Transcript Module 0 Sea Ice Politics and Policy: Deriving a Sea Ice

The Method Behind the
Madness: A Framework for
Social-Ecological System
Analysis
AMY LAUREN LOVECRAFT
University of Alaska Fairbanks
May 2009
OBJECTIVES
This talk briefly explains the development of a
Social Ecological System Policy Analysis
Framework
Policy
analysis through (1) social-ecological
systems (2) ecosystem services (3) and problem
definition.
Use it to approach analysis of social-ecological
systems;
Evaluate a policy arena (i.e. subsystem)
Consider the jurisdictional and political
consequences of changes; and
Conceptualize potential futures for your own
work in your SES.
RESEARCH DIMENSIONS
We will focus on the SEsystem of several policy issues
tied to Alaska: wildland fire at high latitudes;
freshwater management, sea ice, and polar bears.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Governance How do different actors define systems
across temporal and spatial scales? What policies do
these actors then propose? Which are implemented?
Feedbacks What are the dynamics between
ecosystem and social variables affected by one
another?
Politics Why is this process (including some of your
work) inherently political?
Futures What we can speculate about the future of
the SIS?
GOVERNANCE
SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Time and Space: Where are we? Who are we?
Who tells us what to do?
Ecological
Social
CONSTRUCTING GOVERNANCE
BARROW SEA ICE FIELD COURSE


Earth; Northern Hemisphere; U.S.; Alaska; North Slope
Borough; Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Barrow;
Ukpeaġvik Iñupiat Corporation; Ilisagvik College; BASC;
UAF
2008AD or CE? 5768? 1429AH? 2008.W20.7?




Gregorian, Hebrew, Islamic, ISO
The pertinence of these spatial and temporal scales are
dependent upon (1) who you believe yourself to be AND (2)
who others believe you to be: researcher, activist, member
of nation, part of an Iñupiat community, professor, student,
political official….you are likely many of these things and
more.
Who you believe yourself to be constructs your reality and
the decisions you make.
Perhaps most importantly, society constructs what you are
permitted to do.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND POLICY
You are here to “get something” from the sea ice.
The sea ice also provides “something” to a variety
of other people and locations (MEA, 2005).
 Clearly you are subject to a variety of scales of
rules from the very local use of bear guards to the
need for passports to get here.
 When we consider the sea ice system we come to
understand that there is no comprehensive set of
rules to govern the social or geophysical or
biological variables that create and recreate this
system.
 So, how might we think about such complexity?

SES INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
CHAPIN ET AL. 2006
FEEDBACKS
Politics are the human medium through which
we determine actions on the natural world
around us. [aforementioned rules]
 The natural world around us drives politics






Focusing events (earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes)
Planning
Provisioning
Conservation
Pollution

Rules are the social expression of politics –
Institutions are bounded rule sets directed
toward forbidding or encouraging different
behaviors (Ostrom 1990, Young 2005,
Brosius).
POLITICS
is “struggles over authority to determine what is,
what is right, and what works” (Edwards and
Lippucci 1998).
 Who has authority to make decisions related to
sea ice?
 Short answer: Nobody
 Long answer: it depends on the service…

SEA ICE SYSTEM
SERVICES
AND
INSTITUTIONS
SO, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
From the readings you have done you know that
policy problems are bound by time, space, and
context.
 We know about climate change and that it will
rapidly and directionally change our world
around us – this is amplified at the poles.
 We also know a few things about human beings
in general

We discount potential for long term catastrophe in
favor of short term gains.
 We love low-hanging fruit
 We do not change our core beliefs as easily as
secondary or tertiary beliefs.
 It is difficult to induce rapid social changes in
governance

PROBLEM EXAMPLE
SEA ICE SERVICES

Polar Bears depend on sea ice for hunting,
denning, and rearing young.


Communities depend on the bears for a lucrative
hunting (e.g. Nunavut) or tourism industries (e.g.
Churchill, Manitoba).
Petroleum exploration and recovery views sea ice
as a hazard and obstacle to development

Icebreakers and undeveloped resources
Scientists recognize sea ice, as well as glaciers
and other ice covers as essential to climate
regulation.
 In Barrow, for example, sea ice is a platform for
whale butchering and ocean access.

…EXAMPLE CONTINUED
DIRECTIONAL CHANGE AND STAKEHOLDER
CONFLICT
Diminishing sea ice opens the Arctic ocean and
its subsidiaries to travel, trade, transport and
their externalities
 Unpredictable sea ice creates danger for human
activities
 As sea ice shrinks the animals which depend
upon it will diminish and human communities
lose the vital connections these animals provide
their cultures (Indigenous and non-indigenous)
 Coastline communities become further
vulnerable to storm cycles
 More?

ARCTIC FUTURES (BRIGHAM, 2007)

We must consider key themes tied to the context
of Arctic lifeworlds and how they might fare
under an ice-free Arctic:





Transportation systems – increased marine and air
access
Resource development – oil and gas, fisheries,
freshwater, forests
Indigenous and rural Arctic peoples – well-being,
cultural transmission, urban and rural migrations
Regional environmental degradation – protections?
Governance – what regional and geopolitical
cooperation may best suit the Arctic’s needs?
The Arctic coastal zone from a legal perspective




The coastline is the location
of the 0-m isobath at mean
high tide, i.e., the line that
separates ocean from land.
(1-D)
The coast is the zone that is
directly impacted by both
processes on land and in the
ocean through exchange of
matter and energy. (2/3-D)
Legal definitions: Baseline
(line diving land from ocean
- 0 miles); submerged lands
act (1953) granting states
access to 3 nm coastal zone
What about the 4th
dimension?
ARCTIC SCENARIOS (IBID.)
Globalized – increased access and economic focus
with a free-market approach to resources; private
dominates public
 Adaptive – increased access tied to carefully
structured development with strict protections;
incremental changes to government (e.g.
enhanced reliance on existing entities); publicprivate partnerships
 Fortress – restricted access and development only
by direct stakeholders (Arctic nations) tied to
movement of indigenous peoples in favor of
development; heavy public security focus
 Equitable – new forms of governance focused on
sustainability; public and indigenous dominance
partnered with restricted private development

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
How can we create effective institutions to
handle the changes in the Arctic related to
diminishing and unpredictable sea ice?
 ?create this into a section of questions for people
at the end of the chapter? Will that be in each
chapter?

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
Scientific approach (information); Hajo expresses
the reduction of uncertainty as a key to creating
better decisions.
 Citizen approach (individuals )
 Market approach (free exchange)
 Polis approach (community values)
 State ownership approach
 ? Slide with arrows…info into polis into public
and agencies into markets : try to indicate a
feedback system perhaps traditional as well as
citizen science approach?
