Resilience:Concepts & Implications for CG-Wide Research Collaboration<br />Presented by L. German, D. Merrey and N. Johnso...
I. CONCEPTS<br />Ecological<br />Scales<br />Global<br />Biome<br />Landscape<br />Ecosystem<br />Plot/Herd<br />Plant/Ani...
I. CONCEPTS<br />“Birth, growth, death & renewal transform hierarchies from fixed static structures to dynamic adaptive en...
I. CONCEPTS<br />“Brittle” state at the<br />end of growth cycle<br />(tightly coupled system<br />susceptible to triggers...
I. CONCEPTS<br />“Brittle” state at the<br />end of growth cycle<br />(tightly coupled system<br />susceptible to triggers...
I. CONCEPTS<br />“Command & Control”<br />Management: Avoid<br />Release / Reorganization<br />(…decreased resilience)<br />
I. CONCEPTS<br />“Command & Control”<br />Management: Avoid<br />Release / Reorganization<br />(…decreased resilience)<br ...
Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady state fol...
Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady s...
Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady s...
Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady s...
Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady s...
I. CONCEPTS<br />What if the current state is undesirable? Is resilience an undesirable quality?<br />Resilience  resisti...
I. CONCEPTS<br />What if the current state is undesirable? Is resilience an undesirable quality?<br />Resilience  resisti...
I. CONCEPTS<br />What if the current state is undesirable? Is resilience an undesirable quality?<br />Resilience  resisti...
I. CONCEPTS<br />“First-order resource” = a natural resource that is becoming scarcer relevant to population over time (or...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Ecological Context(Walker, 2002; Abel & Langston, 2001):<br /><ul><li>S...
Patchiness of productivity
Species composition (W, A, P, PU) controlled by extreme years (decline in W); grazing (species, intensity – P:PU)
Key ecosystem processes: competition; fuel accumulation; and their interaction with drivers (rainfall, fire, grazing)</li>...
Patchiness of productivity
Species composition(W, A, P, PU)controlled by extreme years(decline in W); grazing(species, intensity – P:PU)
Key ecosystem processes: competition; fuel accumulation; and their interaction with drivers (rainfall, fire, grazing)</li>...
Patchiness of productivity
Species composition(W, A, P, PU)controlled by extreme years(decline in W); grazing(species, intensity – P:PU)
Key ecosystem processes: competition; fuel accumulation; and their interaction with drivers (rainfall, fire, grazing)
Resilience = f (rainfall, grazing intensity, patchiness) + “2nd Order” variables (social resilience)</li></ul>“A resilient...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Traditional Pastoralist Systems (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Freedom ...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Traditional Pastoralist Systems (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Freedom ...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Pastoralism in Transition (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Resilience Los...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Pastoralism in Transition (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Resilience Los...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Pastoralism in Transition (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Resilience Los...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />1860 Tim...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />= Ecolog...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />Korean<b...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br...
Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fe...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br...
Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fe...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br...
Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fe...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br...
Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fe...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br...
Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fe...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />= Social...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />
II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Synthesis:<br /><ul><li>Drivers & Disturbances:</li></ul>- Cultural(imp...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Industrialized agriculture “seeks to remove dependency on the natural proce...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Historical Predominance of Command-and-Control Model<br />Component Approac...
cycles (weed suppression) weeds (Striga) (E)
- Reliance on imported nutrients - ISFM, rotation, tillage (C)
Germplasm - Selection for narrow set of traits; - Outbreaks (bacterial wilt,</li></ul>genetic simplification stem rust) (E...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Historical Predominance of Command-and-Control Model<br />Component Approac...
cycles (weed suppression) weeds (Striga) (E)
- Reliance on imported nutrients - ISFM, rotation, tillage (C)
Germplasm - Selection for narrow set of traits; - Outbreaks (bacterial wilt,</li></ul>genetic simplification stem rust) (E...
II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Historical Predominance of Command-and-Control Model<br />Component Approac...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Resilience: concepts & implications for CG-wide research collaboration

878 views

Published on

A presentation by L. German, D. Merrey and N. Johnson at the Workshop on Dealing with Drivers of Rapid Change in Africa: Integration of Lessons from Long-term Research on INRM, ILRI, Nairobi, June 12-13, 2008.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
878
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Resilience: concepts & implications for CG-wide research collaboration

  1. 1. Resilience:Concepts & Implications for CG-Wide Research Collaboration<br />Presented by L. German, D. Merrey and N. Johnson at the Workshop on Dealing with Drivers of Rapid Change in Africa: Integration of Lessons from Long-term Research on INRM, ILRI, Nairobi, June 12-13, 2008 <br />
  2. 2. I. CONCEPTS<br />Ecological<br />Scales<br />Global<br />Biome<br />Landscape<br />Ecosystem<br />Plot/Herd<br />Plant/Animal<br />Genetic<br />Socio-Political<br />Scales<br />International<br />Regional<br />National<br />Municipal<br />Village<br />Family<br />Individual<br />
  3. 3. I. CONCEPTS<br />“Birth, growth, death & renewal transform hierarchies from fixed static structures to dynamic adaptive entities” <br />(Gunderson & Lowell)<br />HIERARCHY  PANARCHY<br />
  4. 4. I. CONCEPTS<br />“Brittle” state at the<br />end of growth cycle<br />(tightly coupled system<br />susceptible to triggers)<br />Weakly connected <br />state susceptible <br />to change<br />
  5. 5. I. CONCEPTS<br />“Brittle” state at the<br />end of growth cycle<br />(tightly coupled system<br />susceptible to triggers)<br />Weakly connected <br />state susceptible <br />to change<br />Susceptibility of the large / slow variables <br />to change in the small / fast variables<br />
  6. 6. I. CONCEPTS<br />“Command & Control”<br />Management: Avoid<br />Release / Reorganization<br />(…decreased resilience)<br />
  7. 7. I. CONCEPTS<br />“Command & Control”<br />Management: Avoid<br />Release / Reorganization<br />(…decreased resilience)<br />‘Managers are often successful at rapidly achieving a set of narrowly defined goals, encouraging dependence on continuation while eroding the ecological support that it requires. Ecological change becomes thus increasingly undesirable and simultaneously more difficult to avoid’ (Gunderson and Lowell)<br />
  8. 8. Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady state following a perturbation (Pimm, O’Neill, Tilman, Downing)<br />Magnitude of a disturbance that can be absorbed before the system is restructured with different controlling variables and processes (Walker, Holling)<br />Discipline<br />Engineering; economics<br />Evolutionary biology<br />Management aims<br />Controlling unwanted variation (constancy, predictability) to achieve singular goal<br />Persistence despite change & unpredictability (Gunderson & Pritchard) …or shift to more desirable steady state?<br />Focus of study<br />System behavior near known stable state<br />Properties of boundaries between alternative states<br />Management paradigms<br />Command and control (Holling and Meffe 1996); avoidance of alternative states<br />Adaptive management (Holling 1978; Walters 1986); maintenance of ecosystem function despite disturbance<br />Time frame<br />Short-term<br />Historical, evolutionary<br />Assumptions<br />Knowledge is complete; predictability; ability to “control away” disturbance & surprise; ability to harness nature for narrowly defined goals<br />Knowledge is incomplete; unpredictability; inevitability / constructive role of disturbance & adjustment (diversity, persistence); ecological systems pose limits to human knowledge and control<br />Source: Gunderson and Pritchard 2002; Holling and Meffe 1996<br />I. CONCEPTS<br />
  9. 9. Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady state following a perturbation (Pimm, O’Neill, Tilman, Downing)<br />Magnitude of a disturbance that can be absorbed before the system is restructured with different controlling variables and processes (Walker, Holling)<br />Disciplines<br />Engineering; economics<br />Evolutionary biology; historical ecology<br />Management aims<br />Controlling unwanted variation (constancy, predictability) to achieve singular goal<br />Persistence despite change & unpredictability (Gunderson & Pritchard) …or shift to more desirable steady state?<br />Focus of study<br />System behavior near known stable state<br />Properties of boundaries between alternative states<br />Management paradigms<br />Command and control (Holling and Meffe 1996); avoidance of alternative states<br />Adaptive management (Holling 1978; Walters 1986); maintenance of ecosystem function despite disturbance<br />Time frame<br />Short-term<br />Historical, evolutionary<br />Assumptions<br />Knowledge is complete; predictability; ability to “control away” disturbance & surprise; ability to harness nature for narrowly defined goals<br />Knowledge is incomplete; unpredictability; inevitability / constructive role of disturbance & adjustment (diversity, persistence); ecological systems pose limits to human knowledge and control<br />Source: Gunderson and Pritchard 2002; Holling and Meffe 1996<br />I. CONCEPTS<br />
  10. 10. Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady state following a perturbation (Pimm, O’Neill, Tilman, Downing)<br />Magnitude of a disturbance that can be absorbed before the system is restructured with different controlling variables and processes (Walker, Holling)<br />Disciplines<br />Engineering; economics<br />Evolutionary biology; historical ecology<br />Management aims<br />Controlling unwanted variation (constancy, predictability) to achieve singular goal<br />Persistence despite change & unpredictability (Gunderson & Pritchard) …or shift to more desirable steady state?<br />Focus of study<br />System behavior near known stable state<br />Properties of boundaries between alternative states<br />Management paradigms<br />Command and control (Holling and Meffe 1996); avoidance of alternative states<br />Adaptive management (Holling 1978; Walters 1986); maintenance of ecosystem function despite disturbance<br />Time frame<br />Short-term<br />Historical, evolutionary<br />Assumptions<br />Knowledge is complete; predictability; ability to “control away” disturbance & surprise; ability to harness nature for narrowly defined goals<br />Knowledge is incomplete; unpredictability; inevitability / constructive role of disturbance & adjustment (diversity, persistence); ecological systems pose limits to human knowledge and control<br />Source: Gunderson and Pritchard 2002; Holling and Meffe 1996<br />I. CONCEPTS<br />
  11. 11. Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady state following a perturbation (Pimm, O’Neill, Tilman, Downing)<br />Magnitude of a disturbance that can be absorbed before the system is restructured with different controlling variables and processes (Walker, Holling)<br />Discipline<br />Engineering; economics<br />Evolutionary biology; historical ecology<br />Management aims<br />Controlling unwanted variation (constancy, predictability) to achieve singular goal<br />Persistence despite change & unpredictability (Gunderson & Pritchard) …or shift to more desirable steady state?<br />Focus of study<br />System behavior near known stable state<br />Properties of boundaries between alternative states<br />Management paradigms<br />Command and control (Holling and Meffe 1996); avoidance of disturbance / alternative states<br />Adaptive management (Holling 1978; Walters 1986); maintenance of ecosystem & social functions despite disturbance<br />Time frame<br />Short-term<br />Historical, evolutionary<br />Assumptions<br />Knowledge is complete; predictability; ability to “control away” disturbance & surprise; ability to harness nature for narrowly defined goals<br />Knowledge is incomplete; unpredictability; inevitability / constructive role of disturbance & adjustment (diversity, persistence); ecological systems pose limits to human knowledge and control<br />Source: Gunderson and Pritchard 2002; Holling and Meffe 1996<br />I. CONCEPTS<br />
  12. 12. Properties<br />Engineering Resilience<br />(Socio-)Ecological Resilience<br />Definition<br />Speed of return to steady state following a perturbation (Pimm, O’Neill, Tilman, Downing)<br />Magnitude of a disturbance that can be absorbed before the system is restructured with different controlling variables and processes (Walker, Holling)<br />Discipline<br />Engineering; economics<br />Evolutionary biology; historical ecology<br />Management aims<br />Controlling unwanted variation (constancy, predictability) to achieve singular goal<br />Persistence despite change & unpredictability (Gunderson & Pritchard) …or shift to more desirable steady state?<br />Focus of study<br />System behavior near known stable state<br />Properties of boundaries between alternative states<br />Management paradigms<br />Command and control (Holling and Meffe 1996); avoidance of disturbance / alternative states<br />Adaptive management (Holling 1978; Walters 1986); maintenance of ecosystem & social functions despite disturbance<br />Time frame<br />Short-term<br />Historical, evolutionary<br />Assumptions<br />Knowledge is complete; predictability; ability to “control away” disturbance & surprise; ability to harness nature for narrowly defined goals<br />Knowledge is incomplete; unpredictability; inevitability / constructive role of disturbance & adjustment (diversity, persistence); ecological systems pose limits to human knowledge and control<br />Source: Gunderson and Pritchard 2002; Holling and Meffe 1996<br />I. CONCEPTS<br />
  13. 13. I. CONCEPTS<br />What if the current state is undesirable? Is resilience an undesirable quality?<br />Resilience  resisting change<br />Resilient systems are those that retain essential (ecological, social) functions despite disturbance<br />
  14. 14. I. CONCEPTS<br />What if the current state is undesirable? Is resilience an undesirable quality?<br />Resilience  resisting change<br />Resilient systems are those that retain essential (ecological, social) functions despite shocks / disturbance<br />
  15. 15. I. CONCEPTS<br />What if the current state is undesirable? Is resilience an undesirable quality?<br />Resilience  resisting change<br />Resilient systems are those that retain essential (ecological, social) functions despite shocks / disturbance<br />?<br />
  16. 16. I. CONCEPTS<br />“First-order resource” = a natural resource that is becoming scarcer relevant to population over time (or “First-Order Ecological Condition” ... ecological condition becoming increasingly undesirable).<br />“Second-order resource” = set of potential 'adaptive behaviors' (rules, values, information, social capital) that enable a society to generate and implement solutions to difficult problems.<br />(adapted from Turton and Ohlsson)<br />
  17. 17. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Ecological Context(Walker, 2002; Abel & Langston, 2001):<br /><ul><li>Strong seasonal climate, inter-annual variability
  18. 18. Patchiness of productivity
  19. 19. Species composition (W, A, P, PU) controlled by extreme years (decline in W); grazing (species, intensity – P:PU)
  20. 20. Key ecosystem processes: competition; fuel accumulation; and their interaction with drivers (rainfall, fire, grazing)</li></li></ul><li>II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Ecological Context(Walker, 2002; Abel & Langston, 2001):<br /><ul><li>Strong seasonal climate, inter-annual variability
  21. 21. Patchiness of productivity
  22. 22. Species composition(W, A, P, PU)controlled by extreme years(decline in W); grazing(species, intensity – P:PU)
  23. 23. Key ecosystem processes: competition; fuel accumulation; and their interaction with drivers (rainfall, fire, grazing)</li></li></ul><li>II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Ecological Context(Walker, 2002; Abel & Langston, 2001):<br /><ul><li>Strong seasonal climate, inter-annual variability
  24. 24. Patchiness of productivity
  25. 25. Species composition(W, A, P, PU)controlled by extreme years(decline in W); grazing(species, intensity – P:PU)
  26. 26. Key ecosystem processes: competition; fuel accumulation; and their interaction with drivers (rainfall, fire, grazing)
  27. 27. Resilience = f (rainfall, grazing intensity, patchiness) + “2nd Order” variables (social resilience)</li></ul>“A resilient landscape for pastoralism is one that can retain or recover sufficient function to support fodder production, despite disturbance” (Abel & Langston, 2001)<br />
  28. 28. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Traditional Pastoralist Systems (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Freedom of movement to chase pasture, water</li></ul>- Common property<br />- Extensive social networks (e.g. marriage, trade)<br /><ul><li>Mechanisms to buffer environmental extremes:</li></ul>- Reciprocal rights & obligations (survival, wealth redistribution)<br />- Logic of accumulation (material, social capital) / trade > sale to hedge against risk<br />- Coping to enhance survival despite loss<br />
  29. 29. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Traditional Pastoralist Systems (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Freedom of movement to chase pasture, water</li></ul>- Common property<br />- Extensive social networks (e.g. marriage, trade)<br /><ul><li>Mechanisms to buffer environmental extremes:</li></ul>- Reciprocal rights & obligations (survival, wealth redistribution)<br />- Logic of accumulation (material, social capital) / trade > sale to hedge against risk<br />- Coping to enhance survival despite loss<br />
  30. 30. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Pastoralism in Transition (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Resilience Lost:</li></ul>- Lost freedom of movement (individual property, forced settlement)<br />- Veterinary services  livestock explosion (overgrazing)<br />- Intra-group conflict<br /><ul><li>Drivers:</li></ul>- Ideological (“traditional” = primitive, anti-progress)<br />- Political (appropriation of land by State, private sector, sedentary)<br />- Climatic (decreased rainfall, increased variability)<br /><ul><li>Responses:</li></ul>- Spontaneous: Migration (& conflict); sedentarization (agropastoral)<br />- Formal: Cooperative ranching (failure: production > welfare)<br />
  31. 31. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Pastoralism in Transition (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Resilience Lost:</li></ul>- Lost freedom of movement (individual property, forced settlement)<br />- Veterinary services  livestock explosion (overgrazing)<br />- Intra-group conflict<br /><ul><li>Drivers:</li></ul>- Ideological (“traditional” = primitive, anti-progress)<br />- Political (appropriation of land by State, private sector, sedentary)<br />- Climatic (decreased rainfall, increased variability)<br /><ul><li>Responses:</li></ul>- Spontaneous: Migration (& conflict); sedentarization (agropastoral)<br />- Formal: Cooperative ranching (failure: production > welfare)<br />
  32. 32. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Pastoralism in Transition (Markakis, 2004):<br /><ul><li>Resilience Lost:</li></ul>- Lost freedom of movement (individual property, forced settlement)<br />- Veterinary services  livestock explosion (overgrazing)<br />- Intra-group conflict<br /><ul><li>Drivers:</li></ul>- Ideological (“traditional” = primitive, anti-progress)<br />- Political (appropriation of land by State, private sector, sedentary)<br />- Climatic (decreased rainfall, increased variability)<br /><ul><li>Responses:</li></ul>- Spontaneous: Migration (& conflict); sedentarization (agropastoral)<br />- Formal: Cooperative ranching (failure: production > welfare)<br />
  33. 33. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />1860 Time 2000<br />
  34. 34. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />= Ecological drivers<br />& responses<br />Global<br />Drought<br />Extinction<br />browsing<br />Marsupials<br />( scrub)<br />Rabbits<br />Scale of Drivers & Responses<br /><ul><li>Kangaroo</li></ul>(water pts.)<br />Local<br />1860 Time 2000<br />
  35. 35. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />Korean<br />War<br />(wool $$)<br />= Political-economic<br />drivers & responses<br />Global<br />Price<br />support<br />ends<br />Rural political dominance<br />Urban dominance,<br />“Closer Settlement”<br />Scale of Drivers & Responses<br />Strong<br />economy<br />Publicly funded water <br />supplies / stock routes<br />Local<br />1860 Time 2000<br />
  36. 36. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br /><ul><li>Release of rabbits
  37. 37. Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fence, dingo<br />control<br />Aim<br />- Unknown<br />- Political (urban demand)<br />-  borrowing capability for <br />“drought-proofing”<br />-  economic hardship<br />- Reduce predation on<br />sheep <br />Outcome<br />- Pressure on rangeland <br />-  vulnerability; reduced <br />economy of scale; move <br />into marginal land<br />- Debt decreased financial<br />viability of ranches<br />-  value of leases   in<br />collateral   debt<br />- Loss of kangaroo predator <br />  pressure on range<br />
  38. 38. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br /><ul><li>Release of rabbits
  39. 39. Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fence, dingo<br />control<br />Aim<br />- Unknown<br />- Political (urban demand)<br />-  borrowing capability for <br />“drought-proofing”<br />-  economic hardship<br />- Reduce predation on<br />sheep <br />Outcome<br />- Pressure on rangeland <br />-  vulnerability; reduced <br />economy of scale; move <br />into marginal land<br />- Debt decreased financial<br />viability of ranches<br />-  value of leases   in<br />collateral   debt<br />- Loss of kangaroo predator <br />  pressure on range<br />
  40. 40. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br /><ul><li>Release of rabbits
  41. 41. Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fence, dingo<br />control<br />Aim<br />- Unknown<br />- Political (urban demand)<br />-  borrowing capability for <br />“drought-proofing”<br />-  economic hardship<br />- Reduce predation on<br />sheep<br />Outcome<br />- Pressure on rangeland <br />-  vulnerability; reduced <br />economy of scale; move <br />into marginal land<br />- Debt decreased financial<br />viability of ranches<br />-  value of leases   in<br />collateral   debt<br />- Loss of kangaroo predator <br />  pressure on range<br />
  42. 42. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br /><ul><li>Release of rabbits
  43. 43. Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fence, dingo<br />control<br />Aim<br />- Unknown<br />- Political (urban demand)<br />-  borrowing capability for <br />“drought-proofing”<br />-  economic hardship<br />- Reduce predation on<br />sheep<br />Outcome<br />- Pressure on rangeland <br />-  vulnerability; reduced <br />economy of scale; move <br />into marginal land<br />- Debt decreased financial<br />viability of ranches<br />-  value of leases in<br />collateral  debt<br />- Loss of kangaroo predator <br />  pressure on range<br />
  44. 44. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Dysfunctional Government Responses<br />Government<br />Intervention<br /><ul><li>Release of rabbits
  45. 45. Policy of “closer settlement”; new settlers subsidized</li></ul>- Lease extension<br />- Debt forgiveness<br />- Rabbit fence, dingo<br />control<br />Aim<br />- Unknown<br />- Political (urban demand)<br />-  borrowing capability for <br />“drought-proofing”<br />-  economic hardship<br />- Reduce predation on<br />sheep <br />Outcome<br />- Pressure on rangeland <br />-  vulnerability; reduced <br />economy of scale; move <br />into marginal land<br />- Debt decreased financial<br />viability of ranches<br />-  value of leases in<br />collateral  debt<br />- Loss of kangaroo predator <br /> pressure on range<br />
  46. 46. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management (Abel and Langston, 2001)<br />Australia / NSW:<br />= Sheep #<br />= Social drivers &<br />responses<br />Global<br />Sub-regional<br />Networking<br />(reciprocity, knowledge exchange)<br />Political organizing<br />Scale of Drivers & Responses<br />Eviction of aborigines, fire<br />Expansion of watering points to access<br />new rangeland; reduced stocking density<br />Local<br />1860 Time 2000<br />
  47. 47. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />
  48. 48. II. CASE STUDIES<br />A. Rangeland Management<br />Synthesis:<br /><ul><li>Drivers & Disturbances:</li></ul>- Cultural(imported model based on private settlement, loss of Aboriginal fire management practices)<br />- Political (political pressure for closer settlement, despite ecological<br />feedback & learning)<br />- Economic (short-term commercial goals)<br />- Ideological(validation of territorial possession)<br />- Technological (watering pts., livestock spp., mobility … to override ecological feedbacks)<br />- Cross-scale interactions (e.g. pests, drought, international business<br />cycles, social responses to buffer dysfunctional policy responses)<br />
  49. 49. II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Industrialized agriculture “seeks to remove dependency on the natural processes normally required for plant production” (Vaughan, 1998)<br />Does this enhance or undermine resilience?<br />
  50. 50. II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Historical Predominance of Command-and-Control Model<br />Component Approach Feedbacks<br /><ul><li>Pests - Suppression of population - Pest resistance (E)</li></ul>dynamics - IPM (C)<br />- Indiscriminate control of harmful <br />& beneficial insects<br />- Pest control > plant health<br /><ul><li>Nutrients - Suppression of system nutrient - Opportunistic pests,
  51. 51. cycles (weed suppression) weeds (Striga) (E)
  52. 52. - Reliance on imported nutrients - ISFM, rotation, tillage (C)
  53. 53. Germplasm - Selection for narrow set of traits; - Outbreaks (bacterial wilt,</li></ul>genetic simplification stem rust) (E)<br />- Substitute genetic resilience for - “ICGM”? (C) external controls<br />
  54. 54. II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Historical Predominance of Command-and-Control Model<br />Component Approach Feedbacks<br /><ul><li>Pests - Suppression of population - Pest resistance (E)</li></ul>dynamics - IPM (C)<br />- Indiscriminate control of harmful <br />& beneficial insects<br />- Pest control > plant health<br /><ul><li>Nutrients - Suppression of system nutrient - Opportunistic pests,
  55. 55. cycles (weed suppression) weeds (Striga) (E)
  56. 56. - Reliance on imported nutrients - ISFM, rotation, tillage (C)
  57. 57. Germplasm - Selection for narrow set of traits; - Outbreaks (bacterial wilt,</li></ul>genetic simplification stem rust) (E)<br />- Substitute genetic resilience for - “ICGM”? (C) external controls<br />
  58. 58. II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Historical Predominance of Command-and-Control Model<br />Component Approach Feedbacks<br /><ul><li>Pests - Suppression of population - Pest resistance (E)</li></ul>dynamics - IPM (C)<br />- Indiscriminate control of harmful <br />& beneficial insects<br />- Pest control > plant health<br /><ul><li>Nutrients - Suppression of system nutrient - Opportunistic pests,
  59. 59. cycles (weed suppression) weeds (Striga) (E)
  60. 60. - Reliance on imported nutrients - ISFM, rotation, tillage (C)
  61. 61. Germplasm - Selection for narrow set of traits; - Outbreaks (bacterial wilt,</li></ul>genetic simplification stem rust) (E)<br />- Substitute genetic resilience for - “ICGM”? (C) external controls<br />
  62. 62. II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Case Study (Wolaita, Ethiopia): <br />1991<br />1974<br />Political-<br />Economic<br />System<br />Feudalist <br />- Reliance on organic nutrients; germplasm adapted to sub-optimal, variable conditions<br />Local Adaptive Capacity<br />
  63. 63. II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Case Study (Wolaita, Ethiopia): <br />Fertilizer<br />subsidy<br />1991<br />1974<br />Political-<br />Economic<br />System<br />Feudalist Communist (Derg) <br />- Reliance on organic nutrients; germplasm adapted to sub-optimal, variable conditions<br />- Production / income gains; chemical replaces organic fertilizer; gradual loss of local germplasm <br />Local Adaptive Capacity<br />
  64. 64. II. CASE STUDIES<br />B. Cropping Systems<br />Case Study (Wolaita, Ethiopia): <br />Subsidy<br />ends<br />Fertilizer<br />subsidy<br />1991<br />1974<br />Political-<br />Economic<br />System<br />Feudalist Communist (Derg) Capitalist<br />- Reliance on organic nutrients; germplasm adapted to sub-optimal, variable conditions<br />- Production / income gains; chemical replaces organic fertilizer; gradual loss of local germplasm <br />Resilience lost:<br /><ul><li>Loss of inherent soil fertility
  65. 65. Germplasm adapted to sub-optimal conditions now in short supply
  66. 66. Food insecurity </li></ul>Local Adaptive Capacity<br />
  67. 67. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />In many river basins water is increasingly over-allocated, leading to high levels of conflict over scarce water, rising inequity, environmental degradation, serious health impacts<br />
  68. 68. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />The current dominant paradigm – “integrated water resources management” (IWRM) – as often (mis-)understood: simultaneously addressing the full range of issues.<br />(Source: DWAF)<br />
  69. 69. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />The current dominant paradigm – “integrated water resources management” (IWRM) – as often (mis-)understood: simultaneously addressing the full range of issues.<br />Embraces complexity, but…<br /><ul><li>Normative, overly</li></ul>prescribed approach<br /><ul><li>Too complex to be</li></ul>manageable<br /><ul><li>Lacks prioritization
  70. 70. Doing everything at once </li></ul>(Source: DWAF)<br />
  71. 71. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />The current dominant paradigm – “integrated water resources management” (IWRM) – as often (mis-)understood: simultaneously addressing the full range of issues.<br />Embraces complexity, but…<br /><ul><li>Normative, overly</li></ul>prescribed approach<br /><ul><li>Too complex to be</li></ul>manageable<br /><ul><li>Lacks prioritization
  72. 72. Doing everything at once </li></ul>(Source: DWAF)<br />
  73. 73. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />The current dominant paradigm – “integrated water resources management” (IWRM) – as often (mis-)understood: simultaneously addressing the full range of issues.<br />Embraces complexity, but…<br /><ul><li>Normative, overly</li></ul>prescribed approach<br /><ul><li>Too complex to be</li></ul>manageable<br /><ul><li>Lacks prioritization
  74. 74. Doing everything at onceundermines effectiveness</li></ul>(Source: DWAF)<br />
  75. 75. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />Evidence increasingly suggests the promise of an alternative approach as the most suitable to deal with complex social and ecological systems:<br /><ul><li>Adaptive management approach that works with stakeholders to identify priority problems and tackle these within an overall integrated natural resource management conceptual framework (e.g. IWRM) (Lankford, Merrey, Cour and Hepworth, 2007; Fisher, Prabhu and McDougall, 2007)
  76. 76. Follows an iterative, focused,politically aware social learning process</li></li></ul><li>II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />Figure 1. Iterative, adaptive learning approach to addressing government-decreed objectives in water management in the Usangu Plains<br />
  77. 77. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />Figures 2a,b. Biophysical results of “soft skill” approach: perennial flows (Langkford et al, 2007)<br />
  78. 78. II. CASE STUDIES<br />C. River Basin Management<br />Figures 2a,b. Biophysical results of “soft skill” approach: perennial flows (Langkford et al, 2007)<br />Key Ingredients to Success:<br />- Research (opportunities for re-allocation)<br />- Negotiationsupport with  volume users<br />- Social learningamong un-like actors (private sector, government, smallholders)<br />
  79. 79. II. IMPLICATIONS FOR INRM PLATFORM?<br />Resilience derives from functional reinforcement across scales & functional overlap within scales.<br />Ecological resilience can only be analyzed and measured across scales (temporal, spatial or both) … and disciplines.<br />Surprises occur when variation in broad-scale processes (e.g. extreme weather events) interact with internal changes due to human alteration.<br />A unique property of human systems in response to uncertainty is the generation of novelty – key to dealing with surprise/crisis. Yet societies vary in their social capacity (2nd order response) to adapt to changing natural resources (1st order trigger). <br />Most policies are really questions masquerading as answers. Management actions then become experimental treatments.<br />Effective responses assess types / sources of uncertainty, but also identify sources of flexibility, develop actions structured for learning, and allow for generation of novelty.<br />
  80. 80. II. IMPLICATIONS FOR INRM PLATFORM?<br />Resilience derives from functional reinforcement across scales & functional overlap within scales.<br />Ecological resilience can only be analyzed and measured across scales (temporal, spatial or both) … and disciplines.<br />Surprises occur when variation in broad-scale processes (e.g. extreme weather events) interact with internal changes due to human alteration.<br />A unique property of human systems in response to uncertainty is the generation of novelty – key to dealing with surprise/crisis. Yet societies vary in their social capacity (2nd order response) to adapt to changing natural resources (1st order trigger). <br />Most policies are really questions masquerading as answers. Management actions then become experimental treatments.<br />Effective responses assess types / sources of uncertainty, but also identify sources of flexibility, develop actions structured for learning, and allow for generation of novelty.<br />
  81. 81. II. IMPLICATIONS FOR INRM PLATFORM?<br />Resilience derives from functional reinforcement across scales & functional overlap within scales.<br />Ecological resilience can only be analyzed and measured across scales (temporal, spatial or both) … and disciplines.<br />Surprises occur when variation in broad-scale processes (e.g. extreme weather events) interact with internal changes due to human alteration.<br />A unique property of human systems in response to uncertainty is the generation of novelty – key to dealing with surprise/crisis. Yet societies vary in their social capacity (2nd order response) to adapt to changing natural resources (1st order trigger). <br />Most policies are really questions masquerading as answers. Management actions then become experimental treatments.<br />Effective responses assess types / sources of uncertainty, but also identify sources of flexibility, develop actions structured for learning, and allow for generation of novelty.<br />
  82. 82. II. IMPLICATIONS FOR INRM PLATFORM?<br />Resilience derives from functional reinforcement across scales & functional overlap within scales.<br />Ecological resilience can only be analyzed and measured across scales (temporal, spatial or both) … and disciplines.<br />Surprises occur when variation in broad-scale processes (e.g. extreme weather events) interact with internal changes due to human alteration.<br />A unique property of human systems in response to uncertainty is the generation of novelty – key to dealing with surprise/crisis. Yet societies vary in their social capacity (2nd order response) to adapt to changing natural resources (1st order trigger). <br />Most policies are really questions masquerading as answers. Management actions then become experimental treatments.<br />Effective responses assess types / sources of uncertainty, but also identify sources of flexibility, develop actions structured for learning, and allow for generation of novelty.<br />
  83. 83. II. IMPLICATIONS FOR INRM PLATFORM?<br />Resilience derives from functional reinforcement across scales & functional overlap within scales.<br />Ecological resilience can only be analyzed and measured across scales (temporal, spatial or both) … and disciplines.<br />Surprises occur when variation in broad-scale processes (e.g. extreme weather events) interact with internal changes due to human alteration.<br />A unique property of human systems in response to uncertainty is the generation of novelty – key to dealing with surprise/crisis. Yet societies vary in their social capacity (2nd order response) to adapt to changing natural resources (1st order trigger). <br />Most policies are really questions masquerading as answers. Management actions then become experimental treatments.<br />Effective responses assess types / sources of uncertainty, but also identify sources of flexibility, develop actions structured for learning, and allow for generation of novelty. <br />
  84. 84. II. IMPLICATIONS FOR INRM PLATFORM?<br />FOOD FOR THOUGHT…<br /><ul><li>To what extent are we aware of scale biases or influences in our research? To what extent do we communicate the limitations these pose on the application of research findings?
  85. 85. To what extent are we aware of the long-term consequences of the focus on maximizing short-term returns?
  86. 86. To what extent are we aware of the interaction of local and higher-level variables, and of social, political, technological and biophysical variables, in producing outcomes?
  87. 87. Under what conditions do “command-and-control” type interventions enhance resilience by improving incomes and capacity to ‘weather’ shocks? Under what conditions do they enhance vulnerability (e.g. deplete natural capital or sources of novelty, enhance “brittleness” / susceptibility to shocks)?
  88. 88. …</li></li></ul><li>In memory of Dr. Luis Navarro…<br />

×