adaptive governance src intro lecture 2014
TRANSCRIPT
Adaptive Governance 2014
Victor Galaz, Stockholm Resilience Centre
Stockholm University
* Team up, 3 and 3.
* Formulate 1 critical/important question you have about“adaptive governance”
+ complex social-ecological systems, tipping points, surprise, hysteresis...
Three forces that are reshaping the
Planet
The AnthopocenePlanetary Boundaries
“The Great Acceleration
Political shifts towards networked forms of governance
Information Revolution
Nano-technologies
Bio-technologies
How govern complex SES in an era of rapid
global change?
What is governance?
“Steering”
From “command and control” to collaboration, negotiation, “governance without government”
Patterns of collaboration, instruments to guide repeated interactions and steering attempts
Different from management
n.
- The act, manner, or practice of managing; handling, supervision, or control: management of a crisis; management of factory workers.- The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.- Skill in managing; executive ability.
institutions
social networks
international regimesinnovation
adaptation
coping with crises
innovation systems
learning
transitions and transformations
trust
collective action
polycentric systems
Adaptive Governance
by D. Galafassi from Galaz et al. 2012 (in prep). Adaptive Governance in the Anthropocene
7.2 million papers, 13 disciplines, 554 subdisciplines (Börner et al. 2012, PLoS One)
Network map of Science
by D. Galafassi from Galaz et al. 2012 (in prep). Adaptive Governance in the Anthropocene
Analytical purpose
Normative assumptions
Adaptive Governance
No quick-fix solutions
Multi-disciplinary approach
Learning goals
* define and describe key concepts related to adaptive governance, such as adaptive co-management, social learning,
social networks, bridging organization, and polycentric governance.
* define and describe the role of innovation and transformations in adaptive governance.
* describe how these concepts are related to each other in the context of governance of dynamic social-ecological
systems.
* apply concepts related to adaptive governance at multiple levels, on a real-world
case.
How?
Lectures + read before!
Discussion seminar
Case study analysis
Blog
Examination
Short writing assignments
password: resilience
http://adaptivegovernance2014.tumblr.com/
Blog contribution
Write blogpost: brief summary of lecture, definition of key concept/s, and short reflection within 48 hrs after lecture, via e-mail to
Writing of short comment to blogpost, directly on the blog (individual).
Schedule
Questions?
From Institutions to Governance
Why does this matter?
Because governance is becoming increasingly complex, and provides more
space for self-organization!
Compare with Folke et al (2005)
Global changes in the political landscape
Decentralization
Public Private Partnerships
Non-governmental organizations
International agreements
Centralized decision-making
Central policy-maker (e.g. environmentalministry)
Regional or local state authorities
Local natural resource users
Decision-making
Implementation and monitoring
Behavioral response
Decision-making in complex governance systems
Central policy-maker (e.g. environmental ministry)
Regional or local state authorities
Local natural resource users
Decision-making,implementation,negotiations,partnerships
Implementation, monitoring, negotiations, partnerships
International norms, agreements
Decentralization
Non-state actors
Adaptive Management Adaptive Co-management
Holling (1978): AM, iterated process in the face of uncertainty, experimentation, continuous evaluations
Co-management!Adaptive, learning, sharing of
decision-making btw stakeholders
Fikret Berkes and colleagues
Adaptive Governance
Extension of adaptive co-management:
* not place bound* can include and explore, several place bound attempts of ACM at the same time* polycentric* higher levels of social organization, up to global* explorative framework!
Illustrations of adaptive governance
no consensus!
Making Sense of Complexity in Governance
All systems don’t look the same!
Two main approachesi) Box typologies
ii) Network typologies
Box typology, example - Urban Governance
Jon Pierre
ParticipantsObjectives
InstrumentsOutcomes
.....
Box typology, example - Urban Governance
1980s, is a Darwinistic perspective on local economic development; cities
that cannot sustain their economic growth should not be artificially supported
by national government. Furthermore, inwelfare states such as the Scandina-
vian countries and theNetherlands, the central state has experienced growing
budget deficits, which has led to cutbacks in local government grants. Sup-
porting declining cities and regions, therefore, is no longer an option.
Table 1 summarizes the fourmodels of urban governance. Patterns of sub-
ordination describe different relationships between urban economic policy
and the market economy. In both positive and negative subordination, urban
policy is responding to, rather than proactively governing, the economy. In
positive subordination, urban policies conform and contribute to the market
economy, whereas negative subordinationmeans that urban economic devel-
opment policy is so constrained by the capitalist economy that it is effectively
unable to make a contribution to the functioning of the economic system.10
Hula (1993, 38) described local government restructuring as a case of posi-
tive subordination; local governments are restructuring in ways “that mobi-
lize types and levels of private resources not normally available to purely
public institutions,” in ways “that shift program goals toward traditional eco-
nomic elites,” and in ways “that may reduce popular control.”
As Table 1 suggests, there are such distinct differences between the four
governance models that conflict within the city administrative apparatus
should only be expected. Cities tend to contain these different institutions by
allowing for a multiorganizational and fragmented structure in which differ-
ent segments of the organization are enabled to develop different models of
governance. It remains clear that the differences in perspective on urban poli-
tics that the models display suggest that urban “ungovernability” is in part
388 URBAN AFFAIRS REVIEW / January 1999
TABLE 1: Models of Urban Governance: Defining Characteristics
Models of Urban Governance
Defining Characteristics Managerial Corporatist Progrowth Welfare
Policy objectives Efficiency Distribution Growth Redistribution
Policy style Pragmatic Ideological Pragmatic Ideological
Nature of political exchange Consensus Conflict Consensus Conflict
Nature of public-private exchange Competitive Concerted Interactive Restrictive
Local state-citizen relationship Exclusive Inclusive Exclusive Inclusive
Primary contingency Professionals Civic leaders Business The state
Key instruments Contracts Deliberations Partnerships Networks
Pattern of subordination Positive Negative Positive Negative
Key evaluative criterion Efficiency Participation Growth Equity
at Stockholms Universitet on November 17, 2010uar.sagepub.comDownloaded from
From Pierre (1999), Urban Affairs Review
ii) Network typologies - polycentric systems
Vincent Ostrom
Polycentric systems - many centers of decision making that are formally independent of each other.
“Many elements are capable of making mutual adjustments for ordering their relationships with one another within a general system of rules where each element acts with independence of other elements.”
ocean acidification
climate changemarine biodiversity
FAOICES
World BankIUCN
UNEP
WorldFish Centre
UNESCOGlobal Forum on Oceans
Coasts and Islands
UN Ocean
PacFaGPA-MarineICRI
FAO WB
World FishUNEP
What do we want “adaptive governance” to achieve?
“The Problem of Fit”
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
No data/n.a.
”Good Governance” according to the World Bank:
Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory
Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption.
High
Medium
Low
Very Low
No data/n.a.
Does ”good governance” matter for protecting vital ecosystems?
Forest Cover Change
Biodiversity (bird population)
High levels of corruption Low levels of corruption
Spatial misfit
Local institutions vs. global driver/s
Fisheries? ”Land grab”?
Municipal institutions vs. Water catchment
Temporal misfits
The Sahel region 1950s-60s
”Roving Bandits” F. Berkes et. al. 2006
Cod stock collapse, Newfoundland, (Canada) Thresholds misfit
Cascading dynamics and misfits
Fish and Ebola virus
Fish stock
decrease
Increased bushmeat
hunting
Coral reef
Agro-
ecosystems
Climate
change
Speed of change
Fast
Slow
Uncertainty Low High
Spatial distr
Limited
Very large
Is it at all possible?
Institutions, polycentric order, social networks, global governance, bridging organizations, innovation and learning in social networks, transformation.
Difference institutions and governance? Institutions are ”the rules of the game” Governance implies collaboration patterns, steering, and coordination at multiple levels. Institutional in governance tend to be ”clusters” or ”complexes”, rather than simple set of rules Think about how they relate to the dynamics behavior of SES a.ka. ”problem of fit”