Building resilience in socialecological systems to deal with challenges in an increasingly uncertain world Claudia Pahl-Wostl Professor for Resource Management Director Institute of Environmental Systems Research University of Osnabrück, Germany Senior Research Scholar, Stockholm Resilience Centre Research Associate IIASA
Themes Resilience evolution of the concept Framework for social learning / societal change Experience from water management Role of social networks Some reflections
Resilience Evolution of Concept Resilience is the capacity of an ecosystem (time required) to return to an equilibrium or steady-state following a perturbation (Holling, 1973). The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Walker et al, 2004) The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity (Folke et al, 2010)
Adaptability Transformability Adaptability captures the capacity of a SES to learn, combine experience and knowledge, adjust its responses to changing external drivers and internal processes, and continue developing within the current stability domain or basin of attraction (Folke et al, 2010) Transformability captures the capacity to transform the stability landscape itself in order to become a different kind of system, to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable (Folke et al, 2010) Adaptive capacity is defined as the ability of a resource governance system to first alter processes and if required convert structural elements as response to experienced or expected changes in the societal or natural environment (Pahl-Wostl, 2009)
Resilience is linked to the ability of a system to adapt, to learn from disturbance and if needed to transform in the long-term and build resilience of a new system configuration
Framework for social and societal learning
A Relational Concept for Social Learning Context Societal Learning Governance structure Actors & Institutions Process, Natural environment Technologies Centralization of Power <-> Polycentricity Information Management Formal Institutions (degree of rigidity) Feedback Social/relational Issues Relational Practices Problem/task Issues Problem Framing Boundary Management Ground rules Leadership Outcomes Relational qualities Social Capital Technical qualities Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007
An evolutionary perspective on societal change Need dike height to Context Frames Actions Outcomes be increased by 10 or 20 cm? Which laws need to be changed? Change in practices - paradigm shift in education? Single-Loop Learning Incremental improvement of established routines Double-Loop Learning Reframing Triple-Loop Learning Transforming Is present flood protection practice sustainable? How can one increase the resilience of landscapes / regions? Pahl-Wostl, 2009
Change along different dimensions Single Loop Double Loop Triple Loop Institutions - general No calling into question of established institutions, unilateral reinterpretation Reinterpretation of established institutions by many parties Established institutions changed and/or new institutions implemented. Uncertainty and risk manage ment Uncertainty used to justify non-action. Activities to reduce uncertainties. Reliance on science to find the truth/ a solution. Uncertainty accepted and perceived as opportunity in processes of negotiations - reframing Existence of different perspectives and world views acknowledged Uncertainty discourse emphasises different perspectives and world views New approaches to manage uncertainty and risk implemented Actor Network Actors remain within their networks communities of practice Established roles and identities not called into question Explicit search for advise/ opinion from actors outside of established network New roles emerge Boundary spanners of increasing importance Changes in network boundaries and connections New actors groups and roles have become established Changes in power structure Pahl-Wostl, 2009
Unsustainable water management: Increasing human water security results in reduced resilience of social-ecological systems
Frequency Acceptable risk threshold Extremes (un-adapted) Drought Risk Managing Extremes Technical Precautions Variability Acceptable risk threshold Reduce small-scale disturbance but increase the likelihood x 1 of desaster DAMAGE Reduce ability to adapt Normal and transform Extremes (un-adapted) Flood Risk Climate variable (e.g. precipitation)
The role of multi-level societal learning processes to facilitate transformative change in flood management
Change of flood management paradigm Currently dominating Controlling water Risiks are quantified and optimal technical solutions are implemented Large-scale technical infrastructure (reservoirs, dams) New approach Living with water Participatory risk evaluation and negotiation about integrated solutions Multi-functional landscape with flooding areas combining ecosystem service approach and technical infrastructure
Current situation.. Rhone - Switzerland Athabasca - Canada River Road
Conflict changes in roles, power. Current state with regulated and controlled rivers Adaptive management with a multifunctional dynamic landscape Stakeholder groups and their roles Authorities as regulators in highly controlled environment Engineers construct & operate dams, reservoirs and levees Authorities as contributors to adaptive management process with shared responsibilities Engineers with skills in systems design House owners living in floodplains House owners with property in floodplain at higher flooding risk Agriculture using land in vicinity of rivers Tourism industry and tourists using the floodplains for recreation Pahl-Wostl, 2006
2009 2010 Local Opposition Advocacy Coalitions
Social solidarity in catastrophic situations
Muliti-level process representation
Multi-level representation Hungarian Tisza
How multi-level societal learning processes facilitate transformative change A comparative case study analysis on flood management Informal learning process Tisza HU Rhine NL Rhine D Driven by informal bottom-up process, shadow network led by NGOs developing around shared mission. Expert communities with actors from government, NGOs, science, and business develop alternative approaches. Expert communities with actors from science and government develop alternative approaches. Ad hoc Advocacy Coalitions. Ad hoc Advocacy Coalitions Knowledge integration in actor networks Effective integration of expert and traditional, local ecological knowledge in shadow network. Knowledge integration in the expert community ecological expert knowledge. Knowledge integration in the expert community ecological expert knowledge. Pahl-Wostl et al, in press
What supports change insights from different studies Moving from discourse to structural transformation depends on effectiveness of links between informal settings and formal policy processes. Informal spaces and diverse actor networks important to support integration of knowledge and experimentation with innovative approaches. Connections between learning and policy processes that hinge on individual actors are fragile if innovative approaches are not codified in formal institutions and widely shared practices. Polycentricity - balance between decentralization and coordination to avoid both fragmentation and rigid central control Catastrophic events are windows of opportunity for change
Some reflections on polycentricity and informal spaces
Governance Regime Architecture Fully connected Distribution of power with effective vertical and horizontal coordination Polycentric Centralized Fragmented
Governance Regime - Ideal Types Distribution of formal power Multi-level distribution of functions and resources Polycentric Fragmented Centralized High High Low High High Low Coordination vertical High Low Low Coordination horizontal High Low Low Typical cases Netherlands India Uzbekistan
Relationship between formal and informal institutions - networks Effective formal institutions Ineffective formal institutions Compatible Goals Complementary Substitutive Conflicting Goals Accomodating Competing
Concluding reflections
Features enhancing resilience of social-ecological systems Polycentric modular structures Diversity and redundancy Synergistic relationship between formal and informal institutions (Emergent) leadership Integration of different kinds of knowledge Social capital and trust
Role of social networks as mediating tension between change and stability Networks can combine Cohesion enhancing social capital, trust with openness allowing new actors to enter Bottom up and top-down pathways of influence Formal arrangements and informal settings Defined pathways of steering (established order) with emergent leadership (self-organization)
More information available. Pahl-Wostl, C. 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11(1): 10. Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19: 354-365. Pahl-Wostl C et al (2007) Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 5. Pahl-Wostl, C. et al (2010) Analysing complex water governance regimes: The Management and Transition Framework. Environ. Sci. & Policy, 13:571-581. Pahl-Wostl,C. et al (2011) Maturing the new water management paradigm: progressing from aspiration to practice. Water Res. Management, 25:837-856. Pahl-Wostl, C. et al. (2012). From simplistic panaceas to mastering complexity: Towards adaptive governance in river basins. Environ. Sci. & Policy, 23:24-34.
Discussion Time!