Chanda Meek, PhD Candidate

Department of Resources Management

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska

EPSCOR Living on Earth

May 11, 2009

Coastal Arctic social-ecological system (SES)

Ecosystem that supports shared populations of whales,polar bears and people

Communities that consumeecosystem services

Institutions that affect ecosystem use or respond to ecosystem change

Research questions

• Why do two federal agencies co-managing subsistence policy in the same Alaska Native villages do it differently?

• Do these differences matter for conservation and subsistence livelihoods?

Theoretical underpinnings

• Institutional theory

– How do rules affect outcomes?

• Common-pool resource theory

– How do communities sustain resources held in common?

• Resilience theory

Alaskan whaling and pb villages

Exogenous controls

Slow variables

Fast variables

Human actors

Exogenous controls

Slow variables

Fast variables

GlobeEcological Subsystem Social Subsystem

International legal systemIñupiaq nation

Federalist governanceMixed economy

Polar bear subsistence harvestOil and gas development

stipulationsBear/human interactions

Market for handicrafts

Maritime lawOffshore oil and gas lawSeal and walrus hunting Bowhead whale complex

Climate policyHabitat planning

ClimateOceanographic regime

Marine biota

Sea ice regimeOcean currents

Polar bear habitatBioaccumulation of toxins

Home ranges

Polynyas and other temporal habitat features

Reproductive successNatural mortality

Ecosystem services(Polar bears)

Environmental impacts

Social impacts

Rules for oil and gas leasing

Inst

itutio

na

l re

spo

nse

Polar bear quota

Coastal zonemanagement

Plan of cooperation

Conceptual model

Amalgam of Easton 1965, Ostrom et al. 1994, Alvesson 2002 and Young 2002.

Agency cultural manifestation

Output (policies)

Performance variables

Outcomes (change in behavior)

Impacts to resource

Independent variables

Agency history

Fit with ecological and social context

Agency culture

Agencystructure

Cases

NMFS

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

Barrow

Wainwright

USFWS

Nanuuq Commission

Barrow

Wainwright

Influences on policy choices

• USFWS– Protective mission

– Internally oriented

– Prefer joint implementation

– Low tolerance for ecological risk

• NMFS– Competing priorities

– Externally oriented

– Use contracts, devolve responsibilities

– Low tolerance for political risk

Different policy outputs, different networks

• The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission assesses harvests of bowhead whales through their co-management structure

• Polar bear harvests are assessed through an ad-hoc network created by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to implement the Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program

Barrow networks (ideal v. advice)

AEWC

WCA

DWM

NMFS

elders

Q: If you had a question about harvesting rules, who would you talk to?

Barrow whaling captains (n/N = 43%)1. AEWC2. Village whaling captains’ association3. Borough4. National Marine Fisheries Service5. Elders6-26 Whaling captains

Barrow polar bear hunters (n/N=53%)1. Nanuuq Commission2. Village Council3. Borough4. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service5. Elders6-11 polar bear hunters

Wainwright networks (ideal v. advice)

Q: If you had a question about harvesting rules, who would you talk to?

Wainwright whaling captains (n/N=55%)

1. AEWC2. Village whaling captains’ association3. Borough4. National Marine Fisheries Service5. Elders6-26 Whaling captains

Wainwright polar bear hunters (n/N=?)

1. Nanuuq Commission2. Village Council3. Borough4. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service5. Elders6-11 polar bear hunters

Differences in co-managementFactor NMFS FWS

PhilosophyNMFS is more externally oriented

FWS is more internally oriented

Capacity IWC and NMFS recognize local authority

Whalers assess harvest with help from agency

New Chukchi Sea quota law recognizes local authority, extent of local authority still under negotiation

Harvest assessment law implemented by agency

Differences in outcomesOutcomes Whalers Polar bear hunters

Harvest Assessment High participation Average participation

Familiarity with rules Whalers familiar with rules or seek info from local captains

Polar bear hunters less familiar with rules

Participation in making rules about harvests

63% feel their concerns are taken into account

30% feel their concerns are taken into account

Conclusions

• Agency culture shapes policy preferences, these policies affect network implementation

• Subsistence policy is most effective when it fits the ecological and social characteristics of a community

• If an agency tends to be hierarchical, local networks and organizations are less likely to develop and sustain local management