UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle in the Helmholtz-Association UFZ-Report 0 3/2005 Ecological Resilience and its Relevance within a Theory of Sustainable Development Fridolin Brand UFZ Centre for Environmental Research Leipzig-Halle Department of Ecological Modelling ISSN 0948-9452 UFZ-Report 03/2005 Ecological Resilience and its Relevance within a Theory of Sustainable Development Fridolin Brand Contents Preface List of Figures List of Tables List of Abbreviations 1. Introduction 1 2. Relevance of Ecosystem Resilience within Sustainability Discourse 7 2.1 Ecosystem Resilience & Limits to Growth 8 2.2 Ecosystem Resilience & Strong Sustainability 14 2.2.1 Ethical Idea 15 2.2.2 Weak versus Strong Sustainability 17 2.3 Ecosystem Resilience & Ecological Economics 23 3. Ecological Aspects of Ecosystem Resilience Theory 30 3.1 Conceptual Clarifications and Preliminaries 32 3.1.1 Definitions 32 3.1.2 Relevance of Concepts in Ecology 33 3.1.3 Stability Properties 34 3.1.4 Definition of Resilience 40 3.2 Background Theory of Ecosystem Resilience 46 3.2.1 Different Views of Nature 46 3.2.2 A Model of Complex Adaptive Systems 48 3.2.2.1 Adaptive Cycle 50 3.2.2.2 Panarchy 56 3.2.3 Alternative Stable Regimes 62 3.2.4 Stability Landscape 68 3.3 Resilience Mechanisms & the Ecosystem Functioning Debate 75 3.3.1 Biodiversity-Ecosystem Functioning Debate 75 3.3.2 Biodiversity-Stability Debate 78 3.3.3 Ecosystem Resilience Mechanisms 82 3.3.3.1 Ecological Redundancy 84 3.3.3.2 Response Diversity & Insurance Hypothesis 87 3.3.3.3 Imbricated Resilience 91 3.3.3.4 Ecological Memory & Spatial Resilience 92 3.3.3.5 Small-scale Disturbances 95 3.3.3.6 Relevance of Abiotic Conditions 98 3.3.4 Concluding Remarks on Ecosystem Resilience Mechanisms 99 Contents (cont.) 3.4 Ecosystem Resilience: Concluding Discussion 101 3.4.1 Models 101 3.4.2 Focus on Ecosystem Resilience? 111 3.4.3 Levels of Meaning 116 4 Operationalization and Implementation of Ecosystem Resilience 122 4.1 Conceptual Clarifications and Preliminaries 123 4.1.1 Conceptual Clarifications 123 4.1.2 Social-ecological Systems 124 4.2 Ecosystem Resilience Analysis 127 4.2.1 Specification of Ecosystem Resilience 127 4.2.2 To-what Part 128 4.2.3 Of-what Part 130 4.2.3.1 Scale 130 4.2.3.2 Ecosystem Services 131 4.2.3.3 Slow Variables 132 4.2.4 A Most Appropriate Scale? 138 4.3 Managing for Ecosystem Resilience 142 4.3.1 Pathology of Resource Management 142 4.3.2 Adaptive Management 145 4.3.2.1 Ecological Knowledge 146 4.3.2.2 Focus on Biodiversity 148 4.3.2.3 Allowing Small-scale Disturbances 150 4.3.2.4 Adaptive Capacity 152 4.3.3 Models of Social-ecological Systems 155 5 Summary & Synthesis 162 Appendix 185 a) Deutsche Zusammenfassung 185 b) Essential literature arranged by topic 206 Bibliography 209 Preface Why – the world – ecosystem resilience? Writing a 200-pages thesis about a theoretical topic can be fun. It is interesting to find the structure, the leitmotifs, and the most important topics during the work. Sometimes – every two months or so - there occurs something like a breakthrough that encourages you to keep on going. As a matter of course most of the time it is just hard work. The purpose of this preface is mainly to thank all the people that have contributed to this thesis that I handed in at the Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald in February 2005. First, I want to appreciate all the work of numerous authors producing this vast amount of literature which is listed in my bibliography. It represents both the basis and the content of my thesis. Thanks a million to my supervisors Prof. Konrad Ott1 and PD Dr. Volker Grimm2. Konrad Ott helped me meticulously to find a topic that suits my interest and supported me in doing a thesis about a topic I have chosen on my own. He gave me precious advices for chapter 2 about sustainability discourse, the sections about theory of science and the overall structure of my thesis. Especially I want to thank him for his openness and kindness. He has always been taken me seriously. In general, he aroused my interest in Sustainable Development and related questions through his fabulous lectures and tutorials. I want to thank Volker Grimm for supervising my thesis which has been a piece of luck for me. As genuine biologist and physicist he could help me a great deal to understand much of the theory behind stability concepts. Many, many thanks for all the e-mails, discussions and comments on my provisional creations. Particularly I want to thank him for his kindness and benevolence. Thanks a million to my parents. You have given me so much affection which is invaluable. I know that I can rely on you completely. 1 Prof. Konrad Ott, Botanisches Institut, Professur für Umweltethik, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald. 2 PD Dr. Volker Grimm, Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle, Abteilung Ökologische Systemanalyse. Preface (cont.) Thanks a lot to all my friends. Without you, all would be nothing. Especially I want to thank Andi for bearing the life of suffering with me and sitting in the Staatsbibliothek München each day during the last months. And eventually I want to thank myself for standing all that intellectual work - which can be hard sometimes - and for leading the life of my choice. Fridolin Brand [email protected] List of Figures Figure 1 Myths of nature p. 46 Figure 2 Adaptive cycle p. 51 Figure 3 Adaptive cycle, three dimensions p. 53 Figure 4 Panarchy p. 57 Figure 5 Interactions between scales: Revolt and Remember p. 58 Figure 6 Bifurcation diagram with slow and fast variable p. 64 Figure 7 Stability landscape p. 69 Figure 8 Alteration of a stability landscape p. 73 Figure 9 Bifurcation diagram p. 134 Figure 10 Land manager model for social-ecological systems p. 156 Figure 11 Adaptive cycle of a lake-SES p. 157 Figure 12 Crash of an lake-SES followed by several hundred p. 158 years of sustainable management Figure 13 Comprehensive model for vulnerability assessments p. 159 List of Tables Table 1 Eight layers of sustainability debate p. 15 Table 2 Terminology within stability talk p. 36 Table 3 Critical tools for stability statements p. 39 Table 4 Terminology used by the Resilience Alliance p. 42 Table 5 Variables on disjunct time scales p. 72 Table 6 Paradigms in ecology p. 75 Table 7 Ecosystem resilience: Seven levels of meaning p. 120 Table 8 Four Aspects of ecosystem resilience p. 128 List of Abbreviations BEFP Biodiversity-Ecosystem Function Paradigm CC Carrying capacity Cf. Confer CNC Critical natural capital EE Ecological Economics E.g. Exempli gratia = for example Et al. Et alii = and others DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid EKC Environmental-Kuznets-Curve GBA Global Biodiversity Assessment GNP Gross National Product G&W Grimm & Wissel (1997) H&H Hansson & Helgesson (2003) I.e. Id est = that is ISEE International society for Ecological Economics ISEW Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare L Latitude OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development P panarchy Pr Precariousness R Resistance SCOPE Scientific Commitee on Problems of the Environment SD Sustainable Development SES Social-ecological system StS Strong sustainability UFZ Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig-Halle UNCTAD United Nations Commission on Trade and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNWSSD United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development List of Abbreviations (cont.) WBGU Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Globale Umweltveränderungen WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WS Weak sustainability WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development zB Zum Beispiel 1 1 Introduction On the occasion of the recent Tsunami disaster in South Asia, many people involved called for a hazard early warning system for the Indian Ocean in order to be able to anticipate similar extreme events in the future. There are some voices, however, that argue for additional measures that make regions less vulnerable to natural disasters and capacitate them to respond in a flexible way. Speaking at the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in Kobe, Japan, Klaus Töpfer, head of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), states that technological solutions will not be sufficient for vulnerable regions to prepare and respond to extreme events and suggests that “we need a robust nature that can tolerate impacts of disasters and help fight the consequences (…). Such systems must incorporate more than technology (…). They should represent a new way of thinking that ensures environmental stability factors, based on local wisdom and knowledge, are built into disaster plans (…). In the same way that we have building standards for construction in earthquake zones, we need to put a disaster prevention value on our natural ecosystems. We need to make our own ‘construction criteria’, a criteria that places an ecosystem value on our homes and infrastructure (…). Such an investment, whether in the coastal communities of the Indian Ocean or elsewhere, will lessen the impact of disasters when they happen, and provide for greater stability and reduced vulnerability around the world” (UNEP 2005). From a similar perspective, considering the Tsunami disaster and its consequences, a German magazine recently presented the earth from the moon and headed their title page mysteriously “the fragile planet” (SPIEGEL 2005). Both statements reflect the notion that there is something as “stability” out there in nature, something that is prone to disturbance and disasters and can be overwhelmed but something like “stability” that is also alterable by human action and can be enhanced. Along with waxing global recognition of the devastating effect of natural disasters, awareness for environmental problems increased heavily.