228 3 Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland
landscape in southern Sweden Olsson P Folke C Hahn T 2004 Ecology and Society 9 (4) 91 4 Shooting the rapids Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Olsson P Gunderson LH Carpenter SR Ryan P Lebel L Folke C Holling CS 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 18 76 5 Scenarios for ecosystem services An overview Carpenter SR Bennett EM Peterson GD 2006 Ecology and Society 11 (1) art no 29 31 6 Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the
Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden Olsson P Folke C Galaz V Hahn T Schultz L 2007 Ecology and Society 12 (1) art no 28 28
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
The context of bridging organisations
bull Adaptive governance of coupled social and ecological systems is about connecting actors and organisations at multiple organizational levels to enable an ecosystem-based management These actors are connected in social networks and provide leadership trust vision meaning and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment (Folke et al 2005)
bull Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called ldquobridging organizations (Crona amp Parker 2012)
bull As an integral part of adaptive ecosystem governance bridging organizations provide social incentives to individuals within stakeholder groups by rewarding and creating space for collaboration value formation and innovation (Hahn et al 2006)
bull Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
The context of bridging organisations bull Bridging organizations or individuals performing these functions are
crucial for successful governance ie collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009)
bull Adaptive governance coordinates different types of networks The governance network typically includes national NGOs and civil servants who can provide and mobilise institutional financial and political support as well as external knowledge Local steward networks typically include landowners and local NGOs and civil servants concerned with the actual management (Schultz et al 2007 Hahn 2011)
bull The challenges of ldquolegitimacyrdquo and ldquoaccountabilityrdquo are often treated as similar in international governance while in local governance they are obviously different Informal self-organized governance networks may increase legitimacy if a variety of stakeholders are involved but at the same time accountability becomes blurred when decisions are taken
bull Question is there a risk that self-organized governance networks ldquotake overrdquo responsibility from the representative democracy
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Fig 1 The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve The nodes are agenciesorganizations except in five cases (noted by names) in which
the nodes could be described as individuals who created their own mandates within their respective organizations (Hahn 2011 EampS)
Individuals or organisations
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Kristianstad Wetlands ndash UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve Sept 2005
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Bridging organizations bullPerforming essential functions in crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems
bullLinking groups networks and organizations across levels creating the right links at the right time around the right issues
bullAccessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests
bullEnhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning
Bridging organization
Folke et al 2005 Hahn et al 2006 Olsson et al 2007
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Focus on understanding changes (transformationstransitions)
bull Role of social learning to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (ldquolearning leadershiprdquo)
Besides this focus on leadership and learning the researcher also needs to analyse power
bull Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes
bull Is collaboration viable is it possible to attract any key person within this stakeholder group to a new vision If not then Adaptive co-management (ACM) or Adaptive Governance of SES (AGSES) are not suitable frameworks for analysis
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems (AGSES)
ldquoadaptive governance emphasises flexibility experimentation and learning as strategies for anticipating and dealing with unintended consequences Such governance approaches are thus deemed appropriate to situations of rapid change and high uncertainty Nevertheless they tend to assume that there are shared goals around what system properties should remain resilient or that consensus can be built through the governance processrdquo (Leach M 2008 p 1791)
bull This critique misses the point AGSES case studies donrsquot assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished
bull Still Leach has a point AGSES is not a good (normative or analytical) framework for all case studies Instead Trade-off analysis and Multicriteria analysis focusing more on power as obstacles to change (eg Kate Brown 2001 Ecol Econ httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0921800900002937 )
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
ldquoCan you address power issues using systems ecologyrdquo
bull No Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and other systems approaches enable analysis of anticipated vulnerability related to thresholds tipping points and regime shifts Purpose = understand ecological feedbacks
bull However adaptations are crafted by people with intentions who organise and exert their power in conflict with other interests Understanding actual adaptations and adaptive capacity means acknowledging that power issues are part of the dynamics in a SES (Nykvist amp Hahn forthcoming)
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Stakeholders have intentions
bull In the resilience theory literature 30 of the papers on rdquoadaptabilityrdquo see people as agents with intentions strategies and hence allow for power analysis 50 see people as part of rdquosocial systemsrdquo interacting with ecosystems focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks
bull The ldquoproblemrdquo with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels eg that responses can emerge through leadership and stakeholder interaction at a local level without being forced by external factors The problem is when such interaction is regarded as autonomous
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Resilience and political ecology
bull Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed
bull The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing
bull However the starting point in resilience research is understanding how to govern and manage ecosystem services sustainably Then power issues are only instrumental not the analytical focus
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
Thanks
Subscribe to our newsletter wwwstockholmresilienceorgsubscribe
