Interdisciplinarity in action - Linking science and policy to preserve biodiversity and restore ecosystem functions

Interdisciplinarity in action

Linking science and policy to preserve biodiversity and restore ecosystem

functions

Luis SantamariaPablo F. MéndezLaboratorio de Ecologia EspacialMediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies, Mallorca, Spain

Jaime AmezagaUniversity of Newcastle, UK

Interdisciplinarity in action 19/07/11


Halting biodiversity loss by 2010

2002

2006

2010


Coverage of protected areas


Aver

age

glo

bal t

empe

ratu

re (°

C)

Num

ber o

f pira

tes

(app

rox.

)

FSM Church: Pirates cause climate change


Aver

age

glo

bal t

empe

ratu

re (°

C)

Num

ber o

f pira

tes

(app

rox.

)

Biod

iver

sity

Cove

r of p

rote

cted

are

as

FSM Church: Pirates cause climate changeProtected areas cause biodiversity loss


Case study: Doñana Nature Reserves

Values


Pressures


Impacts



Intrinsic hydrologic uncertainty, caused by strong inter-annual variation in precipitation regime + historical impact on inflows

% o

f sur

face

floo

ded


Large spatial variation in flooding period (from 0.5 to 9 months/year)

Overimposed on a even stronger variation between years

E.g. maximum inundation in two consecutive years (1995 and 1996)


Flooding intensity (timing, duration and water depth) is a key determinant of aquatic-ecosystem structure.

Why? Because turbidity caused by siltation determines the yearly shifts between two alternative stable states:

- macrophyte dominated (high diversity)- algae dominated (low diversity, risk of toxic blooms)


Water management: Cannot define an optimum flooding regime. Instead, enhance resilience by increasing biotic connecivity, reducing

herbivore pressure and structuring water management.

Wetland restoration: Cannot define an optimum design. Instead, increase resilience by maximizing wetland size/depth diversity – and

learn from the design to improve future management.

Funded and executed by River Authority, distrusted by Park managers!


Perceptual trap - never look under the surface (of water)

Fear of uncertainty - resort to single-goal panaceas


Focusing on wetland conservation + water resources management :

1. Practical case of adaptive restoration (demonstration site)

2. Institutional background- Historical analysis

- Narrative analysis (policy narratives)

3. Action research- (Semi-structured) interviews

- Workshops

Key objectives- Introduce the concepts of uncertainty and resilience

- Build trust among management agencies and with stakeholders- Introduce flexibility and foster innovation

National

Regional

Local Livestock (comunal pastures)

1928

National

Regional

Local Livestock (comunal pastures)

River Authority

1928

National

Regional

Local

Biological Reserve

Livestock (comunal pastures)

River Authority

1928 1964

National

Regional

Local

Biological Reserve


River AuthorityNational Park

19681928 1964

National

Regional

Local

Biological Reserve

Natural Park



19681928 1964 1989

National

Regional

Local

Biological Reserve

Natural Park



National Park

20061968

1928 1964 1989

National

Regional

Local

Biological Reserve

Natural Park


River Authority

National Park

20061968

1928 1964 1989

National

Regional

Local

River Authority

Biological Reserve

Natural Park


River Authority

National Park

201020061968

1928 1964 1989

National

Regional

Local

River Authority

Biological Reserve

Natural Park


National Park

201020061968

1928 1964 1989

National

Regional

Local

River Authority

Biological Reserve

Natural Park


2011

River Authority

National Park

201020061968

1928 1964 1989

National

Regional

Local

Biological Reserve

Natural Park


2011

River Authority

National Park

201020061968

1928 1964 1989


Rigidity trapPath dependency RIR


Management narratives

1. WRM: water is used to maximise productivity and foster economic growth

2. NC: conservation areas (incl. wetlands) are managed to safeguard nature “as it was” (in the 1960’s) and foster human welfare (non-

economic values)


Meta-narrative: management for productivity, using comparable (single-minded, optimality-oriented, hyerarchical) approaches.

1. WRM produces commodities (crops, game, fishing)

2. NC produces protected species (linx, eagle, waterbirds)


Interviews and workshops:

1. Semi-structured interviews to 30 key actors

2. Workshop on uncertainties (card-sorting method)

-> Subset of actors included in management workshop

3. Workshop on management (facilitated discussion + group-model building)

-> Got together WRM and NC!


Recommendations of management workshop:

1. Develop transparent, shared management objectives

2. Re-structure monitoring and improve institutional coordination

3. Incorporate research and social participation to policy-making process

4. Define a specific Doñana–subcatchment in the River Management Plan

5. Continue and expand the cooperation dynamics created by the Aznalcollar mining accident

6. Develop pilot projects to prove success and generate trust


Current prospects

1. Forthcoming revision/evaluation of adaptive restoration design

2. Discussions on “adaptive management” of horse/cattle within the park and restoration area

3. “Institutional closure” – window of opportunity progressive closed, as institutional system regains rigidity

4. Prospects of change – major political change expected

Open question: have we introduce enough flexibility so that these crises trigger innovation & learning?


Take home message

1. Use of patchwork of approaches, rather than all-embracing frameworks

2. Key role of individuals and politics

3. Need to “get your hands dirty” to introduce change

4. It is probably impossible to become a perfect ID-hybrid – but it is often effective to try!

Technology

Interdisciplinarity in action - Linking science and policy to preserve biodiversity and restore ecosystem functions