Herbert Zucchi, A–Z ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE ... · r Erhältlich bei...

r

Erhältlich bei [email protected] +49/(0)81 91/970 00–405

D i e g u t e n S e i t e n d e r Z u k u n f t

W wie Wildnis wagenWildnis ist freie Natur – in ihrer Entwicklung uneingeschränkt und unberechen-bar. Als Kontrast zur Zivilisationslandschaft brauchen wir solche Flächen, die sichohne Eingriffe des Menschen entwickeln und die »vor der Haustür« liegen, alsoleicht erreichbar sind.Dieses Handbuch verbindet erstmals wildnisbezogene Umweltbildung mit planerischen wie rechtlichen Aspekten der Wildnisentwicklung in Mitteleuropa.

H. Zucchi, P. Stegmann (Hrsg.)Wagnis WildnisWildnisentwicklung und Wildnisbildung in Mitteleuropaoekom verlag, München 2006169 Seiten, 27,90 EUR, ISBN 3-936581-65-7

G wie GroßschutzgebieteGroße Schutzgebiete wie Biosphärenreservate, National-, Natur- und Landschafts-parks sollten lange Zeit vor allem die Natur schützen. Land- und Forstwirtschaftetwa waren nicht vorgesehen und wurden möglichst eingeschränkt. Das warfrüher. In jüngerer Zeit lautet das Ziel: Gebt Impulse für eine Regionalentwick–lung, die ökonomische, ökologische und sozio-kulturelle Ziele verbindet!

T. Hammer (Hrsg.)GroßschutzgebieteInstrumente nachhaltiger Entwicklungoekom verlag, München 2003198 Seiten, 24,50 EUR, ISBN 978-3-936581-19-5

Nachhaltigkeit

A–Z

Herbert Zucchi, Paul Stegmann (Hrsg.)

Wildnisentwicklung und Wildnisbildung

in Mitteleuropa

Wagnis Wildnis

�

ECO

LOG

ICA

L PE

RSP

ECTI

VES

FO

R S

CIE

NC

E A

ND

SO

CIE

TY

17

/ S1

( 200

8): 8

1–17

6SP

ECIA

L IS

SUE:

PRO

TEC

TED

AR

EAS

AN

D B

IOD

IVER

SITY

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N

GAIA is available online at www.ingentaconnect.comwww.oekom.de | B 54649 | ISSN 0940-5550 |GAIAEA 17/S1, 81–176 (2008)

S1| 2008

ÖKOLOGISCHE PERSPEKTIVEN FÜR WISSENSCHAFT UND GESELLSCHAFT

ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

PROTECTED AREAS AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

qSPECIAL ISSUE:

rr

000_Umschlag_96S 14.04.2008 13:42 Uhr Seite 1

r

GAIA 17/S1(2008): 107–115 | www.oekom.de/gaia

107

Biodiversity Conservation: A Problem of Uncertainty, Social Perception, and Environ-mental Management

The size of the human population and the intensity of its activi -ties in the present time are so large and far-reaching that human -ity now shapes environmental conditions on a global scale. Theaccelerating loss of biological diversity in many world regions isone of the key results of unsustainable human-nature interac-tions. Compared with other global changes, like climate change,changes in nutrient cycles, and increasing freshwater scarcity,the potential consequences of widespread biodiversity loss andrelated changes in ecosystem services for human society are notwell understood.

Biodiversity as a scientific concept has been invented and prop-agated by biologists in the late 1980s (Wilson 1988, Haber 2008,in this issue), and since then it has rapidly spread across scien-tific and policy language (Takacs 1996). According to Hannigan(1995) three factors have contributed to this success story: 1. the growing economic importance of biotechnology, 2. the emergence of conservation biology as an academic

discipline in the late 1970s, and 3. the assembly of a political and legal infrastructure for

protect ing biodiversity during the 1970s by the United Nations and some non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

We would add that the growing acknowledgement of the role ofecosystem services for human society provides an additional de-mand for the valuation of biological diversity (Daily 1997). All ofthese factors resonate well with the intrinsically global dimensionof biodiversity: By adopting biodiversity as the framework of ref-

Compared to the natural dimensions of biodiversity conservation, its social dimensions get

little attention. The result: conflicts and bad environmental management. A “Sustainability Geoscope”, however,

yields hope for improvement.

Socio-Ecological Monitoring of Biodiversity Change

Building upon the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

Hermann Lotze-Campen, Fritz Reusswig,Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

>

Contact: Dr. Hermann Lotze-Campen | Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) | P.O. Box 601203 |14412 Potsdam | Germany | Tel.: +493312882699 |E-Mail: [email protected]

Socio-Ecological Monitoring of Biodiversity Change – Building upon the World Network of Biosphere ReservesGAIA 17/S1(2008): 107–115

Abstract

We discuss biodiversity loss as a problem of social perception

and environmental management. Apart from the problems with

defining and measuring biodiversity, the impacts of biodiversity

loss on human well-being and lifestyles are difficult to assess, and

the value of biodiversity conservation is difficult to measure. The

biodiversity discourse is still dominated by the natural sciences,

whereas little attention has been paid to the social dimensions

and the social embedding of biodiversity conservation. This results

in biodiversity-related conflicts and bad environmental manage-

ment. As a basis for improved management of biodiversity as a

global, yet locally nested common good, we define the require-

ments for an integrated socio-ecological monitoring system, a

“Sustainability Geoscope”. Through a large set of comparative,

interdisciplinary regional case studies a new quality of data inte-

gration and coverage at various spatial scales could be achieved.

We propose to choose the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

as an infrastructure of monitoring sites and discuss how such a

Geoscope could be implemented and related to existing initiatives.

Keywords

biodiversity management, biosphere reserves, comparative

regional case studies, global environmental change,

integrated monitoring, sustainability geoscope

r

pr

Dr. habil. Fritz Reusswig | Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) | Germany | E-Mail: [email protected]

Prof.Dr. Susanne Stoll-Kleemann | Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald | Germany | E-Mail: [email protected]

q

q

107_115_LotzeCampenetal 13.04.2008 18:43 Uhr Seite 107

www.oekom.de/gaia | GAIA 17/S1(2008): 107–115

108 Hermann Lotze-Campen, Fritz Reusswig, Susanne Stoll-KleemannFORSCHUNG | RESEARCH

erence for nature conservation, a global bias is intrinsically builtinto our perceptions of place-based nature and local conditions.In our implicit assessments and judgements, we have to perceivea single species or habitat against its overall situation across theglobe – only then the degree of endangerment and the relatedthreat to biodiversity will become clear (Flitner 1998).

Biodiversity (the diversity of genes, species and/or habitats,see Haber 2008, in this issue) is intricately related to human per-ceptions of the earth’s biosphere and human activities affectingit on local to global scales. The “value” assigned to a certain spe -cies (or habitat) by different social groups differs widely, depend-ing on the perceived direct or indirect use. While it may be intu -itively clear that large-scale loss of biodiversity is unsustainable,it is hard to define “optimal” levels of diversity, or at least mini-mum levels to be maintained. Despite the uncertainty about theexact value of biodiversity to human society, most people havestrong opinions about how the landscape they live in should looklike, which is obviously related to species and habitat diversitywithin this landscape (see Haber 2008, in this issue). Given thisuncertainty, the precautionary principle suggests that biodiver-sity conservation efforts should aim at rather ambitious targets,until we gain a better understanding of the most relevant interac -tions between humans and nature. Moreover, since human andnatural systems are constantly evolving, “conservation” shouldnot be seen as a static concept, but rather one with moving tar-gets which need to be continuously reviewed and adapted.

The Social Dimension of BiodiversityGiven the complexity and insufficient understanding of the linksbetween society and nature, little attention has been paid to thesocial perception of biodiversity and the social embedding of itsconservation and management. The biodiversity discourse is stilldominated by the natural sciences, with few examples, where anintegrated socio-ecological research approach has been pursued(e.g., Forester and Machlis 1996, Rosa 1999, White et al. forth-coming).

There are many direct human drivers for biodiversity loss, suchas land use and habitat change, invasive species, overuse, pollu -tion (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus), and, more recently, cli-mate change. Underlying causes for these direct drivers can alsobe identified, and of course they vary across regions: resourcescarcity leading to an increase in the pressure of production onresources, changing opportunities created by markets, outsidepol icy intervention, loss of adaptive capacity and increased vul -ner ability, and changes in social organisation, in resource access,and in attitudes (Lambin et al. 2003, Ohl et al. 2007).Many of thesedirect and underlying drivers arise from and/or create biodiversi -ty conflicts. Biodiversity conflicts are social interactions betweenat least two actors (individual or corporate) with different inter-ests and/or worldviews, including values, risk assessments, andaesthetic preferences – and often endowed with heterogeneoussets of (natural) resources. Biodiversity conflicts may arise if nat-ural resources (such as land or the flow of ecosystem services)are scarce, and alternative uses by different actors are envisioned.

A classical example is the conflict between nature conservationin protected areas and various other kinds of human use. Natureconservation is a human use in a wider sense, it has supportersin the social system (e.g., NGOs or state agencies), and it usual -ly implies a specific social discourse (e.g., conservation science)in order to justify it. The conflict between conservation and usethus is a social conflict as well. Conflicts may also arise if exter-nalities from the resource use of one actor affect others, such asdownstream biodiversity loss due to upstream activities like in-dustry or fishing. Managing biodiversity conservation to a largeextent means managing biodiversity-related conflicts.

Biological diversity is of course not confined to protected ar-eas. Biologists have identified 25 so-called biodiversity hotspots(figure 1) that are especially rich in endemic species and particu -larly threatened by human activities (Myers et al. 2000).However,the socio-economic dynamics of these areas are not well under -stood and quantified. Cincotta et al. (2000) suggest that popula-tion growth together with expected changes in human life stylesand consumption patterns are likely to induce continuous, andprobably increasing, environmental pressure on natural resourceswithin the biodiversity hotspots. In addition to direct interactionsbetween the local resident population and their environment, in-teractions with non-residents (e.g., visitors, logging and miningcompanies, food processing firms) will become increasingly im-portant (Stedman-Edwards 1997). The same argument could beextended to areas that are not particularly species-rich (i. e., hot -spots), but are nevertheless considered “valuable” by human so-ciety for various reasons.

Biodiversity conflicts are thus very likely to intensify in the fu-ture – in protected as well as non-protected areas. In most caseswe are failing to solve these conflicts on various relevant levelsand therefore to establish efficient modes of conservation or sus-tainable use of biodiversity (Singh 2002). These failures are dueto the fact that in biodiversity management certain componentsof the social system, such as institutional factors, are not suffi-ciently taken into account (Stoll-Kleemann 2005). Improved man -agement, however, crucially depends on improved methods ofmon itoring, modelling, and assessment.

The Challenge of Biodiversity MonitoringA major current problem with biodiversity monitoring is the gen-eral data scarcity and availability on the level of protected areasincluding biosphere reserves (Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann 2008).Protected areas and biosphere reserves play an important role forbiodiversity conservation and for achieving the implemen tationof ambitious multilateral environmental agreements, like the 2010targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). For exam -ple at theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 in Jo -hannesburg, 190 countries agreed to a process of “(…) achievingby 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversityloss at the global, regional, and national level (…)” (UNEP 2002,p.319). A further example is the so-called Programme of Work onProtected Areas (PoW)adopted at the 7 th Conference of the Partiesof the CBD in 2004. One of its main elements refers to measures


109FORSCHUNG | RESEARCHSPECIAL ISSUE: PROTECTED AREASq

>

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!( !(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

((!!!!

(!!

20

19

21

18

16

17

25

23

24

22

9

10

1213

11

14

15

3

6

4

7

1

5

2

8

25

Wor

ld p

opul

atio

n de

nsity

, bio

dive

rsity

hot

spot

s, a

nd th

e lo

catio

n of

bio

sphe

re r

eser

ves.

Sou

rces

: CIE

SIN

(20

07) ,

Cin

cott

a et

al.

( 200

0), U

NES

CO

MA

B (

2007

) .

FIG

UR

E 1

:

bios

pher

e re

serv

e

biod

iver

sity

hot

spot

1Tr

opic

al A

ndes

2M

esoa

mer

ica

3C

arri

bean

4A

tlant

ic F

ores

t Reg

ion

5C

hocó

-Dar

ien-

Wes

tern

Ecu

ador

6B

razi

lian

Cer

rado

7C

entr

al C

hile

8C

alifo

rnia

Flo

rist

ic P

rovi

nce

9M

adag

asca

r10

East

ern

Arc

Mou

ntai

ns a

nd C

oast

al F

ores

ts o

fTa

nzan

ia a

nd K

enya

11W

est A

fric

an F

ores

ts12

Cap

e Fl

oris

tic R

egio

n

popu

lati

on d

ensi

ty( p

erso

ns/ k

m2 )

0–

1

1.1

–5

5.1

–15

15.1

–50

50.1

–15

0

150.

1–

300

>30

0

!( (13

Succ

ulen

t Kar

oo14

Med

iterr

anea

n B

asin

15C

auca

sus

16Su

ndal

and

17W

alla

cea

18Ph

illip

pine

s19

Indo

-Bur

ma

20M

ount

ains

of S

outh

Cen

tral

Chi

na21

Wes

tern

Gha

ts a

nd S

ri L

anka

22So

uthw

est A

ustr

alia

23N

ew C

aled

onia

24N

ew Z

eala

nd25

Poly

nesi

a an

d M

icro

nesi

a




to “implement management effectiveness evaluations of at least30 percent of each party’s protected areas by 2010 and of nation-al protected area systems and, as appropriate, ecological networks”(CBD 2005, p.1279).

The need for improved biodiversity monitoring, especially ofthe social and cultural dimensions, with a focus on human-na-ture interactions, has recently been expressed by key stakehold-ers in the preparation of the World Congress on Biosphere Reservesby the UNESCO MAB (Man and Biosphere) Programme 1 in 2008(UNESCO MAB 2008b).2 Under the Seville Strategy for Bio sphereReserves3, reserves are to become pilot sites for the integra tionof nature conservation efforts with strategies for sustainable re-source use and development. At theWorld Congress 2008, interna -tional experts and the MAB constituency have worked togetherto analyse the results of the implementation of the Seville Strat-egy. They have assessed the progress made and address futurechallenges for biosphere reserves with the goal of adopting theMadrid Action Plan (2008–2013) (UNESCO MAB 2008b).

The Need for an Improved Knowledge Base: A Sustainability Geoscope

From the notion of different perceptions of biodiversity, the in-creasing intensity of biodiversity-related conflicts, and the requestfor more appropriate monitoring and management of biodiver-sity by important institutional stakeholders follows the need foran improved knowledge base. Four elements of such a knowledgebase can be named: 1. a sound theoretical framework which explains the causes for

ongoing changes and observed trends, 2. systematic long-term observations of key variables describing

human-nature interactions, 3. appropriate models and methods for comprehensive analyses

of past developments and the development of future scenar-ios and options, and

4. an institutional stakeholder interface in order to update theknowledge base on practical terms and to disseminate resultsfor decision-making needs and formats.

The main focus of this knowledge base should be on human-na ture interactions, not on natural or social processes in sepa-ration. This implies a substantial change in the epistemologicalframing of monitoring (in line with Rosa 1999).

Existing disciplinary and domain-specific monitoring activi -ties are useful and important. But they must be seen as support-ive contributions to a new research domain inspired by a radical -

ly different perspective: socio-ecological interactions as the keyaspect of global environmental change. A database with time se-ries on socio-ecological interactions, like for example biodiversi -ty changes, resource-use changes, or institutional changes, willsupport the development of new theories and improved mod-els for explaining relevant causal relationships. Eventually, im-proved databases will be used to generate more adequate futurescenarios, targets, and options for biodiversity conservation.

One of the key challenges is to link the global and local per-spectives of the problem. It is well acknowledged that the rich-ness of genetic and species diversity of the whole planet dependson local conditions. A specific local situation cannot be under -stood nor effectively influenced without taking global processesinto account. Hence, the specific knowledge gained from localand regional case studies has to be integrated with more synop-tic views from the global perspective. In principle, this can be doneas recommended by Agrawal (2001) in the context of improvednatural resources management. He suggests to “deploy theoret-ically motivated comparative case analyses to identify the mostimportant causal mechanisms and narrow the range of relevanttheoretical variables and their interactions”, but on the other hand“to conduct large-N (i. e., a large number of, H.L.-C. et al.) stud-ies to identify the strength of causal relations” (Agrawal 2001,p.1662).

By stressing the need for a theoretical framework for moni-toring we do not assume any paradigmatic consistency. We arewell aware of the variability of approaches and schools of thought– not only within the social, but also within the natural sciences.Our main point is to highlight the need for a theoretical discourseand a theoretically informed choice of monitoring schemes.

A concept for a global monitoring and observation systemwith a broad coverage of environmental and socio-economicprocesses has been proposed under the label “Sustainability Geo-scope” (Lotze-Campen et al. 2002, Lucht and Pachauri 2004,Lotze-Campen et al. forthcoming). The Geoscope vision aims atan instrument for systematic collection and analysis of compat-ible natural-scientific and socio-economic data that enable a val-idation of integrated views of society-nature dynamics. In brief,a Geoscope has to be:

interdisciplinary and integrated in terms of thematic coverage, multi-scale with a nested structure ranging from local toglobal scales, comparative and systematic in terms of linking acrosssites, scales, and issues, spatially explicit with regard to information gathering andanalysis, long-term, continuous, and flexible in its organisationaland funding structure, andbased on and closely linked to existing monitoring effortsin various domains.

Within the Geoscope concept we define the term “monitoring”not in the narrow sense of just observation and data collection.

1 www.unesco.org/mab2 Personal communication of Susanne Stoll-Kleemann with UNESCO MAB

National Committee members and biosphere reserve coordinators at theWorld Congress on Biosphere Reserves in Madrid, February 4–9, 2008.

3 www.unesco.org/mab/Strategy.pdf


111FORSCHUNG | RESEARCHSPECIAL ISSUE: PROTECTED AREAS

Such a monitoring system will focus on human actions (individ -ual, collective, political) and inter-linkages with changing environ-mental conditions. The system will evolve and adjust to chang -ing requirements over time through repeated feedback loopsthrough theory, modelling and observation, reflecting a socialprocess of learning from failures and success stories.

In order to facilitate a well-structured monitoring process, asufficiently large set of comparative regional case studies has tobe defined which covers the global hotspots of human-natureinteractions. Within these sample regions a common protocolfor empirical research has to be established with a focus on keyactors (Who are they? What are their intentions and constraints?What are the consequences of their actions, and what mecha-nisms and patterns can be identified among different regions?).

For the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 inJohannesburg five focus areas were defined: Water, Energy, Health,Agriculture, Biodiversity (WEHAB). The relevance of the Geo-scope concept for sustainable use of water resources has been dis-cussed in an earlier paper (Lotze-Campen et al. 2002). Figure 2describes a possible structure of such a comprehensive monitor -ing system, putting the issue of biodiversity change along otherimportant socio-ecological issues, for example resource use, so-cio-economic change, institutional change, and value change.

At the ground level, a Geoscope consists of specific case studiesor regional nodes, where various thematic issues are investigat-ed using a wide range of methods (primary data collection, long-term socio-ecological experiments, socio-ecological modelling,social surveys, stakeholder participation), which are applied to thesame regional context. All continents should be covered by sev-eral case studies. While most social and environmental hotspotsshould be covered, preferably in the same location, each sample

>

q


region or case study will obviously only cover a limited set ofthemes and methods. Each case should, however, cover at leasttwo of the proposed thematic issues in order to assure integrativeand comparative research. Multi-scale relations have to be explic -itly addressed, as “place matters, but scale decides” (Swynge-douw 1997, p.144).

At the second level, thematic nodes will focus on important is-sues or a certain research methodology. These will be applied andanalysed across various regional contexts in a comparative man-ner. For practical reasons of implementation, in the initial phasethematic areas of investigation may be restricted to selected top-ics, which may grow over time. This structure will assure themat-ic integration and comparison at the regional level and, simul-taneously, regional integration and comparison at the thematiclevel. For our focus on biodiversity monitoring this design prin-ciple implies that for example certain socio-economic survey tech-niques can be applied across a large number of sample sites ona global scale. At the same time, the specific local connectionsbetween biodiversity management and aspects of values and be-haviour, resource use and institutional settings can be exploredseparately in an integrated way at selected research sites. Wepropose to classify thematic nodes under five headings:1. biodiversity change (e. g., species diversity, landscape

diversity),2. resource-use change (e. g., land, water, energy, minerals,

emissions, waste),3. socio-economic change (e. g., population, health, income,

education),4. institutional change (e. g., property rights, law enforcement,

corruption), and 5. value change (e. g., perceptions, attitudes, expectations).

At the top level, synthesis nodes will servevarious purposes of the system. Researchat the global level will provide a joint data-base infrastructure, conduct global mod-elling activities, and integrate results acrossissues and scales. A public discourse hasto be organised to design research strate-gies and communicate results. Ultimately,continuous information streams generat-ed by the monitoring system will be fed in-to the policy process and the discourses.

From continuous monitoring it shouldbe possible to identify patterns of sustain-able human-nature interactions which maybe even transferable across cases. These re-sults can be linked to existing simulationmodels on different scales, to allow forgeneralisation and comparison across theglobe. This will in turn create the demandfor even more advanced, oper ational meth-ods of monitoring and observation withglobal coverage over extended time periods.

Exemplary structure of a Geoscope prototype for conducting comparative regional case studies on a global scale (names of regional nodes/case studies are for illustration only). FIGURE 2:


A major challenge will be the connection of global models withinter-linked regional case studies. There are good examples ofhow to generate synoptic views from large numbers of uncon-nected case studies (Lambin et al. 2003, MacEachren et al. 2006,Petschel-Held et al. 1999, Wood et al. 2000). Methods for casestudy integration and synthesis range from descriptive statisticalmethods (e.g., Lambin et al. 2003) to more analytical tools basedon qualitative mathematical models (e. g., Petschel-Held et al.1999). With the exception of Wood et al. (2000), the available in-dependent case studies were not deliberately set up for systemat -ic comparison or large-scale information synthesis. They were al -so not meant to be repeated over time in a comparable manner.

In the proposed Geoscope concept the case study protocolsfrom the very beginning would be designed in a way to facilitatecomparisons and synoptic analyses across space and time. With-in the proposed infrastructure it will be possible to integrate datageneration methods across various scales and disciplines. Thesewill range from information with global coverage (like satelliteremote sensing data) to national statistics (like economic devel-opment measures and political conditions) and local information(like household surveys, point measures from weather stations,or community statistics). The reference point for most of this in-formation will be a spatial grid. Methods, however, have to be de -veloped to link spatially explicit information with information onsocial actors, such as households, where the assignment of spe-cific locations may be ambiguous.

A Geoscope would in principle serve two different tasks. First,it has to generate raw data and a research infrastructure for inte -grated scientific analysis of global change processes (includingtheory-building, modelling, and scenario development) and, sec-ond, it has to support the public discourse and political decisionprocesses (communication of results through simplified and ag-gregated representations, and feeding into decision supporttools).

Obviously, such a system has to be built upon existing effortsin various disciplines. In the area of biodiversity research and mon-itoring, a number of databases and research networks already ex -ist, which can be used to develop a monitoring system with moresocio-economic coverage. These existing structures in biodiversi -ty research may serve as a prototype and core for a thematicallymore comprehensive sustainability monitoring system.

Biosphere Reserves as a Starting Point for theGeoscope

A key characteristic of a Sustainability Geoscope as outlined aboveis the combination of an infrastructure of well-defined regionalsites with a global research focus and coverage. There are alreadya number of global monitoring initiatives in place, especially onthe basis of satellite remote sensing.4 The Global Earth Observa -tion System of Systems (GEOSS), launched in 2006, aims at har-monising earth observation data from various sources, and aBiodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) is also foreseen

in this initiative (GEO 2008). This will be partly based on the ex-isting Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), whichstrives to digitise and disseminate already available primary bio-diversity data from different sources on a global scale.5 So far,however, all of these initiatives lack a strong element in the so-cio-economic and institutional domains, as these are not easilycovered by remote sensing devices. Usually the focus is on thepotential of observation technology, but not on “soft” methodsfrom the social sciences, which are equally important for mak-ing social use of the obtained information.6 Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann (2008) discuss shortcomings of existing data sourcesin more detail. Wood et al. (2000) is the only study available tous that examined the root causes of biodiversity on a global scaleby applying the same research methodology to ten case studiesaround the world. This work points exactly into the direction weare envisioning.

Monitoring Sites for the Implementation of the GeoscopeConceptOnly two existing global networks, however, are based on region -al sites: the World Network of Biosphere Reserves (WNBR) andthe International Long-Term Ecological Research Network (IL-TER)7. In search of an initial set of monitoring sites for imple-menting the Geoscope concept, we suggest to focus on the WNBR.There are currently 531 biosphere reserves in 105 countries, wellspread across the globe (as of March 2008, see UNESCO MAB2008a). They suitably combine protected core areas with sur -round ing buf fer zones and “transition areas” under human use(Stoll-Kleemann and Job 2008, in this issue).

While currently much of the valuable information from bio -sphere reserves is either not systematically collected, or not re-ported, or not comparable across sites (Price 2002), some prom-ising initiatives have emerged. The monitoring platform BRIM(Biosphere Reserve Integrated Monitoring) operates within WNBRand provides abiotic, biological, socio-economic, and integratedinformation. In this context, within theUNESCO MAB BiosphereReserves Directory 8 one can perform queries by research and moni-toring activities, either by a free search or by using predefined listsfor biodiversity and socio-economic monitoring. To facilitate thiswork in conjunction with the establishment and maintenance oflong-term biodiversity monitoring plots,MAB developed and im -plemented BioMon, the Biodiversity Monitoring Database. BioMonpresents analysis and documentation of data in a standardisedformat. It has been widely distributed throughout an internatio -nal network of nearly 300 biodiversity monitoring sites. Further-



4 For example Global Terrestrial Observation System (GTOS), Global ClimateObservation System (GCOS), Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS),Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES).

5 www.gbif.org6 See for example a recent thematic focus on earth monitoring in

Nature 450/7171 (2007): 761–920.7 www.ilternet.edu8 www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/database.asp



more, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre also offers auseful database. Detailed biological data concerning individualsites also can be found at the databases of large nature conserva -tion NGOs, for example The World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF),Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy.

Despite these efforts, serious shortcomings prevail in the ex-isting monitoring systems of protected areas and biosphere re-serves (Price 2002, Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann 2008). The well-designed periodic review process of UNESCO MAB itself suffersfrom a very low response rate. This is due to a number of reasons,for example the lack of indicators and mechanisms to review ef-fectiveness in biosphere reserves. Methods to monitor and assesssocietal value changes and institutional settings are still underconstruction. Up to now BRIM still suffers from a lack of effortsat the social science side. Only about ten percent of all biospherereserves perform any form of social monitoring, and most of itis not done on a regular and comparative basis. MAB has recog-nised this being a severe problem, especially under the auspicesof the Seville Strategy, declaring the integration of conservationand sustainable development a major policy goal for biospherereserves. A pilot phase for social monitoring as part of an inte-grated monitoring system has been established (Lass and Reuss-wig 2001), but due to lacking resources no substantial results areavailable so far. Nevertheless, this could become an importantstarting point for implementing the Geoscope concept present-ed here, if sufficient funding could be raised.

ILTER is a second global network based on (mostly) small re-search sites, which carry out long-term observations and researchon key ecological processes and biodiversity. A process has start-ed to integrate social science research into the LTER9 agenda,which is mainly driven by the European network of excellenceALTERNET 10. Two of the main purposes of ALTERNET are toen large the biodiversity research agenda towards Long-Term So-cio-Ecological Research (LTSER, see Haberl et al. 2006), and toestablish a site-based infrastructure for continuous integratedbiodiversity research under the name of LIFE WATCH11. As manyLTER sites are located in biosphere reserves, the emerging LTSERefforts and the LIFE WATCH infrastructure can be easily linkedwith WNBR. There are also connections to the US National Eco -logi cal Observatory Network (NEON)12.

The value-added potential from comparative, systematic, long-term information flows compared to isolated case studies is obvi -ous. This is the precondition for operational large-scale databas-es on biodiversity loss and the assessment of conservation efforts(Bertzky and Stoll-Kleemann 2008). To highlight the scientificnecessity and technical feasibility of a Sustainability Geoscope,however, is not sufficient. It has to be embedded in the social and

>

organisational reality of science-policy interface organisations.Sev eral challenges for implementation prevail (see box, p.114).Existing attempts, such as the UNESCO MAB or the CBD pro -cesses, can help to serve as paradigmatic implementation spacesfor the idea of social monitoring in integrated contexts.

Conclusions

The fact that more than 500 globally distributed biosphere re-serves are seeking to focus on human-nature interactions andto reconcile human use with nature conservation makes thema suitable pilot sample for a Sustainability Geoscope. The fact,however, that they are not yet covered by an integrative monitor -ing system means that valuable insight is being lost.

If biodiversity is seen as a locally nested global problem ofen vironmental management, the global conservation of biodiver -si ty is a challenge both for global and for local levels. The task isto link and frame local problems:

“Arguably, for example, the conservation of biodiversity mightbest be understood not as a single overarching global problemre quiring uniform global rules, norms, and approaches, butrather as a series of thematically linked regional ecosystem-scaleproblems, requiring regional solutions and regional governancemodels” (Karkkainen 2002, p.214).

Of course those regional solutions will have to be nested inmore global ones, including common protocols, standards, as-sessment tools, legislative frameworks, monitoring and manage -ment. A “co-ordinated global network of regional efforts” (Kark -kainen 2002, p.215) would be a perfect example for the “glocal”nature that the concept of biodiversity has brought about.

Informed management decisions and conflict resolutionacross different scales require an improved information base. Inthe case of biodiversity, information has to be integrated acrossa wide range of disciplines, especially with a stronger focus oneconomic, sociological, and psychological aspects. If the problemis de facto “bad management”, we need to monitor real-worldhuman-nature interactions in the light of possible sustain ablefutures and better management options.

The Sustainability Geoscope concept links an infrastructureof systematic, long-term, comparative, regional case studies tolarge-scale global research, social discourses, and political pro -ces ses. It would contribute to the necessary integration of ecolog -ical and socio-economic theories, methods, and observations. Itwould not only produce valuable and policy-informing results,but also deliver an innovative and timely methodological ap-


9 Long Term Ecological Research Network, see www.lternet.edu. 10 A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network,

see www.alter-net.info. 11 www.lifewatch.eu12 www.neoninc.org

Biosphere reserves provide excellent cases for studying the interdependence of social and ecological processes.




proach, which could gradually widen its scope towards broaderis sues of sustainable development, such as natural resource use,socio-economic dynamics, institutional settings, and personalvalues.

Many existing knowledge gaps with regard to socio-ecologi-cal processes and interactions are not necessarily due to missinginformation, but rather due to data incompatibilities betweendifferent sources and approaches. The big challenge here is tojoin forces across different research and monitoring communi-ties (remote sensing, official statistics, point measurements) andovercome the prevailing thematic, spatial, and temporal scalemismatches between already existing data.

Biosphere reserves with their systematic connection and nest-ed structure of different levels of human interference with eco -systems provide excellent cases for studying the interdependenceof social and ecological processes. WNBR and BRIM provide analready existing infrastructure for socio-ecological research andmonitoring activities. Next steps towards the implementation ofthe presented monitoring concept include the establishment ofa powerful alliance of interested partners and the acquisition ofseed funding. The 9th meeting of the Conference of theParties to theCBD (COP-9) in May 2008 in Germany provides a unique oppor -tunity to continue this process. The authors not only have a largepersonal network among the COP-9 participants, they are alsoinvolved in several upcoming funding opportunities. The LIFEWATCH initiative will be proposed for funding under theEU 7 th

Framework Programme. Existing personal ties with NEON in theUnited States will be used to revive the BRIM process and to de-velop joint projects in biodiversity research, to be funded by na-tional agencies, for example in Germany.

The basic idea and inital concepts for a Sustainability Geoscope were developed in a series of workshops organised by the German National Com-mittee for Global Change Research (Nationales Kommittee für Global ChangeForschung, NKGCF) in 2001/2002. Financial support by NKGCF for parts ofour research is gratefully acknowledged. Wolfgang Lucht, Carlo Jaeger and Marina Fischer-Kowalski made important contributions and shaped theprocess at an early stage.

References

Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governanceof resources. World Development 29: 1649–1672.

Bertzky, M., S. Stoll-Kleemann. 2008. Multi-level discrepancies with sharingdata on protected areas: What we have and what we need for the globalvillage. Journal of Environmental Management.doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.11.001.

CBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2005. Handbookof the Convention on Biological Diversity. 3rd edition. Montreal: CBD.

CIESIN (Center for International Earth Science Information Network). 2007.Gridded population of the world. http://sedac.ciesin.org/gpw/global.jsp(accessed July 12, 2007).

Cincotta, R.P., J. Wisnewski, R. Engelman. 2000. Human population in thebiodiversity hotspots. Nature 404: 990–992.

Daily, G.C. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems.Washington, D.C. Island Press.

Flitner, M. 1998. Biodiversity: Of local commons and global commodities. In: Privatizing nature. Edited by M. Goldman. London: Pluto. 144–166.

BOX: Challenges for Implementation ofa Global Monitoring System

1. Policy goals: A pure monitoring system, generating additional datasets, will hardly generate interest and resources. Data seem abun-dant, intelligent information processing and interpretation is lacking.Making the plea for additional monitoring systems more pertinentrequires clear cut relations to policy goals in a broader sense. Here,the international mandate of the CBD does offer a clear “hook” for aglobal monitoring scheme. Other policy goals, such as the EU’s goalof halting biodiversity loss by 2010 or national goals can play an im-portant role as well.

2. Scientific relevance: Scientists have split attitudes towards datagenerating systems: they provide the basis for scientific work, but atthe same time data collection and management do not yield muchacademic merit. In order to make a monitoring system an interest-ing tool for scientists it is required to establish the transfer of researchquestions and researchers to the monitoring process.

3. Finance: The lack of resources is the main reason that for instanceBRIM has not yet really taken off. But some ex isting earth observa-tion systems based on satellite remote sensing are very expensive.More integrated monitor ing requires a substantial shift of financialresources from “hard” technology-based observation methods to-wards “soft” methods like social surveys, focus groups, and inter-active planning exercises. Social monitoring is cheap compared tosatellite observation, but most decision makers regard it as expen-sive due to a lack of perceived rel evance and/or value-added.

4. Organisational structure: A site-based global monitoring systemwill have to be organised by linking existing national or regional net-works to a central coordination unit. This is the way taken by bothWNBR and ILTER. This will ensure that existing networks and initia -tives can bring in most of their infrastructure and experience, and itwill facilitate the mobilisation of national research funds. Of course,without sufficient authority of a coordination unit, the monitoring net-work may remain weak and disorganised. National MAB Committeesand Regional Networks (e.g., EUROMAB, AFRIMAB, IBEROMAB)together with UNESCO Regional Offices and national research insti -tutions will be important players in this process.

5. Indicators: One of the biggest challenges for a sustainability moni -tor ing system is to reduce the complexity of the observed processesand the collected information. This can be achieved by selecting asuitable set of indicators to describe the key features of the observedsocio-ecological systems. Suitable indicators should be grounded intheoretically sound concepts. A pragmatic approach to the choice ofindicators would be to start with a currently accepted set of indica-tors, compiled from various disciplinary backgrounds, like the UnitedNations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) indicatorset (UN 2001). Through the proposed cycle of continuous data col -lection, integrated analysis and theory-building within the proposedsystem, the initial indicator set could be gradually improved.

6. Social discourse: Implementing a monitoring system is not onlya question of physical and observation devices. It is about startinga discourse as well. Discourses are public debates about facts, be-liefs and norms, embedded in a political and cultural context, andrelated to preferences and constraints of actors. Important partici-pants in discourses on global change issues are, apart from the sci-entists, decision makers in politics and the business world as wellas stakeholders from civil society (e.g., NGOs). Facts gain (or lose)credibility and meaning only by social discourses. And only by dis-courses get values related to the factual world.




Forester, D. J., G.E. Machlis. 1996. Modeling human factors that affect theloss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 10/4: 1253–1263.

GEO (Group on Earth Observation). 2008. Information sheets on GEOSS and the different societal benefit and cross-cutting areas. Geneva: GEO.www.earthobservations.org/documents/GEO_information_kit.pdf (accessed March 10, 2008).

Haber, W. 2008. Biological diversity – A concept going astray? GAIA 17/S1:91–96.

Haberl, H. et al. 2006. From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the socio-economic dimension of long-term socio-ecological research. Ecology andSociety 11/2: 13.

Hannigan, J.A. 1995. Environmental sociology: A social constructionist perspective.London: Routledge.

Karkkainen, B.C. 2002. Post-sovereign environmental governance: The col -laborative problem-solving model. In: Global environmental change and the nation-state. Proceedings of the 2001 Berlin Conference. PIK-Report 80. Edited by F. Biermann, K. Dingwerth, R. Brohm. Potsdam: PIK. 206–216.

Lambin, E.F., H. J. Geist, E. Lepers. 2003. Dynamics of land use and land-cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review of Environmental Resources28: 205–241.

Lass, W., Reusswig, F. 2001. Social monitoring in biosphere reserves. UNESCOMAB BRIM Series No. 1. Paris: UNESCO (United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization).

Lotze-Campen, H., W. Lucht, C.C. Jaeger. 2002. How to “geoscope” transitionsto sustainable water use. GAIA 11/4: 293–296.

Lotze-Campen, H., F. Reusswig, S. Stoll-Kleemann. Forthcoming. Designing a Geoscope for integrated socio-ecological monitoring of biodiversity change.PIK-Report.

Lucht, W., R.K. Pachauri. 2004. The mental component of the Earth system.In: Earth system analysis for sustainability. Edited by H. J. Schellnhuber, P. J. Crutzen, W.C. Clark, M. Claussen, H. Held. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 341–365.

MacEachren, A.M., W. Pike, C. Yu, I. Brewer, M. Gahegan, S.D. Weaver, B. Yarnal.2006. Building a geocollaboratory: Supporting Human-Environment Regional Observatory (HERO) collaborative science activities. Computers,Environment and Urban Systems 30/2: 201–225.

Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, J. Kent. 2000.Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.

Ohl, C., K. Krauze, C. Grünbühel. 2007. Towards an understanding of long-term ecosystem dynamics by merging socio-economic and environmentalresearch: Criteria for long-term socio-ecological research sites selection.Ecological Economics 63/2–3: 383–391.

Petschel-Held, G., M.K.B. Lüdeke, F. Reusswig. 1999. Actors, structures andenvironment. A comparative and transdisciplinary view on regional casestudies of global environmental change. In: Coping with changing environ-ments. Edited by B. Lohnert, H. Geist. London: 255–291.

Price, M. F. 2002. The periodic review of biosphere reserves: A mechanism tofoster sites of excellence for conservation and sustainable development.Environmental Science and Policy 5: 13–18.

Rosa, E.A. 1999. Forum the quest to understand society and nature: Lookingback, but mostly forward. Society and Natural Resources 12/4: 371–376.

Singh, J. S. 2002. The biodiversity crisis: A multifaceted review. Current Science82: 638–647.

Stedman-Edwards, P. 1997. The root causes of biodiversity loss: An analytical approach. Washington, D.C.: WWF (World Wide Fund For Nature).

Stoll-Kleemann, S. 2005. Voices for biodiversity management in the 21st century. Environment 47: 24 –36.

Stoll-Kleemann, S., H. Job. 2008. The relevance of effective protected areas forbiodiversity conservation: An introduction. GAIA 17/S1: 86–89.

Swyngedouw, E. 1997. Neither global nor local: “Globalization” and the politicsof scale. In: Spaces of globalization. Edited by K.R. Cox. New York, NY:Guildford. 137–166.

Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of paradise. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University Press.

UN (United Nations). 2001. Sustainable development indicators.www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/isdms2001/table_4.htm (accessed March 11, 2008).

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2002. Report on the 6th

Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20/Part 2) Strategic Plan Decision VI/26(2002). www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/official/cop-06-20-part2-en.pdf (accessed August 2, 2007).

UNESCO MAB (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi-zation, Man and Biosphere Programme). 2007. Complete list of biospherereserves. www.unesco.org/mab/BRs/BRlist.shtml (accessed July 10, 2007).

UNESCO MAB (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi-zation, Man and Biosphere Programme). 2008a. Complete list of biosphere reserves. www.unesco.org/mab/BRs/BRlist.shtml (accessed March 10, 2008).

UNESCO MAB (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi-zation, Man and Biosphere Programme). 2008b. Madrid Action Plan.Paris: UNESCO MAB Secretariat. www.unesco.org/mab/madrid/doc/E_MAPfinal.pdf (accessed March 19, 2008).

White, R.M., A. Fischer, K. Marshall, J. Travis, T. J. Webb, S. Di Falco, S. Redpath,R. van der Wal. Forthcoming. Development of a conceptual framework tomanage biodiversity conflicts through integration of social, economic andecological perspectives. Land Use Policy.

Wilson, E.O. (Ed.). 1988. Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: National Academy ofSciences, Smithsonian Institution.

Wood, A., P. Stedman-Edwards, J. Mang. 2000. The root causes of biodiversityloss. London: Earthscan.

Submitted July 25, 2007; revised version accepted March 19, 2008.

Hermann Lotze-Campen

Born 1966 in Norden, Germany. Studies in agricultural sciences and agricultural economics in Kiel (Germany),

Reading (UK) and Minneapolis/St. Paul (Minnesota, USA).PhD in agricultural economics from Humboldt University

of Berlin. Since 2001 Senior Researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain Earth System

Analysis. Main areas of work: climate change and agriculture, modelling of global land use change, sustainability monitoring.

Susanne Stoll-Kleemann

Born 1969 in Weinheim, Germany. 1999 PhD from TU Berlin. Since 2008 Professor and Chair of Sustainability Science

and Applied Geography at the Ernst Moritz Arndt University of Greifswald. Leader of the GoBi (Governance of

Biodiversity) research group. Previously positions at Humboldt University of Berlin, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact

Research and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich.

Friedrich (Fritz) Alexander Reusswig

Born 1958 in Hasselroth, Germany. Studies in sociology and philosophy, as well as PhD in philosophy,

in Frankfurt on the Main. Since 1995 Senior Researcher atthe Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

2006 Habilitation “Consuming Nature” from PotsdamUniver sity. Main areas of work: lifestyle and consumption issues as drivers for global environmental change, especially climate change.


Herbert Zucchi, A–Z ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE ... · r Erhältlich bei...

Documents

Transcript of Herbert Zucchi, A–Z ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE ... · r Erhältlich bei...