16 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 16
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."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 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)."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."Conference Paper The Interface Between Natural and Social Systems(1993) Berkes, Fikret"This is a background paper on the focus area, interface between social and natural systems. Following definitions, the paper attempts to present some perspectives on the linkage between social and natural systems, and to cover some aspects of the state of knowledge about how natural resource systems and social systems interact under different property rights regimes, and how that interaction affects the performance of natural resource systems."Conference Paper Resilience and the Co-Evolution of Ecosystems and Institutions(1995) Folke, Carl; Berkes, Fikret"Resilience is the ability of a system to cope with change without collapsing. It is the capacity to absorb external perturbations, by actively adapting to an ever changing environment. Reduction in resilience means that vulnerability increases, with the risk that the whole system flips from one equilibrium state to another. Such flips are often a consequence of the misuse of the environment and the inertia of institutions to change. Smaller unpredictable perturbations that previously could be handled turn into major crises when extreme events intersect with internally generated vulnerability due to loss of resilience. To avoid such situations there is a need for institutions with the ability to respond to and manage environmental feedbacks, institutions that can cope with unpredictable perturbations before they accumulate and challenge the existence of the whole social-ecological system. This implies that it is not enough to only understand the institution in question. The dynamics of the ecosystems that form the biophysical precondition for the existence of the institution need to be taken into account as well. This study focuses on the linked social-ecological system, and its dynamic interrelationships. We regard it as one system with its social and ecological components co-evolving over time. It is in this context that we study traditional and newly-emergent social-ecological systems. We are analyzing 1) how the local social system has adapted to and developed a knowledge system for dealing with the dynamics of the ecosystem(s) including the resources and services that it generates, 2) specifically, how the local system maintains ecosystem resilience in the face of perturbations, and 3) those combinations of property rights arrangements, institutions, and knowledge systems which accomplish the above successfully. Examples will be presented from the Cree Indians of the Canadian eastern subartic and their resource management, and pastoral herders and rangeland management in semi-arid Africa."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 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 Co-Management: The Evolution in Theory and Practice of the Joint Administration of Living Resources(1991) Berkes, Fikret; George, Peter; Preston, Richard J."The joint administration or cooperative management (comanagement) of living resources is the potential solution to the contentious divergence between two alternative systems: centralized, state-level versus local-level and community-based systems of resource management. But co-management does not have a simple prescription. There are 'levels' of co-management, from informing and consultation, through degrees of power-sharing between the central government and local resource users." "Studies in the James Bay area indicate that the capability of local-level management or self-management is important not only from a fish and wildlife management point of view. It is also important to the social and economic health of many native communities. Because of the continuing importance of living resources, the economic development of native communities is linked to their ability to manage their own resources. This, in turn, is linked to larger questions of self-government."Journal Article Native Subsistence Fisheries: A Synthesis of Harvest Studies in Canada(1990) Berkes, Fikret"Subsistence fisheries,as distinct from commercialand recreational, exist throughout much of the Canadian North and satisfy local needs for fish protein. These fisherie have been investigated quantitatively only since the 1970s. Many otfh ese studies are in the 'grey literature' methods of study and reporting are not standardized, and interpretation of data is often problematic. Nevertheless, some generalizations can be offered from a preliminary survey of harvest study data from 93 communities and from 10 regional studies representing Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. The data indicate a wide range of harvest values clustering at about 60 kg of whole fish per capita per year. If these data are representative, there is a significant subsistence fishery sector for the local economics of hundreds of communities. Most of these fisheries are not being reported in fishery statistics, nor are they being monitoreda nd assessed."