16 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 16
Conference Paper Application of Ecological Economics to Development: The Institutional Dimension(1993) Berkes, Fikret"Ecological Economics (EE) is more than the sum of conventional economics and conventional ecology. Among the defining characteristics of Ecological Economics are: (a) the holistic view of the environment-economy system; (b) the view of the economic system as a subset of the natural system of the earth (the human household as part of nature's household}); (c) a primary concern with natural capital, resources and environmental services, which are the basis of any economic activity (in the EE view resources are not considered free. They are considereed to have a status similar to human-made capital, thus the term, natural capital); and (d) greater concern with a wider range of human values than those normally considered by economists, including, for example, a moral obligation for future generations."Working Paper Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustainability(1994) Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl"Traditional resource management systems or other local-level systems, based on the knowledge and experience of the resource users themselves, may have the potential to improve management of a number of ecosystems types. A considerable amount of evidence has accumulated to suggest that ecologically sensible indigenous practices have or had existed, for example, in the case of some tropical forests, island ecosystems, tropical fisheries, and semi-arid grazing lands. Given that Western resource management has not been all that successful in many of these environments, perhaps there are lessons to be learned from the cultural capital of societies which have elaborated these practices, a view echoed in Our Common Future. Ancient cultures and indigenous peoples do not have monopoly over ecological wisdom; there are cases of local, newly emergent or 'neo-traditional' resource management systems which cannot claim historical continuity over generations but which are nevertheless based on local knowledge and practice appropriately adapted to the ecological systems in which they occur."Conference Paper Framework for the Study of Indigenous Knowledge: Linking Social and Ecological Systems(1995) Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl"A considerable amount of evidence has accumulated to indicate that ecologically sensible indigenous practices have indeed existed in diverse ecosystems. Based on these findings, there is potential for improvement of resource management in environments such as northern coastal ecosystems, arid and semi-arid land ecosystems, mountain ecosystems, tropical forest ecosystems, subarctic ecosystems and island ecosystems. As compared to the rather narrow set of prescriptions of Western scientific resource management systems, some of which may inadvertently act to reduce ecosystem resilience, indigenous management is often associated with a diversity of property rights regimes and common-property institutions and locally-adapted practices, and it may operate under systems of knowledge substantially different from Western knowledge systems. "The framework we propose distinguishes seven sets of variables which can be used to describe social and ecological system characteristics and linkages in any indigenous resource use case study: (1) ecosystem, (2) resource users and technology, (3) local knowledge, (4) property rights, (5) institutions, (6) pattern of interactions, and (7) outcomes. Our framework borrows from that of Oakerson for the analysis of common-property management, and that of Ostrom for institutional analysis. "The key concept in our framework is resilience, to emphasize the importance of conditions in which disturbances (perturbations) can flip a system from one equilibrium state to another. We use Holling's definition of resilience, the magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed before a system changes its structure by changing the variables and processes that control behavior. We hypothesize that: (1) maintaining resilience is important for both resources and social institutions, and therefore the well-being of social and ecological systems is closely linked; (2) successful traditional knowledge systems will allow perturbations to enter an ecosystem on a scale which does not threaten its structure and functional performance, and the services it provides; and (3) there will be evidence of co-evolution in such traditional systems, making the local community and their institutions "in tune" over time with the natural processes of the particular ecosystem."Conference Paper Current Approaches to Co-Management in Manitoba(1991) Haugh, Allison; Berkes, Fikret"Cooperative management, as a regime for sharing resource management authority between government agencies, interest groups and user communities has been introduced in Manitoba on a number of occasions and in a variety of settings. It is important to note at the outset that co-management does not have a single prescription: it can denote stronger forms of community involvement (i.e. formal joint management of resources, or even self-management of resources by the communities themselves), or it can mean weaker forms of local involvement (i.e. consultative management through an advisory board). This study explores the current status of co-management in Manitoba, with an emphasis on the level of community involvement in such management strategies. While the term "co-management" tends to be used primarily in the area of wildlife and fisheries management, the following examples demonstrate that co-management can also apply to other resource-based industries, such as forestry and wild rice harvesting. The rationale for such agreements, and the issues or problems particular to each setting are explored."Conference Paper Comparative Analysis of Mountain Landuse Sustainability: Case Studies from India and Canada(1998) Gardner, James S.; Sinclair, A. John; Berkes, Fikret"Mountain people typically have lived on the economic margins of society, making a living as woodcutters, herders, gatherers, and small-scale agriculturalists. Yet, for many societies, mountains are at the center of the universe. A number of mountains in Asia, such as Mount Kailas in Tibet, take on the character of the sacred mountain 'which stands as a cosmic axis around which the universe is organized in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology' (Bernbaum 1996). In our Indian study area (Figure 1), the mountains around the source of the Beas River are of great cultural and historical significance, as a site and inspiration of the Great Indian epics. "This suggests that the study of sustainability requires a broad approach, taking into account social and cultural matters, as well as the ecological and economic. We started the project with a special interest in the management of forested mountain environments, and in the use of participatory or people-oriented approaches to resource management. We adopted a view of sustainable development which explicitly included three elements: (1) the environmental imperative of living within ecological means, (2) the economic imperative of meeting basic material needs, and (3) the social imperative of meeting basic human and cultural needs. Such an approach to sustainable development is concerned with much more than maximizing resource yields. It covers a broad range of environmental values as well as economic and social needs, and opens up the scope of decision-making not only to a wider range of natural and social sciences but also to a range of stakeholders' interests affected by resource management decisions. "Under the overall goal of studying policy development for the sustainable use of forested mountain ecosystems, the objectives of this study were four-fold. We deal with each in turn and expand on the policy implications. 1) To develop integrated methodologies best suited for the comparative study of land resource management policies in forested mountain ecosystems; 2) To study the successes and failures of mountain environment resource management policies and their social, economic, and historical context as revealed in case studies; 3) To evaluate and develop criteria for assessing and monitoring sustainability in mountain environments and in particular, for examining relevant cross-cultural dimensions of SD in these ecosystems; and 4) To communicate policy implications of the study to the appropriate agencies and people concerned with resource management and sustainable development, and to interact with policy-makers."Conference Paper Livelihood Systems, Adaptive Strategies and Sustainability Indicators in the Western Indian Himalayas(1996) Berkes, Fikret; Duffield, Colin E.; Ham, Laurie"The paper is based on an interdisciplinary team project in Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh, in the Western Indian Himalaya, and concentrates on three themes: land use and property-rights systems through which the local people interact with their environment; adaptive strategies used for sustainable livelihood security in the face of ecological, social and economic change, with focus on women's roles; and changes in the forest ecosystem and 'signs and signals' of sustainability as perceived by the people of the area. Local villagers are recognized as actors who define what is important and relevant, rather than merely the objects of study. Their perspectives provide two important findings: (1) adaptive strategies used by households and villages are diverse and contribute to the resilience of the social system and the natural system, and (2)villagers recognize a complex array of signs and signals, that are biophysical, social and economic in nature, and that may be seen as indices of sustainability. Village institutions are 'fuzzy' and resilient, and are the basis of both the system of adaptive strategies and the system of signs and signals. These institutions seem well adapted to fit into a decentralized, integrated, participatory resource management framework."Conference Paper Do Resource Users Learn from Management Disasters? Indigenous Management and Social Learning in James Bay(1998) Berkes, Fikret"Practice is not always true to belief. Philosophers point out that 'ethics bear a normative relation to behavior; they do not describe how people actually behave, but rather set out how people ought to behave' (Callicott 1982). For example, the Koyukon people of Alaska often violate their own rules on limiting harvests when they hunt caribou (Nelson 1982). Anyone who has worked with hunting peoples knows that rules of ethics are sometimes suspended. But one can say that about any culture or any group of people; there is always a gap between the ideal practice and the actual. The story of caribou is important in this regard. Cree elders in Chisasibi readily admit that they once overhunted the caribou. But the events that took place in the community in the mid-1980's indicate that the Cree hunters as a group learned from that experience. The caribou story illustrates how traditional beliefs play out in the real world, and how community-based systems can learn and evolve. It also illustrates the role that traditional stewards and elders play in providing leadership for collective decision-making. It shows why almost all traditional cultures consider elders so important. Elders provide corporate memory for the group, the wisdom to interpret events, and they help enforce the rules and ethical norms of the community. "The main issue here is the development and application of a conservation ethic in a social group. 'Conservation ethic,' defined here after Johannes (1994), is the 'awareness of one's ability to deplete or otherwise damage natural resources, coupled with a commitment to reduce or eliminate the problem.' We will hypothesize that a conservation ethic can develop if a resource is important or limiting, predictable and depletable, and if it is effectively under the control of the social group in question so that the group can reap the benefits of its conservation (Berkes 1989a). We explain each point of the hypothesis in turn. "If a resource is superabundant there is no adaptive advantage in developing a conservation ethic for it, nor a territorial system for its defense. The resource has to be predictable and abundant, and important for the group, if not outright limiting (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978; Richardson 1982; Nelson 1982; Berkes 1986). If the resource is not depletable, it is perfectly logical (and, one may argue, ecologically adaptive) to kill excess numbers. Under such conditions, 'a natural response is not to limit harvests intentionally, but the precise opposite -- take as much as possible, whenever possible, and store the proceeds for later use,' as Nelson (1982) points out in his discussion of Alaska caribou hunting. "Finally, there is the question of the control of the resource. Societies do not establish conservation rules and ethics for the benefit of outsiders. The evidence on this question shows that the incursion of outsiders, and the inability of the group to defend an important resource, causes the lifting of rules and conservation ethic (Feit 1986; Berkes 1986). Once open-access conditions are created, perfectly conservation-minded stewards may well become participants themselves in a 'tragedy of the commons' rather than to allow the outsiders to take the remaining resource. Such free-for-all depletions of resources seem to have happened in the case of beaver in James Bay in the 1920s, and the overkill of North American bison at the turn of the century (Berkes et al. 1989; Feeny et al. 1990). In some cases, the condition is reversible; if local controls can be re-established, the group can again reap the benefits of its own restraint, and conservation rules and ethics become operative once more (Feit 1986; Berkes 1989b)."Working Paper Cultural Capital and Natural Capital Interrelations(1992) Folke, Carl; Berkes, Fikret"The importance of natural capital and the relationships between natural capital and human-made capital are of fundamental interest in ecological economics. But a consideration of these two kinds of capital alone fall short of providing the essential elements for the analysis of sustainability. A more complete conceptualization of the interdependency of the economy and the environment requires attention to social/cultural /political systems as well. We use the term cultural capital to refer to factors that provide human societies with the means and adaptations to deal with the natural environment. Cultural capital, as used here, includes factors such as social/political institutions, environmental ethics (world view) and traditional ecological knowledge in a society. The three types of capital are closely interrelated. Natural capital is the basis for cultural capital. Human-made capital is generated by an interaction between natural and cultural capital. Cultural capital will determine how a society uses natural capital to create human-made capital. Aspects of cultural capital, such as institutions involved in the governance of resource use and the environmental world view, are crucial for the potential of a society to develop sustainable relations with its natural environment."Conference Paper Community-Based Use of Mangrove Resources in St. Lucia(1992) Smith, Allan H.; Berkes, Fikret"The sustainable use of mangrove forests can effectively contribute to their conservation. The experience with an integrated conservation-development project in St. Lucia showed that charcoal producers using mangrove fuelwood resources in a Marine Reserve Area have successfully changed their harvesting practices, reversing a trend of mangrove destruction. The conditions under which this change occurred included strengthening the organization of local users and their resource-use rights, and building a community-based management system, leading to the avoidance of open-access conditions. Surveys of the mangrove, undertaken before and after management intervention, showed that while the mean stand diameter of the fuelwood trees did not change significantly, there was an increase in the density of stems and in total basal area of timber."Working Paper Systems Perspective on the Interrelations between Natural, Human-made and Cultural Capital(1993) Berkes, Fikret; Folke, Carl"In recent years substantial progress has been achieved in the field of ecological economics for clarifying human-nature interrelations. The fundamental role of the life-support functions of the environment (Odum, 1975) for economic development and sustainability has entered from ecology into economics, and has started to be theoretically as well as empirically analyzed. This has, in part, given rise to the terminology of natural capital and human-made capital. In contrast to the assumptions of standard economic theory, ecological economists regard human-made capital and natural capital as fundamentally complementary. Natural capital and its derived goods and services are the preconditions or the basis for economic development. It is not possible for human ingenuity to create human-made capital without support from natural capital (e.g. Daly, 1990). Moreover, it is not possible to approach sustainability by only focusing on these two factors, natural capital and human-made capital interrelations. We need a third dimension, what we refer to as cultural capital, as well. From a systems perspective, we emphasize that the three types of capital are strongly interrelated and form the basis for guiding society towards sustainability."