Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska
description
Transcript of Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska
![Page 1: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Chanda Meek, PhD Candidate
Department of Resources Management
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska
EPSCOR Living on Earth
May 11, 2009
![Page 2: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Coastal Arctic social-ecological system (SES)
Ecosystem that supports shared populations of whales,polar bears and people
Communities that consumeecosystem services
Institutions that affect ecosystem use or respond to ecosystem change
![Page 3: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Research questions
• Why do two federal agencies co-managing subsistence policy in the same Alaska Native villages do it differently?
• Do these differences matter for conservation and subsistence livelihoods?
![Page 4: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Theoretical underpinnings
• Institutional theory
– How do rules affect outcomes?
• Common-pool resource theory
– How do communities sustain resources held in common?
• Resilience theory
![Page 5: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Alaskan whaling and pb villages
![Page 6: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Exogenous controls
Slow variables
Fast variables
Human actors
Exogenous controls
Slow variables
Fast variables
GlobeEcological Subsystem Social Subsystem
International legal systemIñupiaq nation
Federalist governanceMixed economy
Polar bear subsistence harvestOil and gas development
stipulationsBear/human interactions
Market for handicrafts
Maritime lawOffshore oil and gas lawSeal and walrus hunting Bowhead whale complex
Climate policyHabitat planning
ClimateOceanographic regime
Marine biota
Sea ice regimeOcean currents
Polar bear habitatBioaccumulation of toxins
Home ranges
Polynyas and other temporal habitat features
Reproductive successNatural mortality
Ecosystem services(Polar bears)
Environmental impacts
Social impacts
Rules for oil and gas leasing
Inst
itutio
na
l re
spo
nse
Polar bear quota
Coastal zonemanagement
Plan of cooperation
![Page 7: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Conceptual model
Amalgam of Easton 1965, Ostrom et al. 1994, Alvesson 2002 and Young 2002.
Agency cultural manifestation
Output (policies)
Performance variables
Outcomes (change in behavior)
Impacts to resource
Independent variables
Agency history
Fit with ecological and social context
Agency culture
Agencystructure
![Page 8: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Cases
NMFS
Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission
Barrow
Wainwright
USFWS
Nanuuq Commission
Barrow
Wainwright
![Page 9: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Influences on policy choices
• USFWS– Protective mission
– Internally oriented
– Prefer joint implementation
– Low tolerance for ecological risk
• NMFS– Competing priorities
– Externally oriented
– Use contracts, devolve responsibilities
– Low tolerance for political risk
![Page 10: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Different policy outputs, different networks
• The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission assesses harvests of bowhead whales through their co-management structure
• Polar bear harvests are assessed through an ad-hoc network created by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to implement the Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Program
![Page 11: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Barrow networks (ideal v. advice)
AEWC
WCA
DWM
NMFS
elders
Q: If you had a question about harvesting rules, who would you talk to?
Barrow whaling captains (n/N = 43%)1. AEWC2. Village whaling captains’ association3. Borough4. National Marine Fisheries Service5. Elders6-26 Whaling captains
Barrow polar bear hunters (n/N=53%)1. Nanuuq Commission2. Village Council3. Borough4. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service5. Elders6-11 polar bear hunters
![Page 12: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Wainwright networks (ideal v. advice)
Q: If you had a question about harvesting rules, who would you talk to?
Wainwright whaling captains (n/N=55%)
1. AEWC2. Village whaling captains’ association3. Borough4. National Marine Fisheries Service5. Elders6-26 Whaling captains
Wainwright polar bear hunters (n/N=?)
1. Nanuuq Commission2. Village Council3. Borough4. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service5. Elders6-11 polar bear hunters
![Page 13: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Differences in co-managementFactor NMFS FWS
PhilosophyNMFS is more externally oriented
FWS is more internally oriented
Capacity IWC and NMFS recognize local authority
Whalers assess harvest with help from agency
New Chukchi Sea quota law recognizes local authority, extent of local authority still under negotiation
Harvest assessment law implemented by agency
![Page 14: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Differences in outcomesOutcomes Whalers Polar bear hunters
Harvest Assessment High participation Average participation
Familiarity with rules Whalers familiar with rules or seek info from local captains
Polar bear hunters less familiar with rules
Participation in making rules about harvests
63% feel their concerns are taken into account
30% feel their concerns are taken into account
![Page 15: Institutional performance in social-ecological systems in Alaska](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062314/5681486c550346895db57a51/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Conclusions
• Agency culture shapes policy preferences, these policies affect network implementation
• Subsistence policy is most effective when it fits the ecological and social characteristics of a community
• If an agency tends to be hierarchical, local networks and organizations are less likely to develop and sustain local management