Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Bridging organisations
Lecture for Module 10 Adaptive Governance 2013-02-20
Thomas Hahn
thomashahnstockholmresiliencesuse
1
Outline
1 SES ndash the context of bridging organisations
2 Individuals or organisations
3 Limitations of Adaptive Governance and collaboration within bridging organisations
4 Do we study systems or agents with intentions
5 Resilience and political ecology
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 SES ndash the context of bridging organisations
2 Individuals or organisations
3 Limitations of Adaptive Governance and collaboration within bridging organisations
4 Do we study systems or agents with intentions
5 Resilience and political ecology
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
![[Codientu.org]_Huong Dan Su Dung IAR Cho STM8(20Feb2013)](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/55cf94f8550346f57ba5a6f7/codientuorghuong-dan-su-dung-iar-cho-stm820feb2013.jpg)
