Ag bridging orgs_hahn

Bridging organisations

Lecture for Module 10, Adaptive Governance2015-03-15

Thomas [email protected]

1

Outline

1. “Repetition” – Economics, paradigms, WEF

2. Green Economy = adapting the economic system to sustainability

3. SES – the context of bridging organisations

4. Individuals or organisations?

5. Limitations of Adaptive Governance and collaboration within bridging organisations

6. Do we study systems or agents with intentions?

7. Resilience and political ecology

Degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being

“The total economic value associated with managing ecosystems more sustainably is often higher than the value associated with conversion” (Opportunity cost)

“Conversion may still occur because private economic benefits are often greater for the converted system” (external costs)

“Governments should first stop subsidies to such conversions, then subsidize production of ecosystem services” (incentives)

(How are the values in the table estimated?)

Economics is not equal to money!

The Biosphere

The Economic System

The Social System

air

soil

mineralsplants animals micro-organisms

biological diversity

water

nutrients

biogeochemical cycles

ecosystem functioning thresholds

decomposition

EcolEcon: Human wellbeing depend on the Biosphere

regardless whether weunderstand it or not.

Neoclass.EnvEcon:The value of naturedepends on human

preferences.

Neoclassical economics versus Democracy

• Example (Survey 1997): Swedish citizens think it should not be allowed – to build mosques in Sweden? – to have homosexual teachers at primary

school? • These large minority opinions are contrary

to the Swedish constitution. Conclusion: many people have “wrong” preferences, i.e. their preferences should not be given moral weight in formulation of policy goals.

46%

39 %

Million-dollar questions:• Should we adapt the Swedish constitution to accommodate

these values that violate human rights?

• Sustainable development may not be supported by citizens (e.g. rising taxes on fossil fuel). Could sustainability or the integrity of ecosystems be framed as human rights-issues (constitutional issues), e.g. the right to breathe fresh air, the right to clean ground and surface water? Implications on property rights?

• If value systems are hierarchical (human rights, democracy, sustainability are “overarching ideologies”), then these “overarching ideologies” could be used to direct, frame, and constrain policy options as well as choices by consumers! Just like our constitution frames legislation.

“Nobel” Prizes in Economics1. Kenneth Arrow, 1972 (social choice, ecol-econ)

2. Gunnar Myrdal, 1974 (inst econ, questioned “value-free”)

3. Herbert Simon, 1978 (bounded rationality)

4. James Tobin, 1981 (“Tobin tax”)

5. Douglass North, 1993 (institutional economics)

6. Amartya Sen, 1998 (re-define efficiency, ethics, fixed preferences, narrow self-interest)

7. Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 (Development, IMF critic)

8. Daniel Kahneman, 2002 (testing theory in experiments)

9. Elinor Ostrom, 2009 (Challenged “the tragedy of the commons” and its assumption of narrow self-interest)

Paradigm critique in economics

• The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2009 was awarded Elinor Ostrom "for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons“

• Ostrom assumed rational choice but rejected the (Lakatos) “protective belt” assumption of narrow self-interest:

• Investments in social capital and cooperation can be rational. Hence, people may overcome the “tragedy of open access” (Nash equilibrium)

Paradigm critique in economics

Core: Utility maximization

Self-interest Rational choice

Spontaneous orderEquilibrium

Protective belt assumptions:

Narrow self-interestSometimes broad self-interest

Full rationalityBounded rationality

Non-cooperationSometimes cooperation

Economic manPolitical-economic man

Full informationInformation economics

Only utilitarian ethicsRights-based approaches

Objective market pricesPrices depend on institutions Conclusion: The neoclassical core has been

re-defined when important assumptions have been questioned by economists

Natural capital can be substituted forLimited substitutability

Linear changeTipping points

Exponential growth is goodGrowth can be uneconomic

Fixed preferencesPreferences change in a decision context

A green economy means living within the “planetary boundaries” and meeting global human needs

• Kate Raworth at Oxfam has added a social dimension consisting of minimum requirements above critical human deprivations – such as hunger, illiteracy, poverty and voicelessness.

• Together these boundaries form a safe and just space for humanity – and economic activity

CAN WE LIVE WITHIN THE DOUGHNUT?Oxfam Discussion Papers 2012

8 worst Global Risks

Imp

act

Likelihood

Based on a survey of over 1,000 experts from industry, government,

academia and civil society

http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2013-eighth-edition

5 of the 8 worst Global Risks are ecosystem-based

1. Water supply crises

2. Rising greenhouse gas emissions

3. Failure of climate change adaptation

4. Extreme volatility in energy and

agriculture prices

5. Food shortage crises

Non-ecosystem-based risks:

1. Chronic fiscal imbalances

2. Major systemic financial failure

3. Severe income disparity

http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-2013-eighth-edition

= beginning of the biosphere era?

2010 = end of the neoliberal era?

The Sustainable Development discourse is focusing more on Economics: TEEB 2009 and GE 2011

= apply economics or change economics?

Green Economy means radical changes in the economic systems – based on

mainstream economic theory

Feed-in tarriffs on solar and wind

Green fiscal (tax) reform Regulating the market Technology transfer, etc Results in clean GDP growth Presented as more efficient

(economically + ecologically) than the ”Brown” Economy but what about equity?

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5296

Green Economy – some worries from South

1. Land grabbing is NOT a part of a GE but is justified as such by the “land grabbers”

2. Other ecosystem services may also be commercialised

3. North may impose ”carbon tariffs” or ”border adjustment taxes” on products imported from developing countries with little emission control (Sarkozy 2007, Waxman-Markey bill in the USA 2009).

- If so, the net revenue should be transferred to the government which, according to North, should have imposed the tax in the first place (”return tariff”)

4. National perspective: Fiscal reforms within a developing country may have regressive effects on income distribution

The discussion on fuel subsidies is an important national issue.

Here’s an example from Ghana

Logical but assumes…?

a benevolent government!

Fiscal reforms are necessary but… BBC Africa 2012-01-02: “Ordinary

Nigerians and trade unionists have condemned the government for withdrawing a fuel price subsidy which has led petrol prices to more than double in many areas.”

Political resistance against reducing fossil fuel subsidies is often based on mistrust (a corrupt government).

Is it possible, or even desirable, to calculate a global optimal carbon tax?

No. There is no “optimal carbon tax”. Each country must find a level that promotes transformation!

Green Economy for OECD

Reduce working hours and employ more in low-productivity personal services like health care (Tim Jackson & Peter Victor 2011) Labour has been the most expensive factor for production, hence most innovation has been about saving labour

Labour must become relatively “cheaper” = mindshift and tax reform. Focus on “green jobs”

Tax reform in health care, especially for old people: reduce i) working hours for low-paid workers, ii) unemployment, and iii) ecological footprint = win-win-win

Conclusions on Green Economy Green Economy (UNEP) is based on good

environmental economics thinking and policy, to enhance environmental and economic efficiency. Allows for GDP growth in the South (“clean growth”)

However, many developing countries fear that GDP growth is compromised by environmental restrictions decided by OECD countries.

All countries have common but differentiated responsibilities and capacities to stop climate change.

Anthropocene requires a new global stewardship based on solidarity, not land grabbing

Economic theory also needs to be challenged (include equity, skip GDP growth as a goal in OECD countries, and focus on resource productivity)

A Social-Ecological System (Hahn et al. 2006 HumEcol)

Social normsand rules

Management:actors, organizations

Ecosystem processes + services

Know-ledge

systems

Externaldrivers, change

andsurprise

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,socialunrest,global market demands,

climate change etc.

Flexibleinstitutions, adaptivegovernance

Multilevel governance,legal and financial support

Adaptivemanageme

nt

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 ”adaptive governance”

EXPORT DATE:05 Mar 2015. Sorted by Citations

1. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems (2005) Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, pp. 441-473. Cited 996 times.

2. Folke, C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses (2006) Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), pp. 253-267. Cited 939 times.

3. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems (2004) Ecology and Society, 9 (2), art. no. 5, 9 p. Cited 844 times.

4. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., Holling, C.S. Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems (2006) Ecology and Society, 11 (1), art. no. 18, . Cited 299 times.

5. Pahl-Wostl, C. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. (2009) Global Environmental Change, 19 (3), pp. 354-365. Cited 235 times.

6. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. (2008) Global Environmental Change, 18 (1), pp. 86-98. Cited 205 times.

7. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hahn, T. Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. (2004) Ecology and Society, 9 (4). Cited 185 times.

Search on Scopus for ”bridging organizations”

EXPORT DATE:05 Mar 2015. Sorted by Citations

1. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems (2005) Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, pp. 441-473. Cited 996 times.

2. Berkes, F. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning (2009) Journal of Environmental Management, 90 (5), pp. 1692-1702. Cited 353 times.

3. Ketchen Jr., D.J., Hult, G.T.M. Bridging organization theory and supply chain management: The case of best value supply chains (2007) Journal of Operations Management, 25 (2), pp. 573-580. Cited 141 times.

4. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., Schultz, L. Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden (2007) Ecology and Society, 12 (1), art. no. 28, . Cited 119 times.

5. Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Johansson, K. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden (2006) Human Ecology, 34 (4), pp. 573-592. Cited 112 times.

6. Schultz, L., Folke, C., Olsson, P. Enhancing ecosystem management through social-ecological inventories: Lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden (2007) Environmental Conservation, 34 (2), pp. 140-152. Cited 44 times.

---13. Crona, B.I., Parker, J.N. Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging

organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance (2012) Ecology and Society, 17 (1), . Cited 20 times.15. Hahn, T. Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management: Who is accountable?(2011) Ecology and Society, 16 (2), . Cited 15 times.

The context of bridging organisations

• 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).

• Organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process are called “bridging organizations (Crona & Parker 2012).

• 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).

• Accomplishments by informal networking can be institutionalized in land-use plans and other regulations

The context of bridging organisations• Bridging organizations, or individuals performing these functions, are

crucial for successful governance, i.e. collaboration between agencies and NGOs (Berkes 2009).

• 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).

• The challenges of “legitimacy” and “accountability” 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. (Hahn 2011).

• Question: is there a risk that self-organized governance networks “take over” responsibility from the representative democracy?

Fig. 1. The governance network of Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve. The nodes are agencies/organizations, 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, E&S)

Individuals or organisations?

BKV Office

International

National

County

Sub-municipal

Municipal

International:MAB, Poland Denmark

National:Local Invest-ment ProgramsEPAWWF

County:CABFarmers’ Organizations

Municipal:BKV OfficeMunicipalAdministrations

Sub-Municipal:Farmers/LandownersLocal BusinessLocal Steward Organizations

The Flooded Meadows Project

Mix of governance and management networks

Management network includes the lower parts and the extension expert Hans Cronert at CAB focuses on actual management

Bridging organizations• Performing essential functions in

crafting effective responses to change in social-ecological systems

• Linking groups, networks and organizations across levels, creating the right links, at the right time, around the right issues

• Accessing and combining multiple sources of knowledge and interests

• Enhancing vertical and horizontal integration and social learning

Bridging organization

Folke et al. 2005, Hahn et al. 2006, Olsson et al. 2007

International bridging organizations

• Illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing in the Southern Ocean became a major concern in the 1990s , not only for ENGOs but also for legal fisheries and governments.

• The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLRs) was an inter-governmental commission but emerged to a bridging organization.

• In CCAMLR, NGO concerns with drowning of charismatic seabirds benefitted from converging interests with the fishing industry and governments: actors had symmetrical or converging interests and CCAMLR provided the arena for successfully reducing IUU.

(Österblom & Sumaila 2011)

Focus on understanding changes(transformations/transitions)

• Social learning is important to overcome the tyranny of fixed preferences and vested interests (“learning leadership”)

• Besides this focus on leadership and learning, the researcher also needs to analyse power:

• Any stakeholder benefitting from the status quo (of sub-optimal ecosystem management) and powerful enough to impede social learning processes?

• 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)

“adaptive 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 process.” (Leach, M, 2008, p 1791.)

• This critique misses the point: AGSES case studies don’t assume but document HOW shared goals and (sufficient) consensus have been accomplished.

• 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 (e.g. Kate Brown 2001 Ecol. Econ. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800900002937 )

“Can you address power issues using systems ecology?”

• 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.

• 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 & Hahn forthcoming)

Stakeholders have intentions

• In the resilience theory literature, 30% of the papers on ”adaptability” see people as agents with intentions, strategies, and hence allow for power analysis. 50% see people as part of ”social systems” interacting with ecosystems, focus on understanding ecological + system feedbacks.

• The “problem” with systems ecology is not the use of self-organization in relation to scales or levels, e.g. 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• Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to

Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed.

• The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing.

• 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.

Resilience and political ecology• Some of the research on resilience of SES is compatible to

Political ecology in the sense that power issues are (or can be) addressed.

• The use of political ecology in resilience research is increasing as the number of social scientists in this field is growing.

• 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!