what is resilience. an introduction to socio_ecological reserch

8/13/2019 What is Resilience. an Introduction to Socio_Ecological Reserch

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/what-is-resilience-an-introduction-to-socioecological-reserch 1/20

1

What is resilience?An introduction to social-ecological research

www.stockholmresilience.su.se



2

I L L U S T R A T I ONE R I K R O S I N

Content:Introduction page 3

CHAPTER 1 Linking people and ecosystems page 4

CHAPTER 2From hunter-gatherers to planetary stewards page 8

CHAPTER 3Social-ecological innovations for planetary opportunities page 12

CASE STUDIESWorld map with twelve local / regional case studies page 16

Glossary page 18

Useful reading page 19

References page 19

THIS PUBLICATION WASWRITTEN AND EDITED BY:

Fredrik Moberg (Albaeco/ Stockholm Resilience Centre)

and Sturle Hauge Simonsen(Stockholm Resilience Centre)

with editorial support from MariaSchultz, Henrik Österblom (both

Stockholm Resilience Centre)and Åsa Persson (Stockholm

Environment Institute).

GRAPHIC DESIGN:Futerra Sustainability

Communications

FRONT PAGE PHOTOGRAPHY: KERSTIN JONSSON/AZOTE



3

Introduction

There is no doubt humans have been successful inmodifying the planet to meet the demands of a rapidlygrowing population and increased consumption. But thegains achieved by this spectacular re-engineering of theplanet have come at a price. It is now widely apparent (andacknowledged) that humanity’s use of the biosphere, thatsphere that embraces all air, water and land on the planetin which all life is found, is not sustainable.

To continue to live and operate safely, humanity hasto stay away from critical ‘hard-wired’ thresholds inthe Earth’s environment and respect the nature of theplanet’s climatic, geophysical, atmospheric and ecologicalprocesses. Resilience thinking is about generating increasedknowledge of how we can strengthen the capacity to dealwith the stresses caused by climate change and other aspectsof global change. It is about finding ways to deal withunexpected events and crises and identifying sustainableways for humans to live within the Earth’s boundaries.This publication presents the major strands within resiliencethinking and social-ecological research. It describes theprofound imprint we humans have had on nature and ideason how to deal with the resulting challenges.The publication is based on three scientific articles thatwere prepared for the 3rd Nobel Laureate Symposiumon global sustainability, which took place in Stockholmin May 2011. The articles were later published in thescientific journal Ambio. They represent a mix of necessaryactions and exciting planetary opportunities. They alsoillustrate how we can use the growing insights into the

many challenges we are facing by starting to work with theprocesses of the biosphere instead of against them.

Chapter One of this publication describes in detail the com-plex interdependencies between people and ecosystems. Ithighlights the fact that there are virtually no ecosystems thatare not shaped by people and no people without the need forecosystems and the services they provide. Too many of usseem to have disconnected ourselves from Nature. A shift inthinking will create exciting opportunities for us to continueto develop and thrive for generations to come.

Chapter Two takes us through the tremendous accelerationof human enterprise, especially since World War II. Thisacceleration is pushing the Earth dangerously close to itsboundaries, to the extent that abrupt environmental changecannot be excluded. Furthermore, it has led scientists toargue that the current geological period should be labelledthe ‘Antropocene’ – the Age of Man.

Chapter Three highlights the fascinating paradox thatthe innovative capacity that has put us in the current

environmental predicament can also be used to push us outof it. It introduces the term social-ecological innovation,which essentially strives to find innovative ways to reconnectwith the biosphere and stay within planetary boundaries.

Resilience is the capacity of a system,be it an individual, a forest, a city oran economy, to deal with changeand continue to develop. It is aboutthe capacity to use shocks and

disturbances like a financial crisisor climate change to spur renewaland innovative thinking. Resiliencethinking embraces learning, diversityand above all the belief that humansand nature are strongly coupled to thepoint that they should be conceivedof as one social-ecological system.



4

Reconnecting to the Biosphere

1. Linking peopleand ecosystemsIn our globalised society, there are virtually noecosystems that are not shaped by people andno people without the need for ecosystems andthe services they provide. The problem is that toomany of us seem to have disconnected ourselvesfrom nature and forgotten that our economiesand societies are fundamentally integrated with

the planet and the life-supporting ecosystemsthat provide us with a hospitable climate, cleanwater, food, fibres and numerous other goodsand services. It is high time we reconnect andstart accounting for and governing the capacityof natural capital to sustain development.



5

Since early 1800 the human populationhas increased massively from onebillion to the current (still increasing

but at a slower rate) figure of seven billionpeople. During these last 200 years, andparticularly after World War II, economicdevelopment, international collaboration,technical and social innovation, improvedhealth and wealth have all contributed toboost the standard of living of most people,

although the world still hosts one billion ofthe absolute poor and three billion peopleliving on less than 2.5 USD a day.

Within the same period of time, theEarth’s ecosystems have started to showserious signs of fatigue. In 2005, the UNMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)published the first ‘global health control’ ofthe world’s ecosystems. The diagnosis wasclear: the rapidly growing human demandsfor food, freshwater, timber, fibre andfuel have changed the Earth’s ecosystems

faster and more extensively in the past 50years than ever before. The MA showsthat some 60 percent of the ecosystemservices that support human well-beingare being degraded or used unsustainably.This ecosystem degradation could growsignificantly worse during the first half ofthis century and is a barrier to reducingglobal poverty and achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

Everything is connectedAmidst gloomy forecasts, the MA alsobrought with it some good news. Theassessment represented a major shift towardsa better understanding of the relationshipbetween human progress, economicdevelopment and governance of the world’secosystems. Rather than separating humanprogress from environmental governance,the MA has helped clarify that people andsocieties are indeed inseparable parts of whatwe call the biosphere – the global ecologicalsystem that embraces all living beings onEarth and in the atmosphere. The MAemphasises the importance of extending theeconomic notion of financial value to includenature’s goods and services. The bottomline is that poverty alleviation and futureeconomic development can only be achievedwith a stronger emphasis on managementand governance of ecosystems and theircapacity to generate essential services.

A striking example is the Goulburn-Broken catchment in the Murray-DarlingBasin, which has become one of theprincipal income providers for the State ofVictoria, Australia. Thanks to widespreadand seemingly well-adapted drylandcropping, grazing and fruit production, theregion has apparently thrived. However,if the analysis is broadened to include the

capacity or resilience of the landscape tosustain these activities, the picture looksdifferent. Widespread replacement of deep-rooted native trees with crop and pastureplants that need less water, in combinationwith irrigation, have resulted in risingwatertables. This in turn has brought saltnormally held deep within the soil profile tothe surface and is causing severe salinisationproblems in the region.

Another example of the delicateinteractions between social and ecologicalsystems is the global market demandfor palm oil and tropical timber, whichhas changed large parts of Borneo frombiodiversity-rich tropical rainforests to asimplified oil palm landscape. The situationbecomes critical when the role of El Niño isincluded in the equation. The reproductionof trees in the Dipterocarp family, whichdominate the rainforests, is tightly linkedwith this climate phenomenon. Up to 90

per cent of Dipterocarp species synchronisetheir flowering with the onset of dry weatherconditions, which traditionally occur on aroughly four-year basis. The mass bloomingand subsequent fruiting involve thousandsof species across millions of hectares andrepresent a strategy that intermittentlystarves and swamps seed predators, so thatat least some seeds survive to germination.This dynamic relationship between

P H OT O GR A P HY MA X T R OE L L / A Z OT E



6

Dipterocarp trees and El Niño has lasted formillennia, but the growing global thirst forpalm oil is now breaking the system down.Intensive logging of the trees has reducedthe local density and biomass of maturetrees below a critical threshold that limitsmasting. In addition, the introduction offires in a region that had no prior fire regimehas exacerbated drought stress and causeda radical transformation in forest ecology,which has made El Niño a destructive ratherthan a regenerative force. In the process,Borneo has turned from being a carbonsink into becoming a carbon source, withfires releasing massive amounts of carbondioxide, making Indonesia one of the largestgreenhouse gas polluters in the world.

Resilience thinkingOne increasingly relevant scientific approachto deal with analysis of such interwovensystems of humans and nature is through theconcept of resilience. This concept is not onlybeing used as a framework for research, butis now being applied in practice. Examples

range from city planning in developedregions to small-scale water innovations tocombat poverty in drought-prone areas inthe developing world (see case study map,page16). Resilience is the long-term capacityof a system to deal with change and continueto develop. For an ecosystem, such as aforest, this can involve dealing with storms,fires and pollution, while for a society it caninvolve an ability to deal with events suchas political unrest and natural disasters in away that is sustainable in the long-term. Lowresilience may lead to undesired shifts in asystem. Examples include savannah systemsthat turn into shrub-deserts, coral reefs thatturn into algae-covered rubble and lakesthat become over-enriched with nutrientsand shift into a state with blooms of toxicalgae and fish kills. The outcome tends tobe biodiversity-poor ecosystems that arevulnerable to change and generate fewerecosystem services to human societies.

Increased knowledge of how we canstrengthen resilience in both society andnature, or rather interconnected social-ecological systems, is becoming increasinglyimportant when grappling with climatechange and other environmental impacts.Investing in resilience can be seen as insur-ance against future shocks. By safeguardingcritical resources, the chances of ‘ridingthrough’ shocks – such as extreme events– increase. This is of critical importanceconsidering future uncertainty and limitedunderstanding of the vulnerability generatedby anthropogenic change. In essence, resil-ience theory argues that the nub and kernelof the problem is that many of the serious,recurring problems in natural resource man-agement stem from a lack of recognition thatecosystems and social systems are dynamicand inextricably linked.

Accounting for nature’s capitalA substantial challenge is to ensure thatthe provisioning of ecosystem servicesbecomes more visible in the market. Puttinga price on ecosystem services is gainingincreasing interest among researchers andpolicy makers. Although the scientific basisand financial and political mechanismsare still under development, there areseveral promising efforts. For instance, TheEconomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity(TEEB) report calls for wider recognition ofnature’s contribution to human livelihoods,health, security and culture by decisionmakers at all levels (local, regional andnational policy makers, business leadersand private citizens). The report concludedthat in 2008 the annual costs of forestlosses alone (2–5 trillion USD) dwarfed theongoing financial crisis. In other words,

the world was losing more money from thedisappearance of forest ecosystem servicesalone than through the banking crisis thatyear. The TEEB report has helped placebiodiversity management on the high endof the political agenda, showcasing theenormous economic value of forests, fresh-water, soils and coral reefs, to name but a few.

Acknowledging the key demands of theTEEB report, India has already announcedplans to implement a new set of accounts,which track the country’s natural capitaland include the value of nature’s servicesalongside GDP in decision-making. Chinais another country where natural capitalinvestments and payments for ecosystemservices are now being integrated intogovernance on a remarkable scale (see casestudy map, page 16). The TEEB reportalso emphasises the message that failure ofbusiness to account for the value of natural

capital, particularly in sectors such asmining, can pose significant economic andsocial risks. Estimates show that the negativeenvironmental impacts of the world’s top3,000 listed companies amount to around2.2 trillion USD annually.

One example of better integration ofecosystems and their services into businessactivities is the Corporate EcosystemServices Review (ESR), developed by theWorld Resources Institute and others.This is a five-step methodology forcorporate managers to proactively developstrategies for managing business risks andopportunities arising from their company’sdependence and impact on ecosystems. TheESR has been translated into five languagesand over 200 businesses have put it to use.For instance, the international paper andpackaging company Mondi conductedan ESR for three of its South Africa treeplantations. This resulted in new strategiesto use invasive species cleared from itsplantations for power and heat generation,a decision to co-finance water efficiencyimprovements of upstream landowners, and

The nub and kernel ofthe problem is that manyof the serious, recurringproblems in natural resourcemanagement stem froma lack of recognition thatecosystems and socialsystems are dynamic and

inextricably linked.

P H OT O GR A P HY MI R A NK E GL / A Z OT E



The human dominated planet

2. From hunter-gatherersto planetary stewardsBelieve it or not, for most of human history wehave existed as hunter-gatherers. Now, thanks tothe dramatic fossil fuel-driven expansion sincethe 1800s, our imprint on the global environmentis so large that we risk triggering a number ofabrupt or even irreversible global environmentalchanges. The big question is how we can become

planetary stewards instead, and strike a long-term balance between human well-being andsustainable use of the Earth’s ecosystems.



We have had a good run, but busi-ness-as-usual cannot continue.Humanity has begun to emit

more than nature can absorb and acquiremore than the Earth’s resources can provide.In other words, we are beginning to live offthe Earth’s capital, rather than the interest.

The good news in all this is that we are thefirst generation with the knowledge of howour activities influence the Earth System. Weare also the first generation with the powerand responsibility to change our relationshipwith the planet.

21st century crossroadsThe evidence that the Earth is warmingand that human emissions of greenhousegases have been responsible for most of thiswarming since the middle of the 20th centuryis unequivocal. However, just as disturbing asclimate change is the increasing erosion of the

Earth’s goods and services. There is a growingacknowledgement that humans must be seenas part of and not apart from nature, and thatthe delineation between social and ecologicalsystems is artificial and arbitrary (see Chapter1 for more details).

A further realisation of the strongcorrelations between human actions and theEarth’s life-supporting system is reflected in

the term Anthropocene. This indicates thatthe human imprint on the planet is now sogreat that the Earth may have entered a newgeological epoch. It is leaving the Holocene,the remarkably stable period withinwhich human societies as we know themhave developed, and it is entering a stagewhere humanity itself has become a globalgeophysical force. In other words, we havegone from being primitive hunter-gatherersto a force that can tip the Earth’s future intothe unknown. In the worst case scenariothis new state of the Earth is much warmer,with more sea and less land, impoverishedecosystems, mass extinction of speciesand a number of severe socio-economicconsequences.

The Great (fossil fuel-driven)AccelerationAbout 10,000 years ago, agriculturewas developed roughly simultaneouslyin four different parts of the world. Thisset humanity on a trajectory that led to amore sedentary lifestyle, the developmentof villages and cities and the creationof complex civilisations that eventuallyspanned large regions. Around 1800 AD,however, something dramatic happened.Our ancestors at that time learned to accessand exploit fossil fuels as a new energy

source and dramatic changes came about ata pace never experienced before: fossil fuel-based agricultural and manufacturing systemsenhanced the production of foodstuffs andother goods, and consumption began togrow along with an increasingly healthy andexpanding population. Little did they knowthat the rapid expansion of fossil fuel usagewas slowly raising the CO2 concentrationin the atmosphere above the limits of theHolocene. The exit door from the Holocenehad been opened.

The increased pace of just abouteverything after World War II marked afurther threshold in humanity’s historycalled the Great Acceleration. While thehuman population tripled, consumption inthe global economy grew many times faster.With foreign direct investments, internationaltourism, cars, telephones and above all theinternet, the connectivity of humanity hasgrown at an astounding rate since 1950.

Not surprisingly, the acquisition and use ofnatural resources – as well as the pressure onour climate and ecosystems – has also risendramatically during this period.

It is clear that the Great Acceleration hasnot been an environmentally benign phe-nomenon. It has driven large changes to theEarth System and human activities are erod-ing the Earth’s resilience. This is due to over-

9

P H OT O GR A P HY E WA WI S NI E W S K A / A Z OT E



10

fishing, extensive (tropical) deforestation, adramatic increase in domesticated land, in-creasing nitrogen fluxes and a profound lossof biodiversity, to name a few. However, oneother aspect deserves particular attention.

The forgotten seaBeing terrestrial creatures, much of humanconcern about changes in the planetary envi-

ronment is focused on the land, the coasts orthe atmosphere. In reality, the ocean is moreimportant than both land and atmosphere inthe functioning of the Earth as a whole.

The ocean, particularly the coastal seas,provides an important supporting EarthSystem service by absorbing and recyclinghuman-generated waste products. Muchof the nitrogen and phosphorus wasteproduced by human societies from e.g.agricultural fertilisers and animal andhuman excrement ultimately ends up in

the coastal oceans, where it is metabolised.Problems occur when the compoundsproduced exceed nature’s capacity to absorbthem. Excess nutrients can generate anumber of negative environmental effects.Furthermore, many of the chemicals,including medicines and manufacturedproducts (e.g. plastics), that are producedand used by humans end up in the ocean,

where they are not easily metabolised andaccumulate to very high concentrations.

The ocean’s ability to absorb carbondioxide also slows the rate of climate changeand consequently acts as a climate regulator.However, the most important regulatingservice the ocean provides for humanity isprobably its global distribution patterns ofheat and moisture via ocean circulation. Forexample, most of the rainfall over land thatsupports agriculture and cities originatesthrough evaporation from the ocean.Humans are crucially dependent upon accessto this fresh water and any changes to theseclimate conditions will have knock-on effectsfor human societies.

A Z OT E

We know the Earth’sresilience and resource basecannot be stretched infinitely

and we are uncomfortablyaware that we are headingin the wrong direction. Thequestion that remains is howwe can better manage ourrelationship with nature.

Planetary Boundaries: the nine red wedges represent an estimateof the current position of each boundary. The inner green shadingrepresents the proposed safe operating space (see p. 11 for details).



11

Another example is ocean acidificationvia increasing amounts of atmosphericCO2 reacting with the ocean water to formcarbonic acid. The resulting higher acidity,mainly near the surface, has been provento inhibit shell and skeleton growth inmany marine animals and is suspected tocause reproductive disorders in some fish.Ultimately, this renders ocean ecosystemsless resilient to extreme events and humanpressure. This can have drastic consequenceson coral reefs and other marine life, withcascading impacts on the fishing and tourismindustries.

Understanding the human trajectory, fromhunter-gatherers to the drivers of the GreatAcceleration and beyond, is an essentialelement in the process of transforming ourrole on Earth from resource exploiters toresource stewards.

Working within planetaryboundariesSo, here we are. We know the problem, weknow the Earth’s resilience and resourcebase cannot be stretched infinitely and weare uncomfortably aware that we are head-ing in the wrong direction. The question thatremains is how we can better manage ourrelationship with nature. We are not only the

first generation with the knowledge of howour activities influence the Earth System, weare also the first generation with the actualpower and responsibility to change our rela-tionship with the planet on a global scale.

Clearly, we have an uneven distribution ofpower and responsibility, which means thatdeveloped countries that were the engines ofthe Anthropocene, and especially the GreatAcceleration, need to demonstrate leader-

ship in bearing the cost of transformation.On a general level, what is needed is a

number of fair and equitable local-to-globalsolutions that transcend national boundariesand cultural divides. One of the most recentand most significant attempts to providescientific guidelines for such improvedstewardship came in 2009 with the so-calledPlanetary Boundaries approach, published inNature (see illustration p. 10). It attemptedto define a ‘safe operating space’ forhumanity and suggested boundaries withinwhich humanity could continue to develop,but beyond which humans should not cross.Nine planetary boundaries were suggested,seven of which had specific quantitativeboundaries. These were: climate change,stratospheric ozone, ocean acidification, thenitrogen and phosphorus cycles, biodiversityloss, land use change and freshwateruse. There was insufficient knowledge to

suggest quantitative boundaries for twoother processes – aerosol loading (airborneparticles such as sulphur and soot) andchemical pollution (e.g. mercury, flameretardants and dioxins).

The 28 scientists behind the PlanetaryBoundaries approach estimated that three ofthe boundaries – those for climate change, thenitrogen cycle and biodiversity loss – have al-ready been transgressed. Several others are in

the danger zone. The approach does not offera complete roadmap for sustainable develop-ment, but provides an important element ofsustainability. Within these boundaries, hu-manity has the flexibility to choose pathways

for future development and well-being.In addition, the Planetary Boundaries

approach helps shift the focus from theslightly one-sided emphasis on climatechange to a complex systems perspectiveacknowledging that the desired stability ofthe Earth systems is dependent on a varietyof factors, including addressing overfishing,deforestation, loss of biodiversity, etc. A moreholistic approach in dealing with climate

change can also entail other synergisticeffects. For example, actions that reducegreenhouse gas emissions globally can alsoimprove air quality in metropolitan areas.

Key messages:1. The human imprint on the planet’s envi-

ronment is now so vast that the currentgeological period should be labelled the‘Anthropocene’ – the Age of Man.

2. Human pressure has reached a scalewhere the possibility of abrupt orirreversible global change – challengingour own well-being – can no longer beexcluded.

3. The challenges of the 21st century –resource constraints, financial instability,inequalities, environmental degradation

– are a clear signal that ‘business-as-usual’cannot continue.

4. We are the first generation with theknowledge of how our activities influ-ence the Earth as a system, and thus the

first generation with the power and theresponsibility to change our relation-ship with the planet.

5. Effective global stewardship can bebuilt around the ‘planetary boundaries’concept, which aims to create a scien-tifically defined safe operating spacewithin which humanity can continue toevolve and develop.



Tipping towards sustainability

3. Social-ecological innovationsfor planetary opportunitiesThere are ample examples out there to demonstratethe tremendous capacity we humans have infinding innovative solutions to improve our lives.However, innovation is not always for the better.Aspects of innovation may be driving the worldin the wrong direction, directly opposed to asustainable future. The challenge we face is to use

this innovative capacity to reconnect ourselves withthe biosphere (Chapter 1) and stay within the safeboundaries of the planet (Chapter 2) in order tosafeguard human development in the long term. Itis time to introduce innovations that are sensitiveto the fundamental bonds between social andecological systems.



It is a fascinatingparadox that the sameinnovative capacity that has put us in

the current environmental predicamentis actually what can be used to push us outof it. History has shown that humanityhas managed to adapt to a wide range ofcomplex challenges. However, the currentpredicament might just be the greatestever. For decades, concerned scientists andenvironmental NGOs have been callingfor urgent changes (or transitions) that arelarge enough to transform our current wayof living. Politics, the corporate world andcivil society are increasingly getting the

message and there are indeed an immensenumber of ideas on how to shift to moresustainable trajectories (green urbanism,renewable energy, agroecological farmingand ecosystem-based fisheries, to name buta few). The problem is that we not only haveto collectively speed up our efforts, but mustalso look at ways to solve several problemsat the same time. An ambitious planadmittedly, but nonetheless necessary and byall means possible.

Halting a steam-powered trainof thoughtDespite decades of calls for change, a clearunderstanding of the mechanisms andpatterns under which global transformationscan actually happen is still lacking. Thegrowing concern about this has led to anincreased focus on the role of innovation,but the question remains: Can we innovate

sufficiently rapidly and intelligently to tipour system out of the current paradigm and

into a more sustainable one?Historically, humanity has placed

great faith in technological innovation tohelp transform societies and improve thequality of life. The most obvious exampleis the industrial revolution, while the mostrecent example is the fast-changing waywe communicate across the world. Thereare good reasons why we place faith inour capacity to innovate, because it hastraditionally been associated with a betterquality of life. Questioning innovation

therefore goes against the grain of our worldview and the governance structures that ruleour lives. There are thus good reasons notto question our innovative ability, but wecannot deny that the last five decades or soof high innovation have also caused someserious damage to the planet. Moreover, weappear to be locked on a technological paththat is not only accelerating tremendouslyrapidly, but also carries with it unintendedand undesired consequences. In other words,we have a decreasing degree of control overthe future impact of our innovations.

Mind the ingenuity gapThe problems we are facing are so complexthat some argue that we are caught in an‘ingenuity gap’, where the world’s problemshave become so difficult to solve that welack the ingenuity required to solve them.Along the same lines is the argument that

the ‘technosphere’, the innovative enginethat has driven our modern economy, isorganised along lines that are very different,if not downright contrary, to the functioningof the world’s ecosystems. Ecosystems are

based on non-linear mutual interdependencyand one part cannot be separated fromanother, while the technosphere, whetherin terms of machines or structures, is basedon a linear, means-to-an-end logic. Puttingit bluntly, most current economic andtechnological solutions are ecologicallyilliterate and too linear and single problem-orientated. There is a need for a change ofmindset.

The private sector is in many respects oneof the main suppliers of innovative thinkingand is consequently fundamental in carvingout new directions for more sustainableinnovations. However, relying on businesses

alone to address issues such as climatechange and biodiversity conservation issomewhat risky, because they are unlikelyto introduce a new strategy unless itsimultaneously increases their competitiveadvantage. Businesses can make a hugedifference, but governments or societalstakeholders must also enforce standardswith which the market must comply. In orderfor business and the market to play a truly

13

P H OT O G

R A P HY O S T R O S K Y P H OT O S / F L I C K R . C OM



14

innovative role in sustainable development,governments must enforce standards onthe market that work both as carrot andstick. Non-compliant companies must bepenalised, while innovative and proactivecompanies must be favoured and aboveall rewarded. This would create a levelplaying field, making sustainable innovativeinvestments worthwhile for companies.

The essence of social-ecologicalinnovationThe outlook need not be too gloomy.Ongoing large-scale transformations ine.g. information technology, biotechnologyand energy systems have huge potentialto significantly improve our lives in asustainable way. However, this can onlyhappen if we ‘incorporate the capacity ofthe biosphere in framing development’,i.e. start working with, instead of against,nature. However, in order to boost ourcapacity to innovate in the interests of amore sustainable lifestyle, there needs to besupport and incentives for social-ecologicalinnovation, particularly in the private sector.The transformation needed must include thecreativity and ingenuity of users, workers,consumers, citizens, activists, farmers andsmall businesses alike.

Multi-level adaptive governance, tax

incentives and sponsored experiments areneeded to spur private sector ingenuity.Examples of sponsored experiments includethe Big Green Challenge in the UK issuedby the National Endowment for Science,Technology and the Arts (NESTA). In this,communities were invited to come up withcommunity-led responses to climate change.In early 2008, 355 groups came forwardwith a wide range of imaginative and

practical ideas for reducing CO2 emissionsin their communities. Of the proposalssubmitted, 100 received support to bedeveloped into detailed plans. From thisgroup, a final 10 were shortlisted to competefor the £1 million prize.

Law also plays its part. Law istraditionally characterised by ‘thou

shalts’ rather than opening doors for newapproaches. As a reaction to this, the conceptof reflexive law has emerged. Reflexive law isless rule-bound and recognises that as long ascertain basic procedures and organisationalnorms are respected, participants can arriveat positive outcomes and correct theirprojects along the way, basically learning bydoing. In response to growing complexity,detailed rules are replaced by procedures forregulated entities to follow. Reflexive law isa social innovation which seeks to promotemulti-level governance and preservediversity and experimentation at local level.

Bottom-up responses to crises are acentral element in all of this. There areenormous reservoirs for learning andinnovation that are often revealed inmoments of crises. In fact, some of thebest and most constructive innovationsoften come from disaster-hit (or disaster-prone) communities. Studies on innovativeresponses to social and natural disastersincreasingly stress the need for governments

and institutional aid mechanisms to takea step back and ‘listen and engage’ withcommunities rather than ‘orchestrateand plan’ on their behalf. This involveslistening to local communities for ideas,informing local populations of resourcesand possibilities available, trusting them andallowing a diversity of innovative responsesto emerge, as opposed to insisting on a top-down planning process.

P H OT O GR A P HY T OM HE R MA N S S ON S NI C K A R S / A Z OT E



15

Studies in north-eastern Honduras afterthe powerful Hurricane Mitch in 1998showed how the disaster led to substantialchanges in land management. However, itwas not established aid organisations thatfacilitated the change, but household-to-household, viral-like initiatives that resultedin a shift to more equitable land distribution,protected forests and overall an increasedresilience to cope with similar floods in thefuture.

Resilience scholars have also focusedon the role of informal shadow networks –groups of stakeholders that work outsidethe fray of regulation and implementationin places where more formal networksand structures fail. One of the mostcelebrated examples comes from Chile,where a combination of fisheries collapseand the move to democracy providedthe opportunity to try out some newarrangements for managing fisheries.The experiments were based on informalpartnerships and trust between fishers,scientists and managers. There was a generalrecognition that Chile’s fish stocks were in

trouble, things were turbulent and peoplewere looking for answers, all of whichmade them open to new approaches. Therewas also a good scientific understandingof coastal ecosystems in the region onwhich to base a new management plan.All this eventually led to the testing ofnew co-operative models for fisherymanagement, based on the latest scienceconcerning fish stocks and the surroundingmarine ecosystem. The end result was arevolutionary national system of marinetenure that allocates exclusive oceanterritories to local and small-scale fisheries.The system excludes the major industrialfishing fleets, which have their own exclusivefishing zone. By cutting the number of largevessels in distinct territories, fishing pressurehas been reduced.

Planetary opportunitiesTapping shadow networks such as thosein Chile is a key challenge to governance.Traditional, expert-driven, top-downapproaches to problem solving are notnimble enough to effectively addressconvergent, non-linear and rapidlychanging problems. There are also lessonsto be learned from innovation studies inthe domain of business, technology andorganisational behaviour. These have longestablished the importance of approaching

innovation from a top-down and bottom-up perspective, sometimes referred to as‘management up-down’ (MUD). Thisbasically refers to a company’s abilityto efficiently connect those drawing upcompany strategy with the sources ofinnovation, most commonly taking place atthe front line, on the shop floor or in smalldesignated teams. This in turn produces

the cascade of resources required to bringinnovation to markets and scale up theinnovation itself. Key individuals in thisprocess are the so-called connectors, whoare able to understand the overall strategicdirection the company wants to take, framethat to those working on the ‘front line’,identify promising innovations and sell theseback to the strategic apex of the company.

Overall, economic and technologicalsolutions must become more ecologicallyliterate and see the numerous planetaryopportunities in investing in sustainableuse of ecosystems and their services. Thisrequires us to organise innovation and

technology development in new ways thatare more networked, open-sourced andinclusive, while working more directlyfor social justice, poverty alleviation andenvironmental sustainability. The planetaryrisks we are facing are so large that business-as-usual is not an option.

Emerging social innovations and tech-

nological transformations involve enor-mous opportunities with huge potential toimprove our lives in a sustainable way, butonly if we incorporate knowledge of social-ecological systems and planetary boundariesin framing their future development.

Key messages:1. An immense number of sustainability

initiatives are emerging (transitiontowns, clean energy, agroecologicalfarming, ecosystem-based fisheriesmanagement, etc.). Such initiatives needto be upscaled through e.g. innovationfunds, seed money, structural adjust-ment funds and other incentives in orderto have a global impact. Social mediaand associated advances in informationand communication technologies canplay a role in this process.

2. Ongoing large-scale transformationsin e.g. information technology, biotech-nology and energy systems have thepotential to significantly improve ourlives in a sustainable way, but only if weincorporate knowledge of social-ecolog-ical systems and planetary boundariesin risk assessments and developmentstrategies.

3. Most current economic and technologi-cal solutions are ecologically illiterateand too linear and single problem-orientated. What is needed is finan-cial and political support for safe-failexperiments in communities aroundthe world, using diverse technologies,organisations and ideas, for instance in‘Policy Laboratories’ or ‘Change Labs’.

4. Policy makers around the world need toadopt a new systems thinking that paysmuch more attention to the negativeside-effects of quick fixes and recognis-es the numerous possibilities in invest-ing in sustainable use of ecosystemsand their services.

5. We need a new type of ‘social-ecological’innovations and technologies that workmore directly for social justice, povertyalleviation, environmental sustain-ability and democracy, while includingthe creativity and ingenuity of users,workers, consumers, citizens, activists,farmers and small businesses alike.

There are enormousreservoirs for learning andinnovation that are oftenrevealed in moments ofcrises. In fact, some of the

best and most constructiveinnovations often come fromdisaster-hit (or disaster-prone) communities.



16

The three chapters in this

publication discuss issuesof global concern, butwith local and regionalimplications and solutions.The world map features 12case studies that can illustratemany of these issues.CASE 1: THE GULF OF MA INE LOBSTER

FISHERIES, USAThis case illustrates a failure to see the full integrationof socio-economic and ecological systems. In theGulf of Maine the American lobster comprises over80 per cent of the total marine resource value, butthis economic success does not equal ecosystemsuccess. Rather, the long-term sequential depletionof cod, hake, haddock, halibut and sea urchins hasresulted in a vulnerable near monoculture of lobsters.Elsewhere, such high lobster densities have precededan outbreak of shell disease. A similar collapse inMaine would be devastating for the over 7,000lobstermen and their support industries.PHOTOGRAPHY OSKAR HENRIKSSON/AZOTE

CASE 2: EL NIÑO AND RAINFO REST RENEWAL,BORNEOGlobal market demand for palm oil has led to anexpansion of monoculture plantations and anincreasingly fragmented forest landscape in therainforests of Borneo. This has altered the resilienceto droughts induced by the recurring weatherphenomenon El Niño, which previously triggeredmast reproduction among trees, regenerating forestbiodiversity. In the new situation, El Niño events

CASE 1 CASE 4 CASE 9 CASE 11 CASE 10 CASE 3

CASE 7 CASE 8 CASE 12 CASE 6 CASE 2CASE 5



18

ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE:Governanceapproaches that are collaborative, flexibleand learning-based and rely on networks ofpeople and organisations at multiple levels.

ANTHROPOCENE:The Age of Man, anew name for the present geological epochdefined by our own massive impact on theplanet’s climate and ecosystems. Coined in2000 by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen.

BIODIVERSITY:Short for biological diversity– the variety of all forms of life on earth,including the variability within and betweenspecies and within and between ecosystems.

BIOSPHERE:The sphere of all air, water andland on the planet in which all life is found;the global ecological system integrating allliving beings and their relationships.

ECOSYSTEM:All the organisms in a givenarea, along with the physical environmentwith which they interact (e.g. a forest, a coralreef or a rock-pool).

ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT:A management approach that recognisesthe full array of interactions within anecosystem, including humans, ratherthan considering single issues, species orecosystem services in isolation.

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES:The benefits peopleobtain from ecosystems, e.g. provisionof clean water, regulation of climate,

pollination of crops and fulfilment ofpeople’s cultural needs.

GREAT ACCELERATION: Refers to thedramatic acceleration of human enterpriseafter World War II and the resulting pressureon the global environment.

HOLOCENE:The postglacial geologicalperiod, which began approximately 9600 BCand continues to the present.

INSTITUTIONS: A central concept withinthe social science of natural resourcemanagement whereby institutions aredefined as the norms and rules governinghuman interactions. These can be formal,such as rules and laws, but also informal(unwritten), such as norms and conventionsof society.

MILLENNI UM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT:Global review launched by the UN andcarried out between 2001 and 2005 to assessthe consequences of ecosystem change forhuman well-being.

NATURAL CAPITAL:An extension of thetraditional economic notion of capital,coined to represent the natural assets thateconomists, governments and corporations

tend to leave off the balance sheets. It can bedivided into non-renewable resources (e.g.fossil fuels), renewable resources (e.g. fish)and services (e.g. pollination).

PLANETARY BOUNDARIES:A conceptdeveloped by a group of researchers in 2009to describe nine safe biophysical boundariesoutside which the Earth System cannot bepushed without disastrous consequences.

RESILIENCE:The capacity of a system– be it a forest, city or economy – to dealwith change and continue to develop;withstanding shocks and disturbances (suchas climate change or financial crises) andusing such events to catalyse renewal andinnovation.

SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM:An inte-grated system of people and nature withreciprocal feedback and interdependence.The concept emphasises the humans-in-nature perspective and that delineationbetween the social and ecological is artificialand arbitrary.

SOCIAL INNOVATION:An initiative,product, process or programme that

profoundly changes the basic routines,resource and authority flows or beliefs of anysocial system.

TRANSFORMATION:The creation of afundamentally new system when ecological,economic or social conditions makethe continuation of the existing systemuntenable.

Glossary



19

LIU, J., T. DIETZ, S.R. CAR PENTER, M.ALBERTI, C. FOLKE, E. MORAN, A.C. PELL,P. DEADMAN, T. KRATZ, J. LUBCHENCO, E.OSTROM, Z. OUYANG, W. PROVENCHER,C.L. REDMAN, S.H. SCHNEIDER, W.W.TAYLOR.2007.Complexity of CoupledHuman and Natural Systems. Science317:1513-1516.

ROCKSTRÖM, J., STEFFEN, W., NOONE, K.,PERSSON, Å., CHAPI N, III, F.S., LAMBIN,E., LENTON, T.M., SCHEFFER, M., FOLKE,C., SCHELLN HUBER, H., NYKVIST, B., DEWIT, C.A., HUGHE S, T., VAN DER LEEUW,S., RODHE, H., SÖRLI N, S., SNYDER, P.K.,COSTANZA, R., SVEDIN, U., FALKENMARK,M., KARLBERG, L., CORELL, R.W., FABRY, V.J.,HANSEN, J., WALKER, B.H., L IVERMAN, D.,RICHARDSON, K., C RUTZEN, C., FOLEY. J. (2009).A safe operating space for humanity.Nature 461: 472-475 DOI 10.1038/461472a

ÖSTERBLOM, H., S.HANS SON, U. LARSSON,O. HJERNE, F. WULFF, R. ELMGREN AND

C. FOLKE.2007.Human-induced TrophicCascades and Ecological Regime Shifts in theBaltic Sea . Ecosystems 10:877-889.

GORDON, L.J., PETERSON , G.D., BENNETT,E. , 2008,Agricultural Modifications ofHydrological Flows Create EcologicalSurprises. Trends in Ecology and Evolution.23: 211-219.

NYSTRÖM, M., GRAHAM, N., LOKRANTZ,J., NORSTRÖM, A., 2008,Capturing theCornerstones of Coral Reef Resilience -Linking Theory to Practice . Coral Reefs.October 1st, DOI: 10.1007/s00338-008-0426-z.

BIGGS, R., CARPENTER, S.R., BROC K,W.A. (2009)Turning back from the brink:Detecting an impending regime shift in time toavert it. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences (PNAS) 106: 826-831.

OLSSON, P., FOLKE, C., HUGHES, T.P., 2008,Navigating the Transition to Ecosystem-Based Management of the Great Barrier Reef,Australia. Proceedings National Academy ofSciences, USA 105:9489-9494.

COLDING, J. 2007.Ecological Land-useComplementation for Building Resilience inUrban Ecosystems. Landscape and UrbanPlanning 81: 46-55.

ROCKSTRÖM, J., FALKENMARK, M. ,

KARLBERG, L., HOF F, H., ROST , S., GERTEN,D. (2009).Future water availability for globalfood production: The potential of green waterfor increasing resilience to global change. Water Resources Research 45, W00A12,doi:10.1029/2007WR006767, 14 February2009.

1. CARL FOLKE, ÅSA JANSSON, JOHAN ROCKSTRÖM, PER OLSSON, STECARPENTER, ANNE-SOP HIE CREPÍ N, GRETCHEN DAILY, JONAS EBBETHOMAS ELMQVIST, VICTOR GALAZ, FREDRIK MOBERG, MÅNS NILSHENRIK ÖSTERBLOM, ELINOR OSTROM, ÅSA PERSSON, STEPHEN POLWILL STEFFEN, BRIAN WALKER andFRANCES WESTLEY. 2011. “Reconnectingto the Biosphere”, Working Paper No 1. Prepared for the “3rd Nobel LaureateSymposium on Global Sustainability: Transforming the World in an Era ofGlobal Change”, in Stockholm, 16–19 May 2011.

2. WILL STEFFEN, ÅSA PERSSON, LISA DEUTSC H, MARK WILLIAMS, JA

ZALASIEWICZ, CARL FOLK E, JOHAN ROCKSTRÖM, CAROL CRUMLEYCRUTZEN, LIN E GORDON, MARIO MOLINA, V. RAMANATHAN, KATHERICHARDSON, MARTEN SCHEFFERand JOHN SCHELLNHUBER. 2011.“The Anthropocene: from global change to planetary stewardship”, WorkingPaper No 2. Prepared for the “3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on GlobalSustainability: Transforming the World in an Era of Global Change”, inStockholm, 16–19 May 2011.

3. FRANCES WESTLEY, PER OLSSON, CARL FOLKE, THOMAS HOMER-DIXON, HARRIE VREDENBU RG, DERK LOORBACH, JOHN THOMPSONMÅNS NILSSON, ERIC LAMBI N, JAN SENDZIMIR, BANNY BANARJEE,

VICTOR GALAZ AND SANDER VAN DER LEEUW. 2011. “Tipping towardssustainability: emergent pathways of transformation”, Working Paper No 3.Prepared for the “3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability:Transforming the World in an Era of Global Change”, in Stockholm, 16–19May 2011.

ReferencesUseful Reading



20

This publication is produced by Stockholm Resilience Centre, aninternational centre that advances transdisciplinary research forgovernance of social-ecological systems with a special emphasis onresilience – the ability to deal with change and continue to develop.

The centre is a joint initiative between Stockholm University, the

Stockholm Environment Institute and the Beijer InternationalInstitute of Ecological Economics at The Royal Swedish Academy ofSciences. The centre is funded by the Foundation for Strategic Envi-ronmental Research, Mistra.The publication is based largely on the Executive Summary of threescientic reports produced for the 3rd Nobel Laureate Symposium onglobal sustainability which took place in Stockholm 16–19 May 2011.

To nd out more about resilience research, go to:www.stockholmresilience.su.se.

Follow us on:

facebook.com/stockholmresilience

twitter.com/sthlmresilience

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter:www.stockholmresilience.su.se/subscribe

what is resilience. an introduction to socio_ecological reserch

Documents