The document discusses a collaborative research workshop focused on understanding the drivers of rapid change in Africa, emphasizing the need for a conceptual model to integrate human and natural sciences. It highlights complex causality and interrelated factors affecting food insecurity and ecosystem services while advocating for a multiscale approach in research. The importance of partnerships, conflict resolution, and stakeholder involvement in collaborative efforts is also addressed.

1. Carrying out scale-relevant collaborative research on drivers of changelessons and insight from SAfMA & other initiativesPresented by Bob Scholes (CSIR: bscholes@csir.co.za) 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

2. The importance of a having a conceptual modelThe MA conceptual model was simple, but sufficient for the purposeIn some respects, it was even arguably wrongBut it did provide a way of teasing out proximal drivers, ultimate drivers, feedback effects and interventions, and createda framework in which both human sciences andnatural sciences could locate themselvesSource: MEA (2003) Ecosystem services and human well-being. Island Press

3. Causality in systems with feedbackbaWhich is cause, and which effect?cTools you can useCause still precedes effect

4. Analysing the strength of the feedback can help

5. At what point was the external perturbation applied?Example of complex causalityIn Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa, large areas of land formerly managed for cattle and sheep switched to wildlife, 1975 onward

6. Many factors were involved, including

7. Declining profitability of cattle and sheep ranching

8. Rising demand for hunting and ecotourism

9. Deteriorating on-farm security

10. Intergenerational lifestyle changes

11. The changes in legislation relating to ownership of wildlife actually followed rather than preceded these factorsSource: Scholes et al (in prep)

12. Meta-analysisThe relative weights of the many causes of food insecurity

13. Causality: Nutrition insecurityarguments from a knowledge of underlying processesSource: Scholes RJ and R Biggs 2004 Ecosystem services in southern Africa: a Regional assessment. CSIR

14. Getting the relationships rightExample:How does biodiversity link to ecosystem services, and services to human wellbeing?SocietyutilitarianvaluesintrinsicvaluesBiodiversityThe naïve view

15. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) schemeHuman wellbeingMaterialneedsGood social relationsHealthSecurityFreedom & choiceIndirectdriversProvisioningFood, fibre, water, woodmedicinesSupportingNutrient Cycles, NPPRegulatingClimate, disease, floodsCulturalAestheticsTourismspiritualDirectDriversClimate changeBiodiversity

16. The MA followup schemeSource: Kinzig, Perrings and Scholes (submitted)Human wellbeingFreedom and choiceSecurity Material needs Health Social relationsinsurancevaluemarket &nonmarketvaluesProvisioningfood, fibre, wood water, air, genes,medicinesCulturalaesthetics, ethicstourism & recreationspiritual, sense of placeEcosystem servicesRegulatingclimate, floods, pests & diseaseSupportingEcosystem processes, Habitat provisionfunctionaltypeslandscapediversityspeciesdiversityresponsediversityBiodiversityinteractions

17. Multiscale

18. Cross-scaleDirect driversIndirect driversEcosystemservicesHuman WellbeingSource: Carpenter et al 2006 Science 313 257-258

19. ‘Right-scale’ or ‘multiscale’?Matching scale of analysis to scale of process and scale of intervention is important

20. But, because of cross-scale interactions, there often is not a single ‘optimum’ scale

21. Rather than go for a ‘best compromise’, an integrated multiscale approach is recommended

22. Seldom needs to include more than 3 scalesSparse nesting as an efficient approachGlobal Millennium Assessment~35 others

23. Engaging other knowledge systemsif they want to have an impact in the ‘evidence-based’ space they need to migrate to that quadrant, by being placed in the public domain, and subject to rules of evidence. This is their choice.Apply rules: ie, testdocumentChristo Fabricius, Bob Scholes and Georgina CundillMobilising knowledge for ecosystem assessmentsProceedings of the ‘Bridging Scales and Epistemologies’ Conference, Alexandria, Egypt, March 2004

24. Some observations on collaborative researchYou must have an agreed conceptual framework, even if it is imperfect

25. The rules of engagement are

26. Work within the framework

27. Agree to share information ie explicit, formal quadrant

28. Have an institutional framework for resolving conflicts

29. A ‘stakeholder board’ and a ‘technical panel’

30. Pay attention to the ‘soft’ issues

31. Provide opportunities to bond as a team

32. Get the balance right between disciplines and personalities

33. Partnerships need to be quasi-equal if they are to workAll the simple problems are done