Reflections on PECSii, part 2

Photo: Liz Clark

As ecosystems change, and socio ecological systems are facing multiple pressures, is important to recognize that the traditional approach to promote sustainability and conserve biodiversity may require a different approach. Ecological transformation is challenging the essential practices behind conservation, with implications on policies, strategies and governance approaches.

Considering all the implicit complexities, uncertainties and sometimes conflicting narratives around sustainability and conservation projects, it is difficult to have a unique but fit-for-purpose approach to enabling transformation within current systems. Conceptual frameworks can help to address this challenge, providing a structured way to organize ideas, concepts and find possible solutions to the challenges faced under rapid socio-ecological change.

Of course, it is not easy to move between theory and practice, but linking practice to theories and conceptual frameworks can help us better understand and interrogate the context in which we seek to develop solutions and give direction, while allowing for flexibility of action. This can be especially relevant when working in the policy-science interface. I was delighted during the PECSii conference to see so many interesting conceptual frameworks being tested in practice, from place-based research, to unpacking the use of different but complementary epistemologies and integrating local indigenous knowledge.

In order to delve deeper into these ideas, I am going to focus in on two sessions: “Putting transformative adaptation into action” by Matt Colloff, and the session I chaired on “Governance challenges for climate adaptation in protected areas management” focused on the Conservation Futures project. Matt’s symposium was one of the many spaces enabling a dialogue on the challenges of connecting conceptual frameworks with practical implementation: from theory to action using the conceptual frameworks of Values, Rules and Knowledge[1] (or VRK), adaptation pathways and adaptation services concepts. With case studies from different regions around the world, the talks moved from water management under climate change, to adaptation pathways in mountain ecosystems and transformation of local, complex systems. Using various frameworks, speakers presented the ongoing results of applying these theoretical approaches in understanding specific contexts, identifying potential conflicts between VRK systems and considering the multiple pathways of decisions in climate adaptation contexts.

For close to two years in our Conservation Futures project, we have been testing and applying the VRK and adaptation pathways frameworks via a co-production approach to research and science-policy engagement. Central to this project has been the collaborative work with a range of actors to address the challenge of protected areas governance under climate change. Our session at PECSii (Governance challenges for climate adaptation on November 10) provided an overview of the challenges and lessons learned while working to continue protecting biodiversity and livelihoods within protected areas under conditions of uncertainty and climate change. We presented our approach to enabling a “futures thinking” approach to facilitate the management of protected areas through the adaptation of governance systems. With the exception of the talk by Rachel Williams (CSIRO) on adaptive pathways in marine protected areas in Australia and the relevance of learning and place based research, the other presentations focused on cases from Colombia. A common theme covered by all speakers was that of the challenges inherent in trying to change governance arrangements, and the importance of multi-stakeholder knowledge co-production to support adaptation. In our presentation, we highlighted that applying the Conservation Futures process allowed protected area managers to identify barriers and opportunities to support long term conservation policy, planning, management, all while recognizing the governance challenges posed by an uncertain future under climate change.

The most fascinating thing about using conceptual frameworks is the flexibility they provide to work in complex systems, allowing new ways of thinking. From my perspective, the VRK framework as presented in these two sessions was especially helpful in gaining greater understanding of each context and providing opportunities to engage multiple disciplines in a coproduction process. From my professional and personal reflections, I recommend that other researchers consider this framework and the potential it offers to complement and help integrate different approaches to evaluate ecosystem services into policymaking processes. The question now is, what else do we need in conservation to allow the linking of practice to conceptual frameworks?

[1] Gorddard, R., Colloff, M. J., Wise, R.M., Ware, D. and Dunlop, M. (2016). Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context. Environmental Science and Policy, 57: 60–69. Online (DOI): 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004

About the Author

Luc Hoffmann Institute Fellow

The Australian National University - Fenner School of Environment & Society

claudia.munera@anu.edu.au

Reflections from Friday innovative and immersive session “Educating 'glocally': place-based research in international sustainability-education”

Photo: Andrew/FlickR

The last day of the conference, just before lunch, I attend a small immersive session on education in sustainability science. Chair, Leonie Bellina from Leuphana University, Germany, starts the session off by saying that the sustainability challenges we are facing do not only require new ways of doing place-based sustainability research, but also a shift in how we educate. The larger part of the fifteen, or so, participants are experienced educators from universities all over the world. Some, though, are like me, just about to start teaching and want insights on how to do it well.

The session is centered around three broad discussion topics from the book ”The Glocal Curriculum – A practical guide to teaching and learning in an interconnected world”, which Bellina has co-authored with John and colleagues (2017), downloadable here. The first topic is the curriculum and how to make education emancipatory, rather than instrumental. In sustainability education focus needs to be shifted towards more experiential learning, and the process of inter- and transdisciplinary research, rather than specific topics. We discuss how it is sometimes necessary for teachers to take on separate roles, as instructors, coaches or examiners, in order to build trust with the students.

The teaching-learning environment is discussed at length. The participants share their thoughts on how to allocate time from being spent in lecture halls, to working with students in the field, on longer group projects, and encouraging students to be reflexive of their own roles as aspiring researchers, where they visit. Many exemplify how their teaching is demand-driven, focused on real cases where the results of the students’ work matter. Nevertheless, there is a fine balance. Students must also be okay with failing. Therefore, starting the experiential learning by testing methods on each other, can be a good way to make students comfortable in their roles as researchers. Learning not only with the head, but also hands and heart, is essential.

Many sustainability courses and programmes are ‘glocal’, in the sense that they are often based on place-based research and case studies, but incorporate global connections. These connections range from covering cases from different parts of the world, to running collaborative courses between universities in different countries. In many ways, ‘glocal’ is a requirement in achieving the goal of educating globally aware and emphatic sustainability professionals. However, this great mix of cultures and experiences also poses challenges for both educators and students. An example is when, how and how much students from different backgrounds tend to speak. This varies greatly, thus the educator’s role as a facilitator is very important. Making students aware of their behaviour in a group, without creating guilt, ensuring everyone gets to share, is difficult, but essential to make these ‘glocal’ learning environments constructive.

I feel like a sponge, sitting there in the ring, listening to stories of sustainability education in Mexico, Germany, Australia. So many great examples of approaches, some of which I recognize from my own time as a master’s student at Stockholm Resilience Centre, but also others that I would love to experience or try out myself. These are passionate, committed educators who believe in helping students grow, on many levels, to become critical, ethically aware thinkers, competent researchers and engaged individuals. After the session, as I walk over to the hotel pool and dip my feet in the cool water, I start to wonder: Is it not very much to ask from an academic education, both from students and teachers, that they should foster these multifaceted world citizens? Would this kind of experiential learning not have to start earlier for it to have a real impact? Probably. Maybe that would be a good thing, though. Like the rings that spread in the turquoise water from my toe, so does education hold the potential for new mindsets to establish and spread in our societies.

Education is key for sustainability transformations.

Referenced work:

John, B., Caniglia, G., Bellina, L., Laubichler, M. 2017. ”The Glocal Curriculum – A practical guide to teaching and learning in an interconnected world”. Available for download here.

About the author

I am a PhD candidate at Stockholm Resilience Centre. My PhD project is about analyzing bundles of ecosystem services together with stakeholders in the Helge å catchment in southern Sweden. Through my research, I have become interested in figuring out ways to communicate and foster resilience thinking with practitioners and policy-makers. Ever since I was a kid, I have used writing as a way to make sense of the world – so now, when writing for this blog, I hope to make sense of and communicate glimpses of the second PECS conference.

In a nutshell: We may be many in body, but we are one in mind. Our collective efforts to help shape a new reality using a social-ecological systems perspective are addressing complexity with wisdom and heart. Also, the mystery behind the big bruise on Albert’s face is solved.

The ebullient and sun kissed PECS family of researchers, practitioners, decision-makers and a few artists gathered for the closing plenary after three days of rich discussions, fruitful exchanges, and many mouthfuls of mezcal.

Our chatter charged the hall with an air of excitement and perhaps, a touch of wistfulness - soon we would all go our separate ways, saying goodbye to old and new friends. For some, the vibrant colours of summer, the birds of paradise flowers, the spicy Oaxacan chocolate will be replaced by short, grey winter days and the cosy comfort of wearing thermal underwear for the next six months (probably longer in Sweden, actually).

For the moment, everyone giggles at the out-takes of a series of short video clips featuring some of our colleagues talking about the highlights of the week. Rafa, a.k.a the warm heart of the PECS family, got in a right pickle (I recommend you watch the clip). Nevertheless, the sentiments were sincere. Being in Oaxaca and learning first-hand from Latin American colleagues was valuable. Being all together in one place, getting the measure of the state-of-the-art of resilience and being exposed to new ideas was enriching. Apparently, mezcal was an effective facilitator for many of these activities.

PECS is reaching a broad and big audience. Tweets reached 300,000 accounts, and our research is even popular with a new audience of bots that accounted for 1% of tweeting platforms. Buzz words and hashtags included biocultural diversity, resilience, adaptive capacity and, Stockholm Resilience Centre reearcher Tim Daw. His Scottish charm clearly made an impression.

“We’ve come a long way,” Maike Hamann, a postdoc researcher at the Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, reflected on the big, grey sofas set up on the PECS stage. Harold (Hal) Mooney, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, sat on the sofa on stage with Maike and painted the historical backdrop of her comments. Sharing the wisdom of his six decade-long career as an environmental scientist, Hal described the small beginnings and uncertain first steps of a community of scientists that dedicated themselves to promoting biodiversity as an intrinsic pillar of future processes, such as The Millennium Assessment and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in the 1990s.

It was tough going, he said, and often slow and uneventful but those early meetings of like-minded people laid the foundations for where we are today. It takes the kind of dynamic, never-give-up spirit and energy to power the momentum behind informing the guidelines for global environmental policies. Considering someone that has that sort of pizzazz, Hal reflected that “I sometimes think Patti (Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico) from outer space. She’s like a battery that just keeps on going and going.”

After an eruption of affectionate laughter, Albert asked the others on the sofa about what challenges remain. Juliana Mercon, Universidad Veracruzana, pointed out that whilst the social and ecological are well integrated and on an equal footing, science has been less sensitive to other ways of thinking and living. “PECS and other academic networks can make room to co-create new ways of thinking that come about through more equal alliances.” Juliana encouraged us to see it as an urgent priority to cultivate links to a wider and more diverse group of colleagues from other sectors who need support and inspiration. These words resonate strongly in a part of the world where indigenous peoples, like the many Zapotec communities in Oaxaca, still struggle to be heard above the din of their history of being a people conquered.

So much is happening so fast, but we still have a long way to go. Maike singled out environmental justice, how to move towards transformations and how to elicit and understand different values as priorities. A bit overwhelming? “Well, it’s comforting that we all have the same problems and challenges. It keeps me from freaking out too much.”

In between dancing salsa until the early hours and debating the finer points of flamenco with colleagues, Antonio Castro, Idaho State University, told Albert et al that this conference has provided a thinking space for him. In a year of rushing about from place to place, the opportunity to focus on topics that are close to his heart fills Antonio with the certainty that the best is yet to come.

A perfect cue for our warm and generous host to leap onto the stage and say a few last words. Patty is indeed a dynamo and behind every amazing person there’s a team of extraordinary people. The essence of their spirit of giving, co-operating, loving, sharing with each other, sharing with nature and sharing with life is carried in one magical Zapotec word. Guelaguetza – in short, a party.

Applause, laughter and hugs paved the way for the celebrations to begin. The sunshine softened and mellowed into dusk and the mezcal flowed one final time.

About the author:

I was a documentary director at the BBC making science, history and arts programmes for over a decade before moving to the Stockholm Resilience Centre where I work for SwedBio and GRAID. Now, I use film and photography as a way of delving into knowledge and insights that other research methods might have a harder time reaching. The visuals feed into research because they unearth new perspectives and questions that are valuable for sustainability and resilience thinking. Hopefully, the films and photos also communicate complex science and tell stories that engage people’s heads and hearts.

Reflections from Thursday plenary session “Stewardship with local institutions and governance: co-producing knowledge and scaling up?

Photo: Juan Emilio Sala

I face a real challenge: How to condense, in maximum 700 words, a plenary session of high-flying conceptual, methodological, practical and affective ideas? In a fantastic talk, chaired by Berta Martín-Lopez, Doctors Fikret Berkes (University of Manitoba, Canada) and Xavier Basurto (Duke University, USA), managed to characterize both the theoretical and the practical foundations of co-production of knowledge, drawing on their own successful examples.

Affably, and with empathy, Dr. Berkes urged that we all, in harmonious and mutual respect, can (and should) incorporate traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), western science, and/or other knowledge systems to achieve local and planetary stewardship.

Dr. Berkes shared a beautiful story about the Inuit community of Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Members of the community had discovered an intermediate layer of cold water in the column of seawater – a product of melting - creating differences in water density and salinity. They reached out to inform oceanographers of their findings, but were not believed. The researchers’ theories did not predict this possibility. Even so, it was a fact.

How could the Inuit community determine these changed water conditions? Simple. When the Inuits hunted for seal, the seals’ bodies sank to a specific place: the layer of colder water. The water conditions affected the buoyancy of the seal, preventing it from sinking. The Inuits could then recover the seals, using their hand traps.

Using another specific example, Dr. Berkes stressed local knowledge not only has the information of variables that, for example, can be registered by a meteorological station. Far better. Local knowledge includes a combination of many variables in an integrated way, much richer in information and predictive capacity.

The morning progressed, the minutes of the plenary passed. For us participants, there could be no better place to be. In a moment when we all seemed engrossed, a provocative question surprised us: "What are we talking about when we talk about scaling up a knowledge system?". Dr. Xavier Basurto was in charge of the microphone. "Can the ILK be scaled up for planetary stewardship?".

He referred an octopus fishery case in Yucatan, Mexico. A project where funders wanted output in terms of cost-benefit analysis. Dr. Basurto and team identified paradigmatic disparities in the different actors’ motivations to scale up. When evaluating the fishermens’ main motivation, the fishermen mentioned increased representation, and equity and functionality, in order to sustain their livelihood in the long-term (intermediate-size cooperatives performed best). Governmental motivation to scale up investment is instead infrastructural - to gain access to markets and market connectivity, and achieve improvements in income and employment rates. The plenary left a clear message: The upscaling-process is a political exercise in empowerment. Today, about 20,000 small-scale fishermen and fisherwomen make up a national confederation in Mexico. With this successful example, returning to where we started (co-production of knowledge), I cannot stop thinking that the concept of organizing was never only meant for internally affiliated acting. Organizing is acting according to a common perception, at whatever level.

About the author:

Researcher of the CONICET (National Council of Scientific and Technical Research from Argentina). Research on Marine Socio-Ecological Systems and Political Ecology. I study the pelagic ecology of diverse marine top predators, and their environment, in order to get to know the various pieces of the big puzzle representing the Patagonian marine socio-ecosystems. I am particularly focused on generate applied knowledge to the management and conservation of these complex scenarios. I am also dedicated to investigate the epistemological procedures and academic practices, seeking to generate spaces for the transdiscipline, towards the so longed social-ecological sustainability. I believe in the Aristotelian eudaimonia as a political-humanitarian objective. That is the force-idea that motivates my militant and academic work.

Reflections from Thursday session “Fulfilling the promise of ecosystem service science: lessons from real world practitioners”

Photo:Eddie Milfort/FlickR

The ecosystem service framework was originally designed for practice – a simple way to help decision makers take notice of the contributions of nature to people. Although the framework has proliferated in science and policy, it still lags a little in practice. We have some ideas of why that might be, but co-chairs Elena Bennett and Ciara Raudsuppe-Hearne (both from McGill University) argue that maybe it is time we ask practitioners. When do they think the ecosystem service concept is useful? What tools do they find useful? What are the challenges with implementing ecosystem service tools and concepts? And how can scientists better support them?

In this thoroughly planned and well-crafted session, the two-co-chairs enlisted the help of three practitioners (who clearly did a huge amount of preparation for this meeting), to facilitate a discussion between scientists and practitioners to help answer some of these questions.

In the first part of the session, we heard from the practitioners.

In a fast-paced, thoroughly informative talk, Andrea Mackenzie (Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority) walked us through the challenges of conducing a county-wide ecosystem service valuation exercise. She particularly focused on integrating county-level metrics in decision making, at a local level. “We need to come up with new frameworks and locally relevant data that fits the level at which decision making takes place”, she urged. In doing this, we need metrics that can compare with traditional economic metrics.

Speaking from a Mexican perspective, Renée González Montagut (Mexican Fund for the Conservation of Nature) made a strong case for payment for ecosystem services. She explained that it is not so much the values of ecosystem services themselves, but rather the ways in which PECS has helped to get the right people in the room, that has been useful. On her wishlist is an ecosystem service assessment in every catchment. “If we had that, we could actually base our decisions on science. Some people say that you need to be careful. Yeah, but just so you know, right now we’re basing our decisions on no information”.

Gillian Kerr (Government of Alberta, Ministry of Municipal Affairs) presented a “recovering economist’s” view and focused her talk more on externalities. “The norm is not to include these in decision-making”, she lamented. She challenged scientists to better craft their research agendas to reveal the importance of externalities for trade-offs that result from decisions.

Following the three talks, the room divided into five groups, each facilitated by a practitioner (and Elena). Groups considered challenges in the realm of trade-offs in land use planning, economic valuation, communication of the ecosystem service concept, and the scale and complexity of assessments. It was inevitable at a science conference, I suppose, but I was a little disappointed by how heavily weighted the breakout conversations were towards scientists’ perspective. Although the discussions were rich and delivered some useful ideas (we are, after all, grounded social-ecological scientists – pat on back), I thought that there were some spectacularly impractical and tone-deaf suggestions too. Acknowledging a lost self-deprecating entertainment opportunity, I will not dwell on these too much here, but rather offer five themes that I did find quite useful. I wonder if practitioners would agree?

In communicating the ecosystem service concept, use media and tools that can help engage and start conversations. Maps are usually excellent. Videos and infographics can also be helpful, but it depends on who you are talking to. If you can help it, don’t use the term “ecosystem services”.Methods such as participatory mapping, scenarios and stakeholder analysis can really help engage stakeholders to help identify trade-offs.Simplifying is fine, but always communicate assumptions.Include primary studies that can help “ground truth” broader scale assessments in research agendas – these lend credibility to ecosystem service assessments and help to engage stakeholders. Please can these studies not take two years.Simple is usually better. An answer or analysis is only too simple if it does not give an optimal answer (and as scientists, it is our job to figure out when that is).

Lopsidedness aside, I find it encouraging that practitioners and researchers are starting to have real conversations about ecosystem service research and practice (also see recent work by Dick and colleagues). I’m look forward to the results of Elena and Ciara’s follow-up practitioner-focused survey and hope that we’ll also have these sorts of discussion outside of scientific conferences. I’m excited about what that might mean for how we do science. To quote Elena: “We’ve had 40 years of doing ecosystem service science. It is time to get real”.

Caption: The Open Space auhority’s “Greenprint” conservation priority map was based on a county-wide ecosystem service assessment (map credit: Open Space Authority, Santa Clara Valley)

About the author:

I’m a lecturer in Environmental Science at Rhodes University, South Africa. I started off my career as a behavioral-ecologist researching seal-shark interactions. These days, however, I’m mostly focused on protected area systems, thinking about questions related to scale, ecosystem service flows, and (spatial) resilience. I’m increasingly interested in thinking about the protected area (networks) of the future, and all the tricky and complex questions related to protected area benefits to society. As an educator, I’ve also been thinking about methods used to understand social-ecological systems. I’m not averse to a good dollop of technology with my research, and am, as a general rule, easily fascinated.

Reflections from the Friday Opening plenary “Opportunities in the Anthropocene”.

I admit, occasionally the problems of the Anthropocene make me feel powerless. In such a complex system with wicked problems and messy solutions, I sometimes do not see the opportunities for action. But we cannot lose hope, because hope engenders agency. It is a mantra I will keep close to my heart.

Illustration 1: Hope & Agency. Cred: Matthew Colloff (Fenner School)

The third plenary was all about opportunities in the Anthropocene. The always lovely Albert Norström (Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University) chaired through two inspiring and eye-opening talks. In her talk on Transdisciplinary collaboration for sustainability: Barriers and Opportunities, Juliana Merçon (Institute of Educational Research, Universidad Veracruzana) said “In a world largely ruled by economic and political powers that are not aligned with the sustainability paradigm, scientific knowledge may be necessary for a good Anthropocene, but it is far from sufficient”. To understand a complex system, there is a need for collaboration and co-production of knowledge, she explained. Through this, a more transformative political outcome could be achieved. Juliana clearly pointed out the challenges for such an endeavor, especially in regards to the global South:

Cultural diversity and collaborationLack of recognition of knowledge formsTensions with the government or between local political partiesLack of continuity in administrationCorruptionBureaucracy (definitely also true for Germany)Violence and lack of safety

One particular challenge Juliana raised, was the violence and lack of safety. Sometimes working in rural communities can be dangerous, both for the researchers and actors involved. Ties between organized crime and institutions can also exist - power structures that must be acknowledged and handled with utmost care.

All of the above challenges affect the transdisciplinary process and transformational potential. In addition, transdisciplinary collaboration may not yield desired impact on public policy for sustainability, but rather result in short-term and local effects. It is crucial, Juliana pointed out, to include governmental sectors/ actors in the process, as well as industries, companies and especially the media. If challenges are too great and no diverse set of actors involved, the opportunities to scale up are limited.

We cannot lose hope! Because hope engenders agency.

There are alternative ways of scaling up. Directions that include equity and empowerment of local initiatives. These alternative forms of social organization and practices, more aligned with sustainability, should be empowered to proceed on their own pathways towards sustainability.

One such inititive could be the project Bright Spots: Seeds of the Good Anthropocene, about which Elena Bennett (McGill University) so passionately talked about. Elena pointed out that not all ways of scaling up make much sense for local communities. She referred to various developed future scenarios, which seem more like far-fetched and poorly thought through utopian solutions, and mentioned some important issues not well-represented in existing scenarios:

Cultural diversityResiliencePolitical economy (colonialism, conflict)Different types of urbanizationWorld views (especially about nature)Trust (in other people, institutions, researchers, governments)Hope and fun etc.

We won’t be able to tell what the future may look like, and our scientific knowledge is not enough to create a valid vision of the future. Elena raised a call for action – that we should move beyond our usual scientific paradigms and start working with communities to build a better world. Together. She did not stop at simply referring to applied science, but goes beyond that: In this complex world, we too have to get our hands dirty, to stop this downward spiral of unsustainability. Hope engenders agency! We should create a more diverse and just world, in which stories on how the future may unfold could explore alternative pathways. This is where the Bright Spots project comes in. It highlights successful and radical “seeds” – projects that possibly work within different paradigms and epistemologies, to tackle sustainability challenges. These are initiatives that can show us what the world could look like. They are realistic pathways because they are already happening. Elegant solutions and hopeful stories can help point to key levers of change.

Those seeds of a good Anthropocene can create hope. Hope engenders agency. Agency engenders hope. Let’s all remember that and remind each other.

Photo: Maraja Reichers

About the Author

When not diving the days away to find the perfect undiscovered fish I am a PostDoctoral researcher in the project Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation at the Leuphana University Lüneburg. Looking for deep levers for change I focus on how nature connectedness and landscape changes influence each other based on the examples of my home turf Germany and beautiful Transylvania. Through my interdisciplinary social science background my work is strongly based in the life experiences of the inhabitants of those changing landscapes.

Reflections from the Friday morning session "Marine systems in the Anthropocene".

Photo: Sandrine Néel/FlickR

Finally, the last day of sessions at PECSii arrived. Day after day, talk after talk, coffee break after coffee break. The level, density, and depth of the debates increased, while weaving, perhaps indissoluble, human ties.

Whithout detracting from the rest of the morning talks occuring in parallel, the session chaired by Dr. Magnus Nyström (Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden) resulted in the climax of PECSii, in my opinion.

The session began with a brilliant presentation by Dr. Nyström, in which he, with total statistical harshness, showed us how the world's oceans are falling victim to what he and his work group call the "Blue Acceleration". That is, a ruthless, and more than exponential increase in the anthropogenic pressures exerted on the oceans. He warned us about the relatively recent change in the expectations that the large productive forces (diverse industries) are pouring into the oceans and the tremendous impact this is generating.

Image 1: Blue acceleration graphs by M. Nyström et al. Photo: Albert Norström/Twitter

Following this talk was Dr. Albert Norström (Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden), who gave the audience a vibrant and energetic talk about the need to understand the drivers of change that interact in marine systems, exploring the interplay between proximate and distant drivers.

Albert showed what he refers to as proximal drivers, and how science has managed to draw excellent systematized information from them. However, today is the time to better understand distal drivers, usually the most important agents of change. This was an implicit call to the entire community of researchers in marine and sustainability science - focus on distal drivers.

As the session advanced, the audience grew. With every minute, new tools to better understand the complexity of marine systems, and to influence in the search for sustainability, were presented.

Dr. Stefan Gelcich (Center for Marine Conservation, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) began his presentation on the strategic importance of exploring new forms of collaborative governance to achieve sustainable marine stewardship. Through examples of his work with small-scale fishing communities, he managed to show the ability to modify legal structures of a country (Chile) through self-organization and collective work. Stefan succeeded in inspiring many researchers in the session. It appeared the best and most concrete way to positively impact the social-ecological systems in which we work, is through structural changes, such as a law or a normative strategy of governance.

The most interesting aspect of Stefan's presentation was that he was the only one at PECSii (at least as far as I know) who was able to show a successful example of scaling-down: making international recommendations or guidelines such as CBD, FAO, etc., applicable at national-level, and introducing them into normative frameworks. The central point: in both scaling-up and -down processes, the applied tool was place-based research.

The session ended with a (neo)magisterial presentation by, in my opinion, one of the most promising young researchers at the conference: Jean-Baptiste Jouffray (PhD student at the Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Sweden).

Jean-Baptiste captivated us with both excellent rhetoric, worthy of a senior researcher, as well as the power of his work. He presented the latest advances from the Keystone Dialogues, established between business leaders of the largest fishing corporations in the world, and a group of scientists.

This type of approach unleashed an incredible and (to my delight) lively debate between Stefan Gelcich and the group of marine researchers from Stockholm Resilience Center. Stefan asked, rhetorically, a number of audience members: Does sitting down to negotiate with these big fisheries corporations give them even more power, given they are one of the most powerful sectors on planet earth (or more precisely, "planet water")?

I will let the readers of this blog draw their own conclusions. However, my opinion is that the answer to that question can not (and should not) be taken lightly. It is a matter of enormous complexity and comes with great responsibility.

Let's all consider what Albert Einstein is thought to have said: "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got". Maybe that is one way to answer Stefan's question.

Goodbye PECSii, I will really miss you...

About the Author

Researcher of the CONICET (National Council of Scientific and Technical Research from Argentina). Research on Marine Socio-Ecological Systems and Political Ecology. I study the pelagic ecology of diverse marine top predators, and their environment, in order to get to know the various pieces of the big puzzle representing the Patagonian marine socio-ecosystems. I am particularly focused on generate applied knowledge to the management and conservation of these complex scenarios. I am also dedicated to investigate the epistemological procedures and academic practices, seeking to generate spaces for the transdiscipline, towards the so longed social-ecological sustainability. I believe in the Aristotelian eudaimonia as a political-humanitarian objective. That is the force-idea that motivates my militant and academic work.

Photo: Wikicommons

Protected Areas and Ecosystem Services should be good partners. Protected areas are “nature-heavy” providers of benefits to people, and the ecosystem service framework allows us to make the case for nature. In reality though, protected areas and ecosystem services have, hereto, not really gotten on so well, or hung out together much.

This, as Graeme Cumming (James Cook University) explained in framing our session, might have something to do with the fact that protected areas are complex and changing, and mean so many different things to different people. To some, they are neo-colonial, elitist institutions, whilst other consider them natural treasures that protect the planet from degradation. More and more, Graeme argued, protected areas are also being considered as global commons, rather than private property, with implications for who has a say and stake in how they are managed. So, how do we think about nature’s benefits to people from these complex systems, keeping in mind they are sensitive to many mutli-scale influences and social-ecological dynamics?

Three talks (me, Thobias Plielinger (University of Kassel & Georg-August-University Göttingen, and Xavier Busurto, Duke University), a panellist (Elena Bennett, McGill University) and participant discussions weighed in on different aspect of this question. Much conversation centred on the lack of the ecosystem service framework in protected management plans, and even research. Thobias, particularly, emphasised this gap in relation to his study review of German Biosphere Reserve evaluation plans. Of the seventeen Biosphere Reserve plans reviewed, only three demonstrated real uptake of the ecosystem service concept. In the rest, managers did not think it added much value to what they were doing already, or did not have the resources or capacity to for the additional ecosystem service dimension.

In my talk, focused on southern African protected areas, I argued that the big unease between protected areas and ecosystem services has a lot to do with the cross-scale connections that determine access to benefits from protected areas. Benefits flow in complex ways to different beneficiaries, who value these services differently, in different spatial contexts, resulting in large trade-offs between beneficiaries and management options. We need to also recognise that these benefits are valued relationally, meaning that access to ecosystem services not only influence the benefits that people can derive from protected areas, but also the significance they can place on these.

It is not just about access, though, Xavier Busurto argued. In his eye-opening talk, he explained how the process of establishing a marine protected area in Mexico affected fishers’ interactions with each other, resulting both in greater co-operation and competition. These shifts in social dynamics, in turn, affected the value that different fishers placed on natural resources, and how they interacted with it. Thus, he argued, in thinking about benefits from protected areas, we also need to think how dynamic interactions between individual actors interact with protected area processes.

So where to from here?

I think a number of key research needs emerged from both the talks, and a rich and lively participant discussion: We still need to better understand why it is that the ecosystem service framework is scantily used in protected area management and research – not just the barriers, but also the enablers. We also need to better understand the trade-offs in managing for ecosystem services and biodiversity, and when to manage for which. Managers are important, and we need to investigate their role in ecosystem service delivery. We need to find ways of balancing infrastructure’s role in securing access to ecosystem services, with its potential to facilitate degradation. We also need to better understand how dynamics between individuals interact with protected area processes.

I have the uneasy feeling, though, that there are deeper questions to confront, too.

Whilst there was hesitant consensus that the ecosystem service lens is useful and appropriate in protected area, I’m not sure we settled that matter in this session. My take, as I also argued in my talk, is that applying the ecosystem service framework in a context that recognises the complexity of protected areas offers many opportunities for shifting towards a more just and social-ecological protected area management.

However, a part of me also wonders whether there are shifting goalposts and general compatibility issues. As panellist Elena Bennett lamented: perhaps ecosystem services and protected areas just don’t work together. Perhaps we should ask that question, and other hard ones, but I do feel that it is important that we not shy away from continuing research that links protected areas and ecosystem services. It is, in fact, critical: What would it mean for global sustainability if our primary tool for bringing nature into decision-making nature is incompatible with society’s prime tool for nature stewardship?

About the author:

I’m a lecturer in Environmental Science at Rhodes University, South Africa. I started off my career as a behavioral-ecologist researching seal-shark interactions. These days, however, I’m mostly focused on protected area systems, thinking about questions related to scale, ecosystem service flows, and (spatial) resilience. I’m increasingly interested in thinking about the protected area (networks) of the future, and all the tricky and complex questions related to protected area benefits to society. As an educator, I’ve also been thinking about methods used to understand social-ecological systems. I’m not averse to a good dollop of technology with my research, and am, as a general rule, easily fascinated.

9 talks in 90 minutes? That is a challenge for everyone.

I am usually a bit skeptical of speed talk sessions - if they are a plain run through a myriad of topics my brain shuts off eventually. The session chair needs to have a firm grip on the organization – and the presenters need to be well-prepared and punctual. If speed talks sessions are done well, however, they can be a rich cocktail of ideas and inspiration. Luckily, the session “Integrating the social and the ecological: scenarios, planning and management” was a wonderful cocktail of a whole mixture of flavors and topics.

A 4-minute talk does not sound like much, but even such a short amount of time can have a surprising depth:

We went from India and the issue of food security from people being resettled after a protected area was established (Amrita Neelakantan, Columbia University); to Romania and the topic of scaling up, out or beyond local knowledge (David Lam, Leuphana University); to Germany and the influencing issues on the tolerance regarding the new predator ‘Wolf’ (Ugo Arbieu, SBiK-F); and staying Germany we heard about the unknown implications of teleconnections of Tomato consumption (Maria Jose Ibarrola Rivas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México).

We went to South Africa, and heard about scenario planning exercises with small scale fishers (Louise Gammage, University of Cape Town) and heard about the need for a shift of management from IN protected areas to OF protected areas (Janis Smith, CSIR).

We thought at a broader scale looking at ecosystem trade-off and the complexity concerning influencers and beneficiaries vs. non-influencers and impact bearers (Francis Turkelboom, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Belgium). We listened to a passionate speech on why random learners and experimentation in learning are necessary (Jacopo Baggio, Utah State University).

Lastly, we learned about a meta–analysis of case studies to find indicators for effective pathways to social-ecological resilience (Zuzana Harmackova, Stockholm Resilience Centre). A shout-out here to the session organizer Zuzana Harmackova – who did not only did a good job in keeping the bunch of presenters organized, but also presented herself (speaking of positionality).

Picture 1: David Lam, Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation, Leuphana University

That is quite a range of topics, right? And I didn’t even start talking about the concepts or methods used! I had to be careful that this strong cocktail of themes did not make my head spin too much.

But like any good cocktail, it was wonderful.

As a result of to the good organization, we had enough time to engage in fascinating discussions. Interestingly, the discussion was influenced by the great plenary session that morning, especially by Xavier Basurto’s talk (Nicholas School, Duke University). The topic of up-scaling seemed to have a ripple effect, and was on many minds during the session.

What I, in the storm of information, took from it was that: 1) there is a need to be more precise of what we talk about, when we talk about scaling; 2) local in-depth, place-based research is highly necessary; 3) research can be connected to the e.g. national and global level; and 4) synthesizing and comparative studies are very helpful.

Picture 2: Split group discussions

Admittedly, I left the room feeling a bit tipsy, and I needed a cognitive rest (easily achieved by this amazing food here in Oaxaca!). After that, I went back to many of the presenters to get more information about their work. I advise you to do the same!

About the author:

When not diving the days away to find the perfect undiscovered fish I am a PostDoctoral researcher in the project Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation at the Leuphana University Lüneburg. Looking for deep levers for change I focus on how nature connectedness and landscape changes influence each other based on the examples of my home turf Germany and beautiful Transylvania. Through my interdisciplinary social science background my work is strongly based in the life experiences of the inhabitants of those changing landscapes.

Reflections from Thursday morning: Urban sustainability transformations in the context of climate-driven extreme events in the US and Latin America

Photo: Aldo Nuñez

In the nutshell:

A large-scale study of ten cities across the US and Latin America assess how green infrastructure can help increase urban resilience to extreme events like drought, flooding and heatwaves.

Urbanisation is a growing trend all over the world. At the same time, we are all experiencing extreme events like flooding, droughts, hurricanes and heatwaves. “Urbanization and climate change are on a collision course, and infrastructure is their battlefield,” says Nancy Grimm, Arizona State University.

Her message comes through, especially loud and clear, because of the earthquake that struck Oaxaca in September of this year. It’s hard to spot any substantial damage to infrastructure in the beautifully maintained old city centre that is registered as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. However, Mexican colleagues have described the efforts to rebuild homes not far from where the PECS conference is taking place.

Several researchers are working on a project called URExSRN that aims to transform the infrastructure of ten cities in the US and Latin America. The aim is that these cities are resilient centres of growth, development, and creativity for generations to come, even in the face of natural disasters. The researchers are using a framework that incorporates a social, ecological and technological systems approach to co-ordinate the planning and management of cities so that they are better prepared for whatever the future might have in store, for both city and citizens.

It’s called SETS and Elizabeth Cook from The New School in New York City explains that ecosystem services are co-produced by the ecology in our cities, together with the social and technological infrastructure. Let’s think about shade as a service, or benefit in cities. Trees help to regulate heat and provide shade. People such as park managers look after trees. Tall buildings block out the sun and provide shade, but this same service might also reduce the amount of photosynthesis, and thus carbon intake, if the trees are cast into shadow all the time.

Nature-based solutions, like green infrastructure, vary widely in the ten cities that are part of this study. Timon McPhearson, based at the Urban Systems Lab at The New School in NYC and works as a research fellow at Stockholm Resilience Centre, compared the desert cities of Phoenix, Arizona and Hermosillo in northern Mexico. Both have a small proportion of green space, which could exacerbate an already arid climate and put them at risk of more heatwaves.

In some cities, green spaces tend to be more common in wealthy areas. The question of who has access to parks, gardens, and other urban green spaces raises the issue of equity and perspective. Hallie Eakin, Arizona State University, highlights some work in Mexico City which makes clear that who you are and what your perspective is shapes your mental model. Mexico City was built on a lake, and is vulnerable to multiple challenges that the city’s water planners have to juggle. Researchers have used agent based modelling to create different scenarios to help visualise vulnerabilities in the system so that water managers can make decisions based on what is equitable.

Sometimes it takes a different approach to find the sweet spot where ecological, social and technological meet in harmony. Participatory processes encourage people from different walks of life to co-create a vision of positive urban futures. It’s not always that simple. David Iwaniec, from Arizona State University and Georgia State University, describes how one participant said they would never dare enter this kind of visioning or imagining with their colleagues – possibly because of fears of going against government policy.

Nevertheless, the potential for finding solutions that tick all the boxes, social, ecological and technological, is there. In the island city of San Juan, Puerto Rico, food systems became more resilient when depots moved from flood-prone areas.

Just as we were all lulled into a safe and cosy space, thinking that we could imagine ourselves into a bright and resilient future, the last speaker in the session, Marta Berbés-Blásquez, made us sit up and smell the chili. “We are still not radical enough in our thinking,” she says. Cities are not self-sufficient islands but are connected and dependent on ecosystem services of the social, ecological and technological kind that are imported from elsewhere. The future is uncertain and unpredictable and we all have to push beyond the limits of our current thinking to dream into reality desirable cities where each and every one of us want to live.