Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ICES MSEAS Symposium. Understamding marine socio-ecological systems: including the human dimension in integrated ecosystem assessment. Best, 30 May-3 June 2016.
Fisheries: from Clockworks to Social-Ecological Systems.
Serge M. Garcia (Chair IUCN-CEM-FEG)
Outline
1. Incorporating complexity2.Social–ecological systems3.Fisheries, conservation & economics4.Concluding remarks
Outline
1. Incorporating complexity
From clockworks to soft watches
Source: Garcia and Charles, 2006; 2008
SD dimensions
EcologicalResources use
Habitat protectionBiodiversity, NTZs
Climate
Social Livelihood
Food security Demography, Governance Equity , TEK
Economic Cost/benefit
Profit, Growth Innovation
Finance
Ecological-Economic Valuation, Efficiency,
Incentives, Resilience
EEES
Social-Ecological systems,InterdependenceEnv. justice, Stewardship,
Incentives, Resilience
SE
Social-EconomicCSR, Fair trade, Use rights,
Safety nets, Incentives
Sustain-ability
Good governanceComprehenisve EA
Viability
Some precursors
C. Walters
R. Hilborns P. Allen
T. Charles
C.S. HollingB. RothschildF. Berkes
J. McGlade J. Le Fur
Governance
A single-fishery complex
Population dynamics
Harvest
Modified from Charles, 2005
FLEETSTOCK
Households Communities
Trade
Habitats.
Socio-eco Environment
Biophysical Environment
Benefits
Social, Cultural, Economic, Ecological
Labor dynamicsFleet
dynamics
FISHERS
Post-harvest
Catch ValueCPUE
Open access
MSYMEY
Rent
Effort. Fishing mortality
Governance
A complex sectoral system
Population dynamics
Harvest
Modified from Charles, 2005
FLEETSTOCK
Households Communities
Trade
Habitats.
Socio-eco Environment
Biophysical Environment
Benefits
Social, Cultural, Economic, Ecological
Labor dynamicsFleet
dynamics
FISHERS
Post-harvest
RESOURCES SYSTEM COMMUNITIES
FLEETS
POST-HARVEST TRADE SYSTEM
GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
SOCIAL SYSTEM
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM
ABIOTIC Bottom Water Weather Topography
BIOTIC Target species Other species Living habitat Predators Preys
FISHING Capture Processing
INSTITUTIONS Conventions Regulations Financing Organization Process
OTHER ACTIVITIES
VALUES
CLIMATE
OTHER ECOSYSTEMS
MARKETS
Global changeIm
pactsIm
pact
s
Fluctuations Habitat
Survival
Working conditions
Interactions
Competition
Pro
tectio
n
Reh
ab
ilitat io
nProtection Restoration
Demand
SupplyManagement
Development
Info /Lobbying
PO
LIC
Y
Behavior
Votes
Remova
ls
Deple
tion
Gear
imp
act
Po
llu
tion
Clu
es/
Ris
ks
Attra
ctio
n
From Garcia et al. 2003
Ecosystemic representation
Cross-sectoral complexity
Banks
Habitats
Ecosystem
Media
ENGOs
AcademiaGovernment
Fishery research
Fishery
Agency
Resources
Industrial
Fleets
Foreign
Fleets
Artisanal
Fleets
Consumers
Fish
Traders
ShipyardsFish
Processors
Agriculture
Tourism
Aquaculture
Cables
& Pipes
Mining
Oil & Gas
Navigation
PortsDefense
Finance
Clim
ate
chan
ge
DemographyMarket
Global Instruments
Gar
cia,
200
7
Reflections on complexity
Using the conventional physics to improve one’s understanding of complex systems is
like climbing a taller tree (to grab the moon)(John Casti 2004, in Ulanowicz 2005)
We are seeing the end of reductionism, the fake ideology which promised humans the
control on everything(Robert Laughlin 2005; Nobel laureate in
Physics)
Pseudo-Definitions
Social-ecological systems are complex, integrated, adaptive and resilient systems, defined at several spatial, temporal, and organizational scales which may be hierarchically linked. Their social and ecological sub-systems are dynamic, interdependent, of equal weight and they co-evolve as a result of their interaction [and converge in response to common external drivers] (Gual & Norgaard, 2008; Haliday & Glaser, 2011;Folke et al., 2012; Armitage et al. 2012).
Complex adaptive systems are systems in which a large number of interacting components (objects, agents) with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex collective behaviour, sophisticated information processing and adaptation via learning or evolution. They exhibit non-trivial emergent and self-organizing behaviour and surprises. They have memory and generate feed-back reactions. Their outcomes may reflect order or disorder. (Mitchell, 2009: Johnson, 2007).
S E
SESs in literature
Google scholar hits on (1) social-Ecological systems; and linked social and ecological systems. Papes on or referring to SES. Search conducted on 2 April 2016
N° o
f ref
eren
ces
All refs
Fisheries refs
Development of ecological economics
Code de Conduite FAO
EAF is adopted at FAO
Fishery systems (Charles 1995)
Berkes at al. coin the SES name
Ecological, social, economic & political environment. Relations with larger SESs
Social-ecological systems
Social sub-systemActors. Economy
InfrastructuresTechnology. Fleets
Law. NormsKnowledge
Values. InstitutionsProcesses
Ecological sub-systemGeomorphology. LandscapesEnvironment. HabitatsBiodiversity. SpeciesGenetics
General environment: Climate. Economy. Finance. International relations and law. Overarching national policies.
Other connected SESsOther SESs: Exchanges: energy, recruitment, fleets, biomass
Location. Boundaries. Size. Infrastructures. Food-webs. Resources. Assemblages. Productivity. Dynamics.Resilience. Predictability
InteractionAction
Feed backGovernance
Organisation (Communities. Networks).
Participation. Rights. Capacity.
History. Values. Models. Dependency. Resilience
MonitoringEvaluation
Outcomes ?State of system components. Ecosystem services. Production. Revenues. Profits.
Food security. Compliance. Equity. Coevolution
Outcomes ?Sustainable? Stable? Predictable?
Expected? Surprise?
SESs adaptive cycle
Interconnections Resilience
Pote
ntial
From Holling, 2004From Holling, 2004
Small scale, fast
Large scale, slow
Growth & Predictability
Novelty, memory, instability, collapse &
reorganisation
Scal
es an
d cr
oss-s
cale
inte
racti
ons
In a nutshell…
SES are complex adaptive systems, obviously. The concept stresses the role of social
drivers and governance on resilience It carries the humanist view that Nature
includes people The S & E dichotomy is arbitrary but
reinforces the humanist view The S & E are interdependent & coevolve SESs exist at numerous nested scales across
which they interact The evolution patterns of E is similar to that
of its governance (Panarchy)
?
SES “pathology”Conventionally managed, SESs will tend to show: Modification of ecosystem structure &
function Resources decline and collapse Related crises in dependent human
communities Perverse evolution of practices Hardly reversible situations. Lost resilience Institutional traps (blocking corrections)
Adapted from Gunderson & Holling Eds. Panarchy; Dengbol et al., 2006)
?#!?#!
Disciplinary panaceas do not work well or for long and often amount to “painting with a
hammer. Dengbol et al. 2006)
Implications for science Information shortfall: costs, priorities Loss of equilibrium and reversibility Loss of universality of results. Critical tipping points and thresholds Blurred cause-effect relations Multiple sources of errors Need for risk assessment and precaution Hard trade-offs in modelling Modelling across nested interacting scales Combination of quantitative & qualitative info Use of multiple sources of knowledge Challenge to design adaptive solutions Use scientists as facilitators and stakeholders Interdisciplinary science & Integrated assessment
The implications for the sector technological innovation would benefit from a distinct analysis
Implications for governance More stakeholders and diverse points of view More goals, limits & indicators Diversified policies and instruments Harder trade-offs; sub-optimal solutions Precaution. Contingency planning Resilience and adaptive approaches “Good governance” Nest operational and strategic planning Institutionalize performance assessment. Ensure coherence across scales Avoid a priori non-reversible solutions Beware of apparent win-win solutions Accept uncertainty and partial controllability Replace output maximization by risk minimization Replace fixed targets by orientation ranges Beware of exponentially escalating complexity in intersectoral governance
Assess how much complexity needs to be addressed: Cost/Benefit analyses
Maintain system’s resilience.
Develop actors’ adaptability
Maintain system’s resilience.
Develop actors’ adaptability
Enabling governance Effectively connects its components
within and across organizational levels
Provides leadership, trust, vision and meaning
Provides a learning environment Fosters/mobilizes social networks Develop bridges between
organizations Adopt enabling legislation and
policies Mixes top-down steering and self-
organization according to complexity
Folke, et al. 2005
Implies anticipative institutional capacity-building and prioritization based on risk assessment and cost/benefit analyses
Modified from Mahon et al. 2008.
Gov
erna
nce
mix Top-down steering
Self-organization
Agreed principles and values
Complexity
Where do we stand?
Time
Com
plex
ity
leve
l
1970s
1950s
2000s
MultispeciesSingle stocks
EAF 1, EBFM
2020s
1980s
?
Social-ecological systems1990s
Complex fishery systems
2010s
Operational, Annual governance
Strategic, Multi-annual governance
Precautionary approach
EAF 2 MSP
SD, SLA
ICFM
Weakly adaptive management
Larg
e sc
ale,
sso
wSm
all s
cale
, Fas
t
FUTURE
PES?
Two problems
1. A chronically insufficient scientific and institutional capacity, and
2. finding the right balance between naive simplisticity and masochistic complexity?
Governance
As simple as possible but no simpler. As complex as needed but not more
As simple as possible but no simpler. As complex as needed but not more
NATURAL SUB-SYSTEM
FISHERY GOVERNANCE
SUBSYSTEM
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
SUBSYSTEM
Common social/societal environement
Coevolution and convergenceCoevolution: coadaptation. Two social subsystems react/adapt to each other’s actions/changes.
Convergence: Two social subsystems are driven in the same general direction by common drivers of their general environment
Coevolution
Convergence
Fishery governance trends
UNCED, CBD
CCAMLR; SLAF; Traditional rights
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Future
ICES
Traditional Self-governance
Centralized
Top-down CFM
SharedCBFM (SSF)
Rights-based RBFM
“Centralized” SSFs
Laissez-faire
EAF
TACs
Licensing; Limited entryITQs; Fishing rights
UNCLOS adopted CCRF; PAF; UNFSA
1st EEZ
Overfishing is named
Biodiv. ABNJ
Colonization
London conf. overfishing
Rela
tive
imp
ort
an
ce
Pribilof conv.
Decolonization
Fishery science
WWI WWII
Garcia, Rice & Charles, 2014
Biodiversity governance trends R
ela
tive
imp
ort
an
ce
WCS; WCEDUNCED, CBDControversies on national parks;
UNCHE; UNEP IUCNIUPN
WSSD; CBD EA
UNCLOS
MEA
Traditional Self-governance
Classical Top-Down
Neo-populist
CBC
Neo-liberal MBM
IPBESPribilof reserve
WWIIWWI
DecolonizationColonization
1st MPAs UNICPOLOS
EBSA;VME; ABNJ
Fortress conservation
ICDPs
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Future
Garcia, Rice & Charles, 2014
By 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably…
Social and economic implications are not addressed !!
CBD Biodiversity Target 6Sustainable management of marine living resources
6Recovery plansNo overfishing
Safe ecological limits
Ecosystem approach
Vulnerable ecosystems
No adverse impactThreatened species
The New Conservation debateNature protection Social conservation
Policy goal Protection of biodiversity. Nature centered SD/SU/conservation & livelihoods. People centered
InstrumentsNTZs. Red Listings. Top-down decisions. Weak or zero participation. Fotress conservation. Universal panaceas
Conventional + (MU-MPAs, LMMAs), ICDPs, SLA. Democratic. Participative, PES. Context-based utility.
Market-based approaches
Empirical claims
• PAs = most effective + spill-over benefits• Humans= threat to conservation• ICDP failed on both grounds• Focus must be on nature protection to succeed• Conservation & development goals conflict
• PAs fail and have substantial social costs• Humans and biodiversity can co-exist
• Properly reformed ICDPs will work• Conservation fails if poverty is not addressed
• Livelihoods can improve with effective conservation
Normative claims
• Primary conservation focus: protect biodiversity• Intrinsic value is what should be protected• Conservation may be > than poverty alleviation• Separate approaches are better
• Primary focus: human welfare• Value to humans is what needs to be protected
• Poverty alleviation goal trumps biodiv. Protection• Integrated approaches lead to convergence
Ethical foundations
• Ecocentrism, preservationism, animals’ rights, Ethical «purity»
• Antropocentrism, utilitarism, social justice, traditional rights. Ethical pluralism, Pragmatism
Primary disciplines Conservation biology, environmental philosophy Anthropology, political ecology, development
economics, fishery, forestry applied sciences
Supporters(Tentative) IUCN, Many traditional ENGOs FAO, CBD, IUCN, TNC, WWF (?), Gordon and Betty
Moore Foundation, Breakthrough institute, Others?
Slightly modified from Miller et al., 2011; Minteer & Miller, 2011Many individual and institutions mix elements from both ideologies.
Ecological sub-system
SES and Ecosystem Services
Social sub-system
General environment
Provisioning services
Regulating services
Cultural services
Supporting services
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
USES & CONTROL
Other SESs
Modified from Bennet, Peterson and gordon. 2009. Ecological letters
ES as a common curency?
\
Ecosystem
Bio-ecological
Socio-cultural
Techno-economic
services
1. ES interconnects the three dimensions of sustainability through a common monetary «Value».
2. They may underplay non-monetary values.
3. Their trade faces issues of cost and benefits, equity, free riding,etc.
4. They are subject to trade-offs5. Being ecological they are variable
They require integrative policy, legal and operational frameworks
Payments for Ecosystem ervices
1. A voluntary transaction in which a well-defined ecosystem service (ES) …is bought by at least one buyer from a minimum of one provider if and only if the provider continues to supply that service (conditionality) (1)
2. Widely advocated in biodiversity conservation, PES start being used also in fisheries (2)
3. Good example of coevolution between fisheries and conservation, they face significant complexity issues
PES reflect the User Pays Principle(1) Wunder,2005; Engel et al. 2008; Sommerville et al. 2009; Kinzig et al. 2011. (2) Squires & Garcia, in Press.
BUYERPROVIDER
PAYMENT
ES PROVISION
Conditionality
ActionAction
S
PES and complexity One action may provide many ESs for different buyers
(stacking and bundling ESs). Enhancing one ES may affect provision of other ESs at
the same scale or at adifferent one Information shortfall or assymetry may create risk and
equity problems (for providers and buyers) ES flow may be instable because of feed-back loops,
delayed response, etc. Their inpure public goods nature leads to risks of
leakage and free-riding But ES are flexible and dynamic. They can be adjusted)
as needed But who covers the risk? Insurance companies? The
State (trade externality)?
\
Supporting
Regulating Cultural
Provisioning
Nature is not a simple supermarket. There is a risk that PES reinforces the simplistic Cartesian approach to fisheries.
ACTION ES CATEGORY
Repl
anti
ng m
angr
oves
Provisioning
+ Catch & revenues
+ Resources production
+ fuel-wood production
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
ES and complexity (2)
Overcrowding Overfishing
feed-back loops
FEED-BACK
Attracts people &
investments
+ larval survival / Recruitment
Supporting + Biomass & Diversity
+ protected habitats/species
+ Stock resilience
Regulating
+ productivity
+ Protection from storms+ Coastal protection
+ Carbon storage
Cultural+ Scientific / educational site
+ Strengthening community
Reflections on SES
The SES concept relates to the long-standing quest for Humans living in hamony with Nature
It joins natural and social evolutionary theories using a Darwinian metaphor: coevolution
Not yet recognized in legal/policy texts, but consonant principles have been adopted.
SESs integrate two streams of thoughts:• The complex systems theory
consequences on the object of management;
• The social ecology etc. implications for the management process
Because of the SES focus on governance, the position of «complexity» changes from an academic «curiosity» to a major factor of performance
for managers and policy-makers
SES concept as a prism
Population
dynamics
Management
One “stock” One fisheryTime
Optimal harvest
Conventional, simple
ABIOTICBIOTIC
FISHING INSTITU
TIONS
OTHER ACTIVI
TIES
VALUES
CLIMATE
OTHER ECOSYS
TEMS
MARKETS
Interactions
Competition
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM
SOCIAL SYSTEM
Systemic, complex
A prism through which past experiences may be recast and a unifying framework for both fisheries and conservation to better
explain past failures and successes
SES
3 key trends
The SES concept should draw our attention on what happens in the social-subsystem, and particularly on governance, e.g.:• The growing empowerment of ENGOs, • The strategic alliance between large
ENGOs and international finance. • The challenge of Marine Spatial Planning
Intersectoral challenge
The NGO/Finance Alliance
Blue Growth - PES
The ENGO empowerment
Adapted from Yan Giron. 2014. Les trusts caritatifs anglo-saxons comme instruments de pouvoir dans les espaces maritimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPFdYiejLh8
THE NEW FRONTIER !!!
THE NEW FRONTIER !!!
MSP integration challenge
Mining Oil & Gas
Pollution
Coastal dev.
Cables
Eolian
Navigation
Fishery sector
Integration
Marine Spatial Planning
References Bennett et al., 2009; Gordon et al., 2010). IN Martin-Lopez et al., 2011 Berkes et al. (2001). Managing SSFs. Integration of Hollig’s findings in the SSFs study and management frameworks. Berkes, Folke and colding. 2000. Created the term «social-ecological Borras Jr., S. M.; Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B. and Wolford, W. 2011. Towards a better understanding of global land grabbing: an editorial introduction. Journal of Peasant
Studies 38 (2): 209. doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.559005. Retrieved 8 February 2012. Charles (1995): Fishery science The study of fishing systems; Charles 2001. Complex fishery systems; Charles 2005; Garcia and Charles 2007 Diaz, S. 2011. Linking functional diversity and social actor strategies in a framework for interdisciplinary analysis of nature's benefits to society.. PNAS, 108(3): 895-902
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/3/895/F1.expansion.html
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. 2005. Adaptive governance of social ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30: 441-473. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Garcia S.M. & Charles, A.T. 2007. Fishery systems and linkages. From clockworks to soft watches. ICES JMS. 64 (4): 580-7 Garcia S.M. & Charles, A.T. 2008. Fishery systems and linkages: implications for science and management. Oceans and Coastal Management, 51(7): 505-427 Garcia, S.M.//Allison, E.H.//Andrew, N.//Bené, C.//Bianchi, G.//De GRaaf, G.//Kalikoski, D.//Mahon, R.//Orensanz, L. 2008. Towards integrated assessement and advice in small-
scale fisheries. Principles and processes. Rome, FAO 84 p. Gual, M.A., Norgaard, R.B. 2008. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.020 Haliday & Glaser, 2011;Folke et al., 2012; Armitage et al. 2012; Gunderson et al). Holling, C. S. 1993; 2004. From complex regions to complex worlds. Ecology and Society 9(1): 11. [online]; Gunderson and Holling Eds. Panarchy Kareiva, P. and Marvier, M. 2007. Conservation for the people. Scientific American, 50: 8p. Moving from hot spot protection to valuation and conservation of ecosystem services Kareiva, P., Mervier, M and Lalasz, R. 2012. Conservation in the anthropocene.Beyond solitude and fragility. The breakthrough institute. 2012 6 p.
http//thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-in-the anthropocene# Loorbach, 2010 Ludwig, Hilborn and Walters (1993): Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation lessons from history. Laughlin, Robert B. 2005. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down. Basic Books. Mahon, R.//McConney, P.//Roy, R.N. 2008. Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems. Marine Policy 104-112 McGlade and Allen (1984). Fisheries as complex systems. Allen and McGlade (1987) Managing complexity. A fisheries example. (1987) Modelling complex human systems: a
fisheries example. Allen, JM McGlade - European Journal of Operational Research, 1987 – Elsevier Millennium Assessment. 2005 Mitchell, 2009: 13; Johnson, 2007 Norgaard, R.B., 1994. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge, London. Park (1936). Human Ecology. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art11/ Redman, C., Grove, M. J. and Kuby, L. (2004). Integrating Social Science into the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Social Dimensions of Ecological Change and
Ecological Dimensions of Social Change. Ecosystems Vol.7(2), pp. 161-171. Rothschild (1971): systems analysis and fisheries management Walters and Hilborn (1976): adaptive control of fishing systems; Walters (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Wilson et al. (1994). Chaos, complexity and community management.