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)

Outline

3. Social Ecological Systems

Ostrom, 2004

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

Outline

4. Fisheries, conservation

and economics

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

Outline

5. Concluding remarks

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 ENGO-Big Finance Alliance

Blue Growth - PES

THE NEW FRONTIER !!!

THE NEW FRONTIER !!!

MSP integration challenge

Mining Oil & Gas

Pollution

Coastal dev.

Cables

Eolian

Navigation

Fishery sector

Integration

Marine Spatial Planning

Thank you for your attention

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.