!

"#$%%&
'()*+,-)*.-/*0,12)3*245-).)6237,-0408,95-
6)*)10(4-)*.-)-:1);383)*-8)+<<*

2(39-8,02/1,-=4->)*-:140,9<*
0</19,-1,96<*93=8,-?3.)-'/*3$#)*0(,;

?/2/@*-#,@,92,1-%A%B

Critical Factors for Social-Ecological Resilience

Folke C. et al. (2002) identified and expanded on four critical

factors that interact across temporal and spatial scales and that
seem to be required for dealing with natural resource dynamics
during periods of change and reorganisation:
1. learning to live with change and uncertainty;
2. nurturing diversity for resilience;
3. combining different types of knowledge for learning
4. creating opportunity for self-organisation towards social and
ecological sustainability.

Folke, C. et al. (2002) http://www.sou.gov.se/mvb/pdf/resiliens.pdf

 3
Berkes, F., Kolding, J., & Folke, C. (2003) ”Navigating Social-Ecological Systems”
Learning to live with change and
uncertainty
Change and crisis are parts of the dynamic
development of complex co-evolving systems

• Evoking disturbance
• Learning from crises
• Expecting the unexpected

Change and crisis are parts of the dynamic

development of complex co-evolving social-
ecological systems

Robust, adaptive strategies of social-ecological systems

accept uncertainty and change. They take advantage of
change and turn it into opportunities for development.

For example, management actions can be structured to

generate a disturbance, which in turn entrains
ecosystem development and is followed by monitoring
and testing of ecological understanding of ecosystem
condition that are embedded in social institutions. So
too with social systems.

Evoking disturbance
Many traditional societies and local communities have long
recognised the necessity of the coexistence of both gradual and
rapid change.

These groups have developed institutions that have accumulated a

knowledge-base for how to relate to and respond to environmental
feedback, and allow for disturbance to enter at smaller scales
instead of accumulating to larger scales, thereby precluding large-
scale collapse.

Such management practices seem to have developed as a result

of selection through experience with change and crisis, realising
that not all possible outcomes can be anticipated, planned or
predicted.

 Evoking disturbance
As we witnessed on Monday here in Norway, democratic political
systems arrange periodic elections which may spell an end to a
particular composition of a national assembly or parliament, and
deliberately create a somewhat chaotic period of breakdown and
renewal. The election process should respond to signals from the
needs and wishes of the wider system.

The new assembly may instigate new ideas and changes in the
political system.

A conservative, rigid, dictatorial and/or corrupt assembly is likely to

frustrate the wider society, which may then lead to more drastic
revolutionary changes and a period of deeper chaos.

Learning from crisis

A crisis may be broadly defined as a large perturbation; it may
be a natural phenomenon (e.g. cyclone or tsunami) or a human
induced one (e.g. resource collapse).

A surprise (a qualitative disagreement between ecosystem

behaviour and a prior expectations) becomes a crisis when it
reveals an unambiguous failure of management actions and
policy.

Three generic responses are possible when a crisis occurs …

9
Expecting the unexpected
Numerous local management practices and associated
institutions avoid large-scale crises by relating to uncertainty and
surprise in order to survive their effects. Instead of trying to get
rid of disturbance, the existence of uncertainties and
unpredictable nature are accepted, and management actions
evolve to cope with their effects by spreading risks by
diversification of both resource use patterns and alternative
activities.

Such responses contribute to social-ecological resilience by

aiming at protecting a desirable stability domain in the face of
change.

10

Expecting the unexpected: some examples

• manage biodiversity at several levels (species to landscape)
• conserve low productivity crop varieties as insurance against
pest outbreaks, diseases, climate variations, etc.
• Bangladesh char dwellers use resistant rice varieties
• African agro-pastoralists' seasonal grazing reserves - "ngitili"
• Norwegian farmers often maintain patches of forest
• Iraqw peoples' use of polycultures of crops and animals
• traditional commons, flexible user rights, reciprocal gift-giving
• investing in monitoring and warning systems
• insurance policies
• risk spreading in portfolio management in financial markets
• tsunami warning systems

11

12
Revisiting … Holling’s Adaptive
Renewal Cycle and Panarchy

• Holling (1986): ecosystems go through regular

cycles of exploitation (growth), conservation
(climax), release (collapse) and renewal.
• Attention to processes of collapse (creative
destruction or release) and reorganisation
(renewal) stages, which are often neglected
by conventional science in favour of
processes of growth and conservation.

13
 p
oo
Ba

t l
ck
on
Fr
lo
op

C(,-D</1-=,()73</1)8-6()9,9-3*-2(,-).)6237,-0408,-ED1<@-FFFG1,9)883)*0,G<1+-E%AA&H-
)*.-=)9,.-/6<*-I<883*+-)*.-J/*.,19<*-E%AA%HH- 14
 The four Adaptive Cycle phases
1. r Exploitation/Growth phase. (r-selected pioneering
opportunistic species). Accumulation of resources, fast
change then slowing, increasing competition, rising levels
of diversity and connections, high but decreasing
resilience.
2. K Conservation/Climax phase. (K-selected specialised
species). Consolidation of biomass. Slow, predictable.
Resources stored. System maintenance. Stability,
certainty, less flexibility, and low resilience.
3. Ω (omega): Collapse/Release phase. Chaotic
collapse (e.g. fire, storm, disease, pollution). Release of
accumulated resources. Rapid, unpredictable and highly
uncertain. Resilience is low, then increasing.
4. α (alpha): Reorganisation phase. Time of innovation,
restructuring and greatest uncertainty, but high resilience.
15

 Panarchy: nested adaptive cycles

• "Panarchy" is used to capture the dynamics of adaptive
cycles that are nested within and across space and time
scales.

• The "Revolt" upward connection between scales can

cause a critical change in a smaller and faster cycle to
cascade up to a stage in a larger and slower one.

• The "Remember" downward connection facilitates

renewal and reorganisation by drawing on memory from
a larger and slower cycle to a smaller and faster one.

16

Panarchy, a heuristic model of nested adaptive renewal cycles

emphasizing cross scale interplay (source: Folke, 2006 - modified
from Gunderson and Holling, 2002).

17

 Panarchy
The concept of "panarchy" was developed as an
integrative theory to help understand the source and role
of change in systems - particularly kinds of changes that
are transforming and take place in systems that are
adaptive.
Such changes comprise ecological, economic and social
systems, and they are evolutionary. They concern rapidly
unfolding processes and slowly changing ones; gradual
change and episodic change; and they take place and
interact at many scales from local to global.

18

 Panarchy (ii)
The cross-scale and dynamic nature of the theory led to
the newly coined term - Panarchy. The term was created
as an antithesis to the word hierarchy in its original
meaning of a set of sacred rules.

Panarchy is a framework of nature's rules, hinted at by

the name of the Greek god of nature - Pan - whose
persona also evokes an image of unpredictable change.
Since the essential focus of Panarchy is to rationalise the
interplay between change and persistence, between the
predictable and unpredictable.

19

Two features distinguish a panarchic representation from traditional hierarchical ones. The first
is the importance of the adaptive cycle and, in particular the "α" phase as the engine of variety
and the generator of new experiments within each level. The second is the connections
between levels. There are potentially multiple connections between phases at one level and
phases at another level, but two are most significant in our search for the meaning of
sustainability. Those are the connections labelled as "Revolt" and "Remember"
20
Panarchy (iii)
The fast levels invent, experiment and test; the slower
levels stabilise and conserve accumulated memory of
past successful, surviving experiments. The whole
panarchy is both creative and conserving. The
interactions between cycles in a panarchy combines
learning with continuity. That clarifies the meaning of
"sustainable development". Sustainability is the capacity
to create, test and maintain adaptive capability.
Development is the process of creating, testing and
maintaining opportunity. The phrase that combines the
two, sustainable development, therefore represents a
logical partnership of opposites.
21
An analysis utilising
resilience and panarchy
concepts:

Seixas, C. S. and F.
Berkes (2003). Dynamics
of social-ecological
changes in a lagoon
fishery in southern Brazil.
In: Berkes et al.
Navigating Social-
Ecological Systems:
Building Resilience for
Complexity and Change.
Cambridge University
Press. Pages 271-298.
22

Ibiraquera Lagoon, Santa Catarina State, southern Brazil

25
http://tudoela.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Praia-do-Rosa.jpg
The lagoon and ocean ecosystems
Four interconnected small lagoon basins
Freshwater fauna in the upper lagoon
Brackish-water or salt-water in the lower lagoon
A sandbar separates the lagoon and the Atlantic Ocean
The sandbar occasionally breaches, then:
- juvenile fish and shrimp enter the lagoon from the ocean
- adult fish and shrimp leave the lagoon to the ocea
The channel closes and biomass increases in the lagoon

26

n­

27
The lagoon ecosystem adaptive cycle
Exploitation/Growth: channel closes and the water level rises,
biomass begins to increase

Conservation/Climax: water level rises further, biomass

continues to increase

Release: channel opens, water drains out of the lagoon,

mature fish and shrimp leave to the ocean

Renewal: channel stays open for a period, salt-water with

juvenile fish and shrimp enter the lagoon

28

29
30
Traditional management of the lagoon
Timing of opening of the sandbar traditionally managed to
coincide with fishers’ knowledge of fish and shrimp seasons

Deliberate small openings prevent major unexpected event

Open in September/October: season for post-larval shrimp

Open in December/February: season for small mullet

Open in May/June: season for larger mullet

Fence built to prevent too many shrimp/fish returning to ocean

31

Fisheries management in the 1960s

Seven small communities, small-scale agriculture and fishing
for local consumption. Few roads or stores, no electricity.
Fishing rules were decided locally, based upon the practices
of old fishers. Occasional state inspectors
Organization Colônia de Pescadores transmitted documents
to the government for issuing fishing licenses
Gear and boats were handmade
Tarrafeiros: cast-nets (most fishers)
Redeiros: gillnets or seine nets (richer fishers)
Some minor conflicts regarding resource access and
management between the tarrafeiros and the redeiros
32

Fisheries management 1970-1981

Road access improved, increased fish sales, middlemen
started a patronage system
Mid 1970s: tourism and outside fishers increased
Colônia was decision-making agency for channel opening
Intensity of exploitation increased, with smaller mesh sizes
Introduction of kerosene and butane gas lamps for fishing
Increased income
Conflict resolution: new rules and monitoring
Breakdown of both local and government rules, decreased
fish and shrimp stocks, loss of ecosystem resilience
33

Fisheries management 1981-1994

Overexploitation and conflict. Then the fishers organised and
elected a new Colônia president. Made regulation changes,
rebuilt lagoon management, banned seines and butane gas
lamps, resulting in increased stocks and ecosystem resilience
Decisions on channel opening were made by president after
consulting with fishers. Then 1988 by Municipal Government.
Shrimp stocking project by University of Santa Catarina and a
state research agency (EPAGRI)
New regulations enforced by State Government: stocks
recovered in two years
New challenges: tourism, sewage, sailing, sports fishing and
construction work causing erosion, sedimentation, mudslides
34

Fisheries management 1994-2000

Weakened enforcement, violation of rules. Introduction of
shrimp trawls and illegal shrimp traps
Prohibition of motor-boats and jet skis, but they were still used
Tourists’ sewage drained into the lagoon, causing pollution -
then open the sandbar to flush and dilute the sewage, but at
the wrong timing for fish and shrimp stocks
Residents became less dependent on fisheries, and many
turned to part-time tourism.
No patronage system (no excess fish to sell)
Côlonia did not respond to the new crisis in resilient manner,
and the president became unpopular with fishers
35

36
Property rights arrangements
1960s: communal management system

1970s: open access (roads, unplanned commercialisation)

1980s: co-management (communal and state). Fishers and

their organisations lobbied government to pass a series of
regulations, with shared power and responsibility

1990s: mix of state, communal and open access

37

Build-up and break-down of resilience

1960: resilient traditional management system. Local rules,
social enforcement -> road access -> commercialisation

1970-81: less resilient and non-viable. Intensification of

fishing, enforcement declined -> loss of resilience -> revolt
and renewal of fisher’s institutions.

1981-94: rebuilding resilience after crisis. Changes in the

regulations and enforcement -> breakdown of enforcement ->
illegal gears

1994-2000: less resilient system. Conflicts build up again ->

crisis and new round of renewal?
38

Factors that Factors that

weaken resilience strengthen resilience
Breakdown of local institutions Strong institutions - democratic,
and traditional rules robust, strong leadership
Rapid technological change Equality in resource access
increasing exploitation levels Cross-scale communications
Rapid and skewed socio- Political space for
economic change experimentation
Institutional instability across Use of fishers’ memory and
political scales: top-down ecological knowledge as source
Rich outsiders with short-term of innovation in management
interests at stake dominate Residents with long-term
economically and politically interests manage the system
39

http://amigodeviagem.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/barra-do-ibiraquera-2-ok-d-900-.jpg

http://www.pousadadunasmar.com.br/praia/fotos_praia/05.jpg