The Method Behind the Madness: A Framework for Social-Ecological System

Analysis

AMY LAUREN LOVECRAFT

University of Alaska FairbanksMay 2009

OBJECTIVES

This talk briefly explains the development of a Social Ecological System Policy Analysis Framework

Policy analysis through (1) social-ecological systems (2) ecosystem services (3) and problem definition.Use it to approach analysis of social-ecological systems; Evaluate a policy arena (i.e. subsystem)Consider the jurisdictional and political consequences of changes; and Conceptualize potential futures for your own work in your SES.

RESEARCH DIMENSIONS

We will focus on the SEsystem of several policy issues tied to Alaska: wildland fire at high latitudes; freshwater management, sea ice, and polar bears.

(1) Governance How do different actors define systems across temporal and spatial scales? What policies do these actors then propose? Which are implemented?

(2) Feedbacks What are the dynamics between ecosystem and social variables affected by one another?

(3) Politics Why is this process (including some of your work) inherently political?

(4) Futures What we can speculate about the future of the SIS?

GOVERNANCE SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Time and Space: Where are we? Who are we? Who tells us what to do?

Social

Ecological

CONSTRUCTING GOVERNANCEBARROW SEA ICE FIELD COURSE Earth; Northern Hemisphere; U.S.; Alaska; North Slope

Borough; Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Barrow; Ukpeaġvik Iñupiat Corporation; Ilisagvik College; BASC; UAF

2008AD or CE? 5768? 1429AH? 2008.W20.7? Gregorian, Hebrew, Islamic, ISO

The pertinence of these spatial and temporal scales are dependent upon (1) who you believe yourself to be AND (2) who others believe you to be: researcher, activist, member of nation, part of an Iñupiat community, professor, student, political official….you are likely many of these things and more.

Who you believe yourself to be constructs your reality and the decisions you make.

Perhaps most importantly, society constructs what you are permitted to do.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND POLICY

You are here to “get something” from the sea ice. The sea ice also provides “something” to a variety of other people and locations (MEA, 2005).

Clearly you are subject to a variety of scales of rules from the very local use of bear guards to the need for passports to get here.

When we consider the sea ice system we come to understand that there is no comprehensive set of rules to govern the social or geophysical or biological variables that create and recreate this system.

So, how might we think about such complexity?

SES INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS CHAPIN ET AL. 2006

FEEDBACKS Politics are the human medium through which

we determine actions on the natural world around us. [aforementioned rules]

The natural world around us drives politics Focusing events (earthquakes, tsunamis,

hurricanes) Planning Provisioning Conservation Pollution

Rules are the social expression of politics – Institutions are bounded rule sets directed toward forbidding or encouraging different behaviors (Ostrom 1990, Young 2005, Brosius).

POLITICS

is “struggles over authority to determine what is, what is right, and what works” (Edwards and Lippucci 1998).

Who has authority to make decisions related to sea ice?

Short answer: Nobody Long answer: it depends on the service…

SEA ICE SYSTEM SERVICES AND INSTITUTIONS

SO, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? From the readings you have done you know

that policy problems are bound by time, space, and context.

We know about climate change and that it will rapidly and directionally change our world around us – this is amplified at the poles.

We also know a few things about human beings in general We discount potential for long term catastrophe

in favor of short term gains. We love low-hanging fruit We do not change our core beliefs as easily as

secondary or tertiary beliefs. It is difficult to induce rapid social changes in

governance

PROBLEM EXAMPLE SEA ICE SERVICES

Polar Bears depend on sea ice for hunting, denning, and rearing young. Communities depend on the bears for a lucrative

hunting (e.g. Nunavut) or tourism industries (e.g. Churchill, Manitoba).

Petroleum exploration and recovery views sea ice as a hazard and obstacle to development Icebreakers and undeveloped resources

Scientists recognize sea ice, as well as glaciers and other ice covers as essential to climate regulation.

In Barrow, for example, sea ice is a platform for whale butchering and ocean access.

…EXAMPLE CONTINUEDDIRECTIONAL CHANGE AND STAKEHOLDER CONFLICT

Diminishing sea ice opens the Arctic ocean and its subsidiaries to travel, trade, transport and their externalities

Unpredictable sea ice creates danger for human activities

As sea ice shrinks the animals which depend upon it will diminish and human communities lose the vital connections these animals provide their cultures (Indigenous and non-indigenous)

Coastline communities become further vulnerable to storm cycles

More?

ARCTIC FUTURES (BRIGHAM, 2007)

We must consider key themes tied to the context of Arctic lifeworlds and how they might fare under an ice-free Arctic: Transportation systems – increased marine and

air access Resource development – oil and gas, fisheries,

freshwater, forests Indigenous and rural Arctic peoples – well-being,

cultural transmission, urban and rural migrations Regional environmental degradation –

protections? Governance – what regional and geopolitical

cooperation may best suit the Arctic’s needs?

The Arctic coastal zone from a legal perspective

The coastline is the location of the 0-m isobath at mean high tide, i.e., the line that separates ocean from land. (1-D)

The coast is the zone that is directly impacted by both processes on land and in the ocean through exchange of matter and energy. (2/3-D)

Legal definitions: Baseline (line diving land from ocean - 0 miles); submerged lands act (1953) granting states access to 3 nm coastal zone

What about the 4th dimension?

ARCTIC SCENARIOS (IBID.)

Globalized – increased access and economic focus with a free-market approach to resources; private dominates public

Adaptive – increased access tied to carefully structured development with strict protections; incremental changes to government (e.g. enhanced reliance on existing entities); public-private partnerships

Fortress – restricted access and development only by direct stakeholders (Arctic nations) tied to movement of indigenous peoples in favor of development; heavy public security focus

Equitable – new forms of governance focused on sustainability; public and indigenous dominance partnered with restricted private development

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

How can we create effective institutions to handle the changes in the Arctic related to diminishing and unpredictable sea ice?

?create this into a section of questions for people at the end of the chapter? Will that be in each chapter?

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION

Scientific approach (information); Hajo expresses the reduction of uncertainty as a key to creating better decisions.

Citizen approach (individuals ) Market approach (free exchange) Polis approach (community values) State ownership approach ? Slide with arrows…info into polis into public

and agencies into markets : try to indicate a feedback system perhaps traditional as well as citizen science approach?