In our latest session we discussed these two papers. As nobody was really making any notes, this will only be short summary what the papers are about.

Ostrom 2009, Science

This paper talks about the drivers and patterns behind the loss of resources (e.g. fisheries, water resources, forests etc). Because different scientific disciplines use different concepts and languages, our understanding about the processes that lead the deterioration of natural resources is limited. Thus, there is a need for a common framework to organize the findings and information that explain these complex social-ecological systems (SESs). Here Ostrom provides a such frame work ,where each of the individual SESs are first divided to four first-level sybsystems:

1. RS: The resource system (e.g. designated protected area)
2. RU: resource units (e.g. trees, shrubs, wildlife or water resources within the PA)
3. GS: governance system (e.g. the managing party of the PA, the rules of the PA etc.) and
4. U: users (for sustenance, recreation or commercial purpose).

These four subsystems are then divided into lower levels and information is gathered from all subsystems and all levels (when possible) to describe and explain the SES. According to Ostrom, only after a comprehensive database about the characteristics of each of the subsystems are available, can we really understand the functioning of an individual SES and the reasons why certain e.g. management actions succeed in one SES and fail in another.

Ostrom also tackles the currently dominating theory that resource users will never self-organize to maintain their resources, but will consume them uncontrolled unless governments or other top-down institutes intervene. The accumulating information from several science disciplines has, however, shown that some governmental policies accelerate resource destruction where as some resource users have indeed self-organized to preserve their resources to the level of sustainable consumption. Using the framework of this paper, Ostrom lists 10 second level variables that have been frequently identified as positively of negatively affecting the likelihood of users’ self-organizing to manage their resource : Size of resource system (RS), productivity of resource system (RS), predictability of system dynamics (RS), resource unit mobility (RU), number of users (U), leadership (U), norms/social capital (U), knowledge of SES (U), importance of resource to users (U) and collective-choice rules (GS).

Link to the paper:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5939/419

Chhatre and Agrawal 2009, PNAS

This paper tackles the question of forest as two-sided resource: Forests are important provider of multiple commons to the livelihood of millions of humans living close to the forests. At the same time forests act as an important factor in the global carbon sequestration. The authors try to address the question whether forests that contribute more to livelihoods store at the same time more or less carbon, or if carbon storage and livelihood contributions of forests are unrelated. They also want to understand the factors influencing the end result, i.e. whether a forest is more important in terms of common goods to livelihood or in terms of carbon storage.

Using the data collected by the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) the authors first identified 80 common forests in 10 tropical countries for which they calculated two indexes: the first on describing the amount goods to local livelihood and the second the size of above ground carbon storage. With their analyses the authors first concluded that there is no statistical association between carbon storage and livelihood benefits, meaning that both win-win and trade-off outcomes are possible in forest commons.

They authors then go forward in analysing the factors affecting behind these outcomes, and decide to focus on 3 main points: i) Size of the forest commons, ii) local autonomy and iii) ownership. By looking at these different factors and the trade-off/synergy relationship they first define that forests can be divided to four categories:

1. Sustainable commons which are forests that provide both above average carbon storage AND livelihood benefits.
2. Overused commons which provide below average carbon storage AND livelihood benefits.
3. Deferred use commons which provide high carbon storage BUT low livelihood benefits.
4. Unsustainable commons which provide low carbon storage BUT high livelihood benefits.

Chhatre and Agrawal then conclude that forest size and autonomy are the most important factors in determining whether a forest belongs to sustainable or overused common: The larger the forest and the more autonomy local people have in management, the more likely it is that the forest will provide both high carbon storage and high livelihood benefits.  When these factors (size and autonomy) decrease, a lose-lose outcome becomes more likely. The authorship factor plays a more important role in the trade-off outcomes: Governmental ownership is associated with a higher probability of overuse (low carbon, high livelihood), whereas community ownership is associated with low livelihood benefits and high carbon storage.

The main message of the paper is not just to explore the different factors and relationships behind carbon storage and livelihood benefits. It also wants to send out an message saying that centralized, governmental forest management (like imposed for example by REDD) might not be the best way of increasing carbon sequestration, but a more community-based and decentralized approach should also be considered.

Link to the paper:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/42/17667

On Friday, 2 October we read the feature article ”A safe operating space for humanity” by Johan Rickström et al. (2009, Nature 46: 472–475). The paper outlines different biophysical processes that human action have affected and seeks to define thresholds – planetary boundaries – that we shouldn’t cross in order to keep the Earth habitable for our societies. The authors argue that three of nine of these thresholds have already been crossed: 1) the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide causing climate change, 2) the extinction rate of species and 3) the amount of nitrogen extracted from the atmosphere for human use, affecting nitrogen cycle in the nature have been increasing at a dangerous rate in the recent past. In addition, the authors suggest indicative thresholds for altering phosphorus cycle, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, global freshwater use and change in land use. Atmospheric aerosol loading and chemical pollution are also among the processes that are likely to have thresholds, but these the authors did not define.

“Safe levels” of greenhouse gas concentrations is a well established concept – certain concentration leads to certain warming, and from the desired concentration, one can calculate how much greenhouse emissions we “can afford”, still avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. This can be divided further between nations and emission reduction targets relevant for policy-making. Here, the authors attempt to extend similar way of thinking to other environmental problems.

Defining these thresholds an ambitious exercise, as the processes are interlinked in many ways, and the ultimate limiting factors might be hard to track down. As the discussion continues, the relative importance of the different sectors could be accounted for, and the links between them could be highlighted more. The threshold parameters used here are sometimes confusing: instead of using extinction rate as a threshold parameter for biodiversity loss, one could consider e.g. the rate of habitat loss and degradation as that type of target would be easier to convert into political measures.

We were wondering about the values of some thresholds. For example, the global freshwater use is far from its safe boundary according to the paper, and yet the lack of drinking water is something you hear about quite often. Maybe it is because the consumption and supply of freshwater varies very much at an areal scale. One could consider dividing the global targets into more local ones in cases where the resource or threshold indicator varies spatially.

The nonlinear nature of biophysical responses is often hard to grasp. Being aware of it is crucial for sound policies. The paper by Rockström et al. is a good opening for discussion about these issues. In the run-up to Copenhagen climate summit, it is also a good reminder of other environmental problems aside global warming – these ought to be taken into account when planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Link to the paper:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

Johan Rockström, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin, III, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K. Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen & Jonathan A. Foley