• Energy Research

Ecosystem stewardship is an action-oriented framework intended to foster the social-ecological sustainability of a rapidly changing planet. Recent developments identify three strategies that make optimal use of current understanding in an environment of inevitable uncertainty and abrupt change: reducing the magnitude of, and exposure and sensitivity to, known stresses; focusing on proactive policies that shape change; and avoiding or escaping unsustainable social-ecological traps. As we discuss here, all social-ecological systems are vulnerable to recent and projected changes but have sources of adaptive capacity and resilience that can sustain ecosystem services and human well-being through active ecosystem stewardship.

Approaches to natural resource management are often based on a presumed ability to predict probabilistic responses to management and external drivers such as climate. They also tend to assume that the manager is outside the system being managed. However, where the objectives include long-term sustainability, linked social-ecological systems (SESs) behave as complex adaptive systems, with the managers as integral components of the system. Moreover, uncertainties are large and it may be difficult to reduce them as fast as the system changes. Sustainability involves maintaining the functionality of a system when it is perturbed, or maintaining the elements needed to renew or reorganize if a large perturbation radically alters structure and function. The ability to do this is termed "resilience." This paper presents an evolving approach to analyzing resilience in SESs, as a basis for managing resilience. We propose a framework with four steps, involving close involvement of SES stakeholders. It begins with a stakeholder-led development of a conceptual model of the system, including its historical profile (how it got to be what it is) and preliminary assessments of the drivers of the supply of key ecosystem goods and services. Step 2 deals with identifying the range of unpredictable and uncontrollable drivers, stakeholder visions for the future, and contrasting possible future policies, weaving these three factors into a limited set of future scenarios. Step 3 uses the outputs from steps 1 and 2 to explore the SES for resilience in an iterative way. It generally includes the development of simple models of the system's dynamics for exploring attributes that affect resilience. Step 4 is a stakeholder evaluation of the process and outcomes in terms of policy and management implications. This approach to resilience analysis is illustrated using two stylized examples.

Climate change and its interactions with complex socioeconomic dynamics dictate the need for decision makers to move from incremental adaptation toward transformation as societies try to cope with unprecedented and uncertain change. Developing pathways toward transformation is especially difficult in regions with multiple contested resource uses and rights, with diverse decision makers and rules, and where high uncertainty is generated by differences in stakeholders' values, understanding of climate change, and ways of adapting. Such a region is the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia, from which we provide insights for developing a process to address these constraints. We present criteria for sequencing actions along adaptation pathways: feasibility of the action within the current decision context, its facilitation of other actions, its role in averting exceedance of a critical threshold, its robustness and resilience under diverse and unexpected shocks, its effect on future options, its lead time, and its effects on equity and social cohesion. These criteria could potentially enable development of multiple stakeholder-specific adaptation pathways through a regional collective action process. The actual implementation of these multiple adaptation pathways will be highly uncertain and politically difficult because of fixity of resource-use rights, unequal distribution of power, value conflicts, and the likely redistribution of benefits and costs. We propose that the approach we outline for building resilient pathways to transformation is a flexible and credible way of negotiating these challenges.

Les processus de développement et l'action sur le changement climatique sont étroitement liés. Cela est reconnu par le Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur l'évolution du climat (GIEC) dans son cinquième rapport d'évaluation, qui rend compte des voies de développement résilientes au climat, comprises comme des trajectoires de développement vers le développement durable qui incluent l'adaptation et l'atténuation. Le sixième rapport d'évaluation à venir consacre un chapitre aux voies de développement résilientes au climat. Dans ce contexte, cet article demande quelles avancées conceptuelles et empiriques sur les voies de développement résilientes au climat ont été réalisées depuis le cinquième rapport d'évaluation. À travers une revue de la littérature, cet article analyse les objectifs et les approches pour un développement résilient au climat les voies, et discute de ce que les progrès conceptuels ont et pourraient encore être faits.Nous trouvons peu de preuves d'un développement de concept dédié.Nous observons plutôt une ambiguïté conceptuelle.La littérature a montré quatre groupes d'approches non exclusifs : (a) orientés vers l'action climatique, (b) orientés vers l'apprentissage social et la co-création, (c) orientés vers l'intégration et (d) orientés vers la transformation.Nous recommandons d'opérationnaliser les voies de développement résilientes au climat en tant que processus de consolidation de l'action climatique et des décisions de développement vers le développement durable à long terme.Ce processus nécessite un engagement explicite avec les aspirations des acteurs et la connexion des développements passés avec les aspirations et les compréhensions futures de risque. Travailler avec de multiples voies nous permet d'intégrer la flexibilité, l'anticipation et l'apprentissage dans la planification. Une plus grande attention est nécessaire sur les questions liées à la justice et à l'équité, car les voies de développement résilientes au climat impliqueront inévitablement des compromis. La justification du concept de voies de développement résilientes au climat a le potentiel de relier le climat et les perspectives de développement, qui pourraient autrement rester séparées dans la politique, la pratique et la science du développement et du climat. Los procesos de desarrollo y la acción sobre el cambio climático están estrechamente interrelacionados. Esto es reconocido por el Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC) en su quinto informe de evaluación, que informa sobre las vías de desarrollo resilientes al clima, entendidas como trayectorias de desarrollo hacia el desarrollo sostenible que incluyen la adaptación y la mitigación. El próximo sexto informe de evaluación dedica un capítulo a las vías de desarrollo resilientes al clima. En este contexto, este documento pregunta qué avances conceptuales y empíricos sobre las vías de desarrollo resilientes al clima se realizaron desde el quinto informe de evaluación. A través de una revisión de la literatura, este documento analiza los objetivos y enfoques para el desarrollo resiliente al clima vías, y discute qué avances conceptuales se han logrado y aún podrían lograrse. Encontramos poca evidencia de desarrollo de conceptos dedicados. Más bien, observamos ambigüedad conceptual. La literatura mostró cuatro grupos de enfoques no exclusivos: (a) orientados a la acción climática, (b) orientados al aprendizaje social y la co-creación, (c) orientados a la integración y (d) orientados a la transformación. Recomendamos poner en práctica vías de desarrollo resilientes al clima como el proceso de consolidación de la acción climática y las decisiones de desarrollo hacia el desarrollo sostenible a largo plazo. Este proceso requiere un compromiso explícito con las aspiraciones de los actores y conectar los desarrollos pasados con las aspiraciones y entendimientos futuros de riesgo. Trabajar con múltiples vías nos permite integrar la flexibilidad, la anticipación y el aprendizaje en la planificación. Se necesita un mayor enfoque en los temas relacionados con la justicia y la equidad, ya que las vías de desarrollo resilientes al clima inevitablemente implicarán compensaciones. Sustentar el concepto de vías de desarrollo resilientes al clima tiene el potencial de unir las perspectivas climáticas y de desarrollo, que de otro modo podrían permanecer separadas en la política, la práctica y la ciencia climáticas y de desarrollo. Development processes and action on climate change are closely interlinked.This is recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fifth assessment report, which reports on climate-resilient pathways, understood as development trajectories towards sustainable development which include adaptation and mitigation.The upcoming sixth assessment report dedicates a chapter to climate resilient development pathways.In this context, this paper asks what conceptual and empirical advances on climate resilient development pathways were made since the fifth assessment report.Through a literature review, this paper analyses goals and approaches for climate resilient development pathways, and discusses what conceptual advances have and could still be made.We find little evidence of dedicated concept development.Rather, we observe conceptual ambiguity.Literature showed four non-exclusive clusters of approaches: (a) climate action oriented, (b) social-learning and co-creation oriented, (c) mainstreaming oriented and (d) transformation oriented.We recommend operationalising climate resilient development pathways as the process of consolidating climate action and development decisions towards long-term sustainable development.This process requires explicit engagement with aspirations of actors, and connecting past developments with future aspirations and understandings of risk.Working with multiple pathways allows us to embed flexibility, anticipation and learning in planning.A greater focus is needed on issues linked to justice and equity as climate resilient development pathways will inevitably involve trade-offs.Substantiating the concept of climate resilient development pathways has the potential to bridge climate and development perspectives, which may otherwise remain separated in development and climate policy, practice and science. ترتبط عمليات التنمية والإجراءات المتعلقة بتغير المناخ ارتباطًا وثيقًا. هذا معترف به من قبل الفريق الحكومي الدولي المعني بتغير المناخ (IPCC) في تقريره التقييمي الخامس، الذي يقدم تقارير عن مسارات القدرة على التكيف مع المناخ، والتي تُفهم على أنها مسارات التنمية نحو التنمية المستدامة التي تشمل التكيف والتخفيف. يخصص تقرير التقييم السادس القادم فصلًا لمسارات التنمية القادرة على التكيف مع المناخ. في هذا السياق، تسأل هذه الورقة عن التقدم المفاهيمي والتجريبي الذي تم إحرازه في مسارات التنمية القادرة على التكيف مع المناخ منذ تقرير التقييم الخامس. من خلال مراجعة الأدبيات، تحلل هذه الورقة الأهداف والنهج الخاصة بالتنمية القادرة على التكيف مع المناخ المسارات، ويناقش التقدم المفاهيمي الذي يمكن إحرازه. نجد القليل من الأدلة على تطوير مفهوم مخصص. بدلاً من ذلك، نلاحظ الغموض المفاهيمي. أظهرت الأدبيات أربع مجموعات غير حصرية من النهج: (أ) موجهة نحو العمل المناخي، (ب) موجهة نحو التعلم الاجتماعي والإبداع المشترك، (ج) موجهة نحو التعميم و (د) موجهة نحو التحول. نوصي بتفعيل مسارات التنمية المرنة للمناخ كعملية لتوحيد العمل المناخي وقرارات التنمية نحو التنمية المستدامة طويلة الأجل. تتطلب هذه العملية مشاركة صريحة مع تطلعات الجهات الفاعلة، وربط التطورات السابقة بالتطلعات والتفاهمات المستقبلية من المخاطر. يسمح لنا العمل مع مسارات متعددة بتضمين المرونة والتوقع والتعلم في التخطيط. هناك حاجة إلى مزيد من التركيز على القضايا المرتبطة بالعدالة والإنصاف لأن مسارات التنمية المرنة للمناخ ستشمل حتماً المقايضات. إن دعم مفهوم مسارات التنمية المرنة للمناخ لديه القدرة على سد آفاق المناخ والتنمية، والتي قد تظل منفصلة في سياسة التنمية والمناخ والممارسة والعلوم.

An emerging planning framework for climate adaptation focuses on interactions among societal values, institutional rules and scientific and experiential knowledge about biophysical impacts of climate change and adaptation options. These interactions shape the decision context that can enable or constrain effective adaptation. To illustrate the operationalisation of this ‘values-rules-knowledge’ (VRK) framework we developed biophysical adaptation pathways for agricultural landscapes of south-eastern Australia, which are expected to become warmer and drier under climate change. We used the VRK framework to identify potential constraints to implementing the pathways. Drawing on expert knowledge, published literature, biodiversity modelling and stakeholder workshops we identified potential adaptation pathways for (1) the production matrix, (2) high conservation value remnant eucalypt woodlands, and (3) woodland trees. Adaptation options included shifts from mixed cropping-grazing to rangeland grazing or biomass enterprises; promoting re-assembly of native ecological communities; and maintaining ecosystem services and habitat that trees provide. Across all pathways, applying the VRK framework elucidated fifteen key implementation constraints, including limits to farm viability, decreasing effectiveness of environmental legislation and conflicting values about exotic plants. Most of the constraints involved interactions among VRK; 13 involved rules, eight involved values, and seven involved knowledge. Value constraints appeared most difficult to address, whereas those based on rules or knowledge were more tangible. The lower number of knowledge constraints may reflect the scale of our analysis (which focused on decision points in pre-defined pathways); new knowledge and participatory approaches would likely yield a richer set of scenarios. We conclude that the VRK framework helps connect the biophysical knowledge-based view of adaptation with a perspective on the need for changes in social systems, enabling targeting of constraints to adaptation. Our focus on pathways and decision points in different sectors of the multi-use landscape highlighted the importance of group and higher level planning and policy for balancing the collective outcomes of multiple decisions by many land managers.