Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts

Democracy enough to handle ecological crisis?

Pagoda Japan. Source: WaSZI CCO Creative Commons

How to handle a crisis of overexploitation


Throughout history, agricultural societies have had to struggle with the balance between population growth and maintaining sufficient resources to support themselves. Some failed to manage their resource base sustainably which lead to collapse or disbanding while others took measures to ensure more sustainable use of their lands and persisted. 

In modern times we all assume that democracy is a better option than authoritarian forms of government. Of course no one likes the idea of abuse of power and state violence that usually comes along with such forms of government. But are democracies inherently superior to authoritarian regimes in dealing with crises such as resource depletion? 

To adapt to/or manage scarcity governments may have to do some unpopular things like restricting consumption, manage usage rights of natural resources and punish offenders. Can leaders find support for such policies through elections? Its very much an open question. Small communities have been known to manage pasture lands in a democratic manner more sustainably. But today's societies are huge in comparison. 

Let's look at a historical case in which the Japanese, that had relatively large cities in terms of number even back during feudal times, managed to establish more sustainable forest management through both top-down and bottom-up practices.


Forest Management in Feudal Japan

Ecological crisis


Japan had a serious deforestation problem 300 years ago as a consequence of a growing population and unsustainable forest use. Forests were overexploited by logging mainly for timber and fuelwood. By 1570 Japan's population had reached 10 million people and needs for forest products had increased correspondingly. With the advent of the Tokugawa shogunate and peace, followed by rapid growth of cities and construction of castles, temples and shrines, logging increased during the 1600s to a scale never before experienced in Japan. Conflict between villagers and rulers over the use of forest lands became intense. By 1670 the population had increased to nearly 30 million and all the old growth forest had been completely logged, except for in Hokkaido. The supply of timber and other forest products was running out. Soil erosion, floods, landslides and barren lands were becoming common. Japan was headed for ecological disaster. 


Feudal lords take action


There were three principal types of forest land tenure during the Tokugawa period (1603-1867). Feudal lords tenure, communal tenure and individual tenure. Individual tenure failed to develop because individual land ownership was prohibited in principle by the Tokugawa Shogunate. Therefore, almost all Japanese forest land tenure was either the feudal lords tenure or communal. 

Access to the forest owned by feudal lords was strictly limited and those who logged illegally were severely punished. A typical example of forest owned and managed by a feudal lord was the Kiso area that was owned and managed by a relative of the Shogun.

The two major cities Edo and Osaka and forest management places like Kiso. Source: Iwamoto (2002)



Before the Tokugawa period, Kiso was covered with thick forest but by the late 17th century iso forest resource had deteriorated greatly. The feudal lord therefore carried out the first reform in 1665, instituting seedling protection, strengthening of patrols and selective cutting. The reform reduced timber production by half and cut the feudal lords income severely. Only a few years later the lord ordered an increase in timber production for financial reasons. Even though the reform first failed the second reform was planned in 1724. In this reform, timber production was reduced by more than 60% and this time it succeeded, carrying on for 30 years and thus allowing the forest to recover. 


Common lands


During the Tokugawa period most Japanese people made their living by agriculture, managing uncultivated mountainous common lands surrounding their villages. Common forest lands provided a wide variety of ecosystem services such as timber, fuelwood, fertilizer, feed, clean water, erosion control etc. In the late 17th century, intensive forestry with artificial planting was begun by members (farmers) of the commons in response to increasing demand for wood. People planted valuable conifers such as sugi and hinoki and developing new techniques for planting, thinning and pruning plantations necessary for high-quality timber. Wandering scholars wrote silviculture manuals and traveled around the country spreading the new technology from village to village. Forest management stimulated new social institutions for the ruling elite and villagers to cooperate on timber production in a way that provided villagers incentives to produce timber: yamawari (dividing use rights of common lands among families), nenkiyama (long term leases of forest lands to villagers by the rulers), and buwakibayashi (villagers producing timber on rulers land and sharing the harvest with the elites). Slowly but surely reforesting took place. 

Lessons from history


First of, action on the part of the ruling elite and villagers did not happen until forest resources were severely degraded and conflict arose between the two. New management practices were forced upon the population and breaking the rules meant severe punishment. Reforms sometimes failed due to financial interests and needs. Relying heavily on one sector for the majority of income was a bad strategy. A more diversified income probably helped later reforms to succeed. New forest management practices lead to the development of new social institutions that were more cooperative and respectful of usage rights. During hard times forests may have been overexploited but reforestation efforts during easier times helped prevent the worst of outcomes. The feudal lords were probably not very lenient towards villagers and ordinary people must have, at first, disliked the decision to cut back on timber production and being punished for logging in certain areas. However, they adapted to this new reality and started planting trees to meet the demand. Its a case of non-democratic rule that actually had a positive outcome in terms of more sustainable use of Japan's forests. Now, it should be mentioned that forests were again overexploitation during the second world war. And perhaps the previous reforms only succeeded due to times of peace. It also should be mentioned that after the war forests, both from common and lords lands, where taken up into public lands managed by the state. But it's still an interesting example to ponder. Perhaps a mix of both top-down and bottom-up rules is needed but to achieve successful management but its hard to imagine it happening without some amount of unpopular decision-making if the society is large.

Crisis as Opportunity

Storytelling drives change

Facts don't drive change

Facts are of course very important to making the right decisions in regards to environmental problems and potential solutions. But facts alone, don't engage people and drive change on a larger scale. For that to happen a wider cultural conversation is needed. Telling a story is a more effective way to send a complex message and start a dialogue. It goes through emotions and connects with logic, giving real examples of change.
Source: Story of stuff
Storytelling and adapting messages to specific target groups
Psychology plays an important role in how we humans view information and act based upon new facts. Environmental communication needs to understand this and focus on how to inspire people, rather than scare them. In this case, storytelling can be a successful way of communicating sustainability concerns and visions to the broader public or a specific target group. Communicating a coherent story is something many companies are good at but environmental organizations have only just begun using this strategy for outreach. Creative initiatives like the Story of Stuff have started to do this by helping to shift the conversation from the buying of more stuff to having less, but better, stuff. 

What makes a good story?

To help friends, colleagues and your community become more aware of environmental issues and sustainable development, use stories. The model suggested below can be applied as much to articles (e.g. blogs, newspapers) as to videos, podcasts, oral presentations or other media. Key ingredients for a good story include:
- It gets noticed!
- It tells a story of real people and/or real situations
- It gives a living example of the broader, more abstract message you wish to convey
- It expresses a single, main idea
- It adopts a tone (e.g. sad, happy, excited) to go with the issue
- It touches emotions by speaking to universal values (e.g. love, fear, bravery)
- It uses rational arguments, appealing to logic (e.g. using numbers and placing the issue within a broader context)

Nature is speaking

Another interesting example of attractive storytelling can be found in the project natureisspeaking.org by Conservation International (CI). In this collaboration between companies (Virgin, Radical media, hp etc.) and CI, famous actors and actresses take on the voices of different parts of nature such as the oceans, the soil, and the rainforests. With stunning images, nature sounds and famous narrators this campaign makes for a compelling story about the human-nature relationship and our dependence on nature. 
Source: Nature is speaking

Growth in what?

Redefining Capitalism?

More and more organisations are waking up to the fact that growth in GDP in itself is not a sufficient condition to make a country more prosperous. Something that many ecological economists have been saying for decades. Because many western countries economies are now contracting or struggling to simply stay put, while inequalities are growing, conventional economists are having to admit to capitalism's dark sides. In a recent article, on McKinsey's website, Beinhocker and Hauer (2014) confirms the faulty equilibrium model that neo-classicists have based their theory on. The economy is, as many non-conventional economists have argued, a complex, dynamic, open, and nonlinear system. Similar to that of an ecosystem. And moreover the economy is only a part of larger system. These insights have fundamental implications for how people think about the nature of capitalism and prosperity.

Different types of capital
It is not simply that the economy is a networked system of interacting agents with flows of resources and complex behavioural rules. The economy has to be further understood as  a subsystem of our societies and the biosphere. Meaning that there is not only one type of capital (financial) that matters to the prosperity of a community, city or nation. Social capital (e.g. trust, equality, transparency), natural capital (ecosystem services) and knowledge capital (education, research etc) are part of the overall wealth equation too. Without much natural capital the resource base for providing primary goods such as food, drinking water, fuel, clothes and homes is poor and makes societies less able to withstand shocks from natural variabilities (e.g. floods, droughts) and climate change. This in turn effects the overall economy as, for example, natural resources becomes more expensive - prices goes up and people won't afford to spend as much on secondary goods. In a society where there is little trust and transparency, transaction costs are high and investments low. Social capital is the glue which keeps a society together, that enables cooperation. Without it, a society becomes unstable and could lead to political turbulence. This is why inequality is such a major problem, also from an economics perspective. Research and eduction also greatly affects an economy's long-term success. Without knowledge capital there would be little innovation and few new industries or areas of expertise offering comparative advantage. 


Figure 1. Ecosystems sustain societies that create economies and generate knowledge
Source: Living Planet (2014)
Growth in what?
Now that we know that there are several aspects which are important to the overall wealth and stability of a nation, what is it that we want to grow? Achieving a prosperous society ought to entail keeping a balance between the different forms of capital so to ensure resilience of the overall economy. Moreover, by understanding that the economy is a complex adaptive system we can analyse its pathway from a different perspective. Once again making the economy to just a tool for achieving something larger than just GDP growth in and of itself. If you look at most societies, values and policies that rank as most important include: low unemployment, safety, free speech, fair wages and elections, education, health and equal opportunities to all spheres of social life. So what is it that we want more of, that should grow? Well, in many western societies we want to grow our social, natural and knowledge capital! And not the other way around, as we are doing now, degrading these forms of capital based on the misconception that it is the financial capital that makes for the wealth of a nation. 

References and reading tips:
Beinhocker, E. and Hanauer, N. (2014). Redefining capitalism. McKinsey Courterly.
Dean, B (2014). Greens face problem with economic ‘growth’ framing. Open Economy.
Jackson, Tim (2009). Prosperity without growth? - the transition to a sustainable economy. Sustainable Development Commission UK, Report.
WWF (2014). Living Planet Report.

Money and Sustainability

Understanding the monetary system

We live in world where systemic crisis seems to be ever more present, especially in the areas of ecology and finance. Understanding the instabilities in each system is important of course, but to have creative new ideas about potential solutions one also needs to understand the connections between different sectors. Since “finance rules the world” some basic facts and myths need to be understood by people wishing to see a more sustainable future society. This post will deal with the link between money (finance) and ecology (sustainability). 


Ecological creditors and debtors
Source: Footprint Network, 2011

What is money? how is it created? and who governs the money flow?

All economic textbooks defines money by what it does, not by what it is. Money is really just an agreement within a community to use something standardized as a medium of exchange. Most money, around 96%, is created through the checks and balances of banks when a new loan is made. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it typically credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created (Bank of England, 2014). This means that there is corresponding debt to the money in circulation, an important fact that most people seem to not understand of forget. The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the central bank. Central banks normally control this by setting out interest rates, but lately they also do it directly through purchasing assets (quantitative easing).

Systemic Monetary Instabilities
Since the 1970s, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have identified 145 banking crashes, 204 monetary collapses and 72 sovereign debt crises (Lietaer, 2012). This clearly points to structural instability in the financial system. Underlying this increased instability, building up over the last 30 years, is a regime change from productivity growth to consumptive growth fuelled by low interest rates, financial profits and explosive debt (Fig. 1). The result has been a succession of bubbles and crashes all leading up to the climax of 2008, which brought our financial system close to collapse (Fig. 2)


Fig. 1 Wages and  private consumption as % of GDP for the U.S., the EU and Japan.
debt increase due to lower wages and higher consumption
Fig. 2 The global bubble.
financial bubble 2008
Source: Sornette and Cauwels, 2012
Money and Sustainability
By now it should be obvious to most observers that there are many problems with our current monetary system, but how does it relate to sustainability? In the Club of Rome report Money and Sustainability the missing link (2012) Bernard Lietaer summarizes five elements that make the present monetary system incompatible with sustainability, including:
Global wealth inequality

- Amplifies boom and bust cycles
- Produces short-term thinking
- Requires unending growth
- Concentrates wealth
- Destroys social capital


The report is 200 pages long so I won’t go into all of the points above more than to give some short comments. For example, investment may be the single most important element of promoting a more "green" economy since it embodies the relationship between the present and the future. Today a large part of private investments are simply circling around in the financial system without contributing to any solid physical, social or environmental assets. Another large part of investments made by sovereign wealth funds and pension funds goes into fossil fuels and mineral extractions. But in order to avoid the worst scenarios of climate change massive investments are needed now. The international energy agency (IEA) said this June that the world needs 48 trillion dollar in investments just to meet 2035 energy needs. At the moment University students around the world are campaigning for divestment in fossil fuels and I think many people and small businesses around the world are desperately trying to find alternative financing due to the credit crunch.

Are there any alternatives?
To solve the systemic instabilities there are a couple of suggestions. Researchers at the IMF has suggested some form of the Chicago Plan, whereby money creation is moved from the hands of the banks to the state (Benes and Kumhof, 2012). This solution could perhaps go a long way but would not solve the issue of having a currency monopoly of bank-debt money (i.e. monetary collapses could still occur). Moreover, it seems unlikely that any government would adopt this type of policy since it requires a total restructuring of the financial system. Another suggestion is to promote complementary currencies as this could increase societal resilience to financial crisis and help match unmet needs with unused resources. With modern digital technology this would be perfectly feasible and would not require any major governmental intervention, only approval. The claim goes as follows. Monetary systems are a type of complex flow networks, and as such there needs to be a balance between optimization for efficiency and resilience (Fig. 3). A monopoly is very efficient but increases systemic risk over the long term. By increasing the diversity of currencies one could thus enhance resilience to systemic instabilities originating from bank-debt money creation. This is because complementary currencies behaves counter-cyclically with the mainstream economy.


Fig. 3 Today's monetary system is significantly overshooting the optimal balance for maintaining stability. 
Source: Lietaer, 2010
Examples of complementary currencies:
- Time banking: US community services, Japan elderly care, UK unemployment 
- WIR bank: business-to-business lending Switzerland
- SoNantes: promotes local business in France
- Torekes: community services in poor neighborhoods in the Netherlands 
- Bristol pound: promoting community businesses
- Tradecoin: business-to-business 
- Bitcoin: p2p global network
- E-portemonnee: promotes environmentally friendly behavior in Belgium 

Conclusion
There are many misconceptions about our current monetary system, for example that modern money is a neutral medium of exchange. And with such an awful track record we should at least start thinking about alternative ways of promoting mediums of exchange that does not only take into consideration maximization of profits, but also promotes societal beneficial activities such as education, elderly care, employment, energy efficiency, carbon reductions etc. With modern information technology, spread and use of complementary currencies is very feasible and to low costs. Complementary currencies could act as support systems, especially in times of crisis, enhancing system resilience. In cases where our current monetary system does not promote certain social behavior that would otherwise be beneficial to our communities, complementary currencies could act as enablers of such behavior. 

References:
Benes, J., and Kumhof, M. (2012). The Chicago Plan Revisited. IMF working paper 12/202
Lietear, B (2012). Money and Sustainability - the missing link. Club of Rome report. 
Sornette, D. and Cauwels, P (2012). The Illusion of the Perpetual Money Machine. arXiv:1212.2833 

Fishy Business

Aquaculture

Aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic plants. At the moment aquaculture is the fastest growing food sector in the world. From 1990 to 2010 cultivation of fish and shellfish in terrestrial and marine systems grew at an annual rate of 7.8% worldwide, a much higher rate than any other food commodity. Although there are many potential benefits to farming aquatic organisms such as increases in food and fuel supply there are also many potential drawbacks. In this post I will go through some of the latest scientific findings regarding the pros and cons of aquaculture from a global food security perspective.

Fig.1 Map over societies dependence (%) on fish for nutrition (2008)
Source: Mark Nowlin, Seattle Times (2013)

Aquaculture’s role in the global food system?

Fish is an important food commodity and more than 3 billion people obtain ⅕ of their animal protein from fish. Some societies are more dependent on fish as a source of nutrition than others (Fig. 1). In 2012 the global fish market was valued at 129 billion dollars. However, global wild fish catches peaked around 2002-2003 and is now at a plateau (Fig. 2a and b), thus, there is an sense of urgency in the scientific and public policy community to match the gap in food needed with sustainable options.The international community's interest in aquaculture has thus become ever more present. And business is booming, roughly half of the fish consumed worldwide now comes from aquaculture and its share is expected to increase in the future as wild fisheries exceed their sustainable limits (Troell et al. 2014). Freshwater fish comprise the majority of aquaculture production today. These fish are raised in ponds, lakes, canals, cages and benefit from a wide range of inputs, technology and management.

Common environmental problems                 

global fish catch peak
Fig. 2 A) Global Wild Fish Peak Catch
The most common environmental problems include pollution of marine ecosystems, destruction of coastal habitats, enhanced disease and parasite transmission between farmed and wild fish populations, introduction of invasive species, increased stress on freshwater resources, and overfishing of wild fish stocks to feed farm fish. The use of wild fish in feeds can also have food security implications for low-income households that depend on low-trophic level fish as a key source for nutrition.
world fisheries extraction
Fig.2 (b) World fish production (million tons) Source: World Resources Institute

Pros

- Provides year-round fish supplies and incomes
- Can provide ecosystem services remediation: habitat structure, relieving fishing pressure on wild fish stocks and rebuilding of wild populations

Cons

- Can severely degrade aquatic ecosystems
- Poses health risks to consumers
- Can cause diminishing food supply for low-income households that depend on smaller fish species

A risk perspective

Since there are both major benefits and risks to aquaculture one way to make a risk analysis is to use a portfolio approach. The basic idea is to invest in a suite of assets or activities that collectively has lower risk relative to that of any individual asset. This will yield trade-off options between risk and returns and the trick is to diversify the asset bundle. The degree of risk depends on correlations between assets’ returns. When applying this approach to the global food systems one could think of the targeted return as the aggregate output of food commodities needed to meet human demands. Risks, then, involve temporary and irreversible declines in productivity captured by the variation and trend in food production and prices. Furthermore, the degree of food price volatility is indicative of the global food system’s resilience (or robustness) against a wide range of stressors such as pests, extreme weather events, climate variability and other market shocks related to changes in the energy and financial sectors. A pattern of higher and more variable prices over time would then suggest deteriorating resilience of global food supplies whilst a pattern of stable prices would indicate a more robust and resilient food system.

Fig. 3 Shows relative fluctuations in price for different food sectors (1990-2013)
global food prices
Source: Troell et al. (2014)
In the price index (Fig. 3) we can see that cereal and oilseed prices have shown much stronger variation than prices for meat, aquaculture and capture fisheries. Lower volatility in fish and meat suggest higher substitution potential. Moreover, aquaculture prices have been less variable than other food commodities and thus appear to add some degree of stability to the global food system. The fact that prices in crops, livestock, and fish products move closely together indicates that the markets are highly integrated. Adding a robust aquaculture sector could improve the robustness of the world’s food system as long as it does not deplete resources or severely undermine the environment in which we produce food e.g. through pollution. 

Diversify, diversify, diversify

Today 95% of human calorie needs originate from crop species of which only four (rice, wheat, maize, and potatoes) make up around ⅔ of total needs. The meat sector is comprised of around 20 different animal species of which only a handful are dominant (cattle, poultry, swine and goat). Aquaculture on the other hand currently involve more than 600 different freshwater and marine animal species. However, there is a trend towards concentration similar to that of the crop and meat sectors. The cultivation of fish and shellfish is now dominated by 35 species that together account for 90% of total global production.

Conclusion

Sustainable development is always about tradeoffs. This case exemplifies one way of assessing the potential benefits and risks of a certain future development. This could help improve future planning and guidelines regarding aquaculture and ecosystem stewardship for industry and society at large. The present diversity of aquaculture systems contributes stability to the world's food system. However, if not well managed to minimize the environmental damages and social injustices, aquaculture is likely to make the global food system less resilient.