Cherishing ecosystem services: problem framing and problem closure as analytic devices

1. Cherishing ecosystem services: problem framing and problem closure as analytic devices

2. The problematique of the talk: The link between problem definition and policy as regards a complex environmental issue Problem closure Policy closure – framing To build up adequate governance procedures, we need to establish a congruence between problem closure and policy closure

3. To work further, we need appropriate methodological concepts • 1) closure • 2) problem space • 3) problem framing • 4) contrast space

4. 1) CLOSURE – a normative goal: the dimensions of the problem have to be fixed in such a way that the problem and its potential solution in actual practice can be identified using the same criteria. In other words, all the elements needed for solving the problem are included in the formulation of the problem. Closure is equally important in science and in politics. A simple example in science: testing the toxicity of a particular type of substances in the laboratory (research practice). A simple example in politics: a well-established regulatory system that has public legitimacy and is supported with management routines and sanctions; e.g., waste management (policy practice).

5. Analogue model: the Baltic Sea. The Baltic is a complex ecosystem that offers a whole range of various types of services I draw upon three articles published in the Finnish journal Vesitalous (“Finnish journal for professionals in the water sector.”) The articles summarize results of a three-year research program on the environmental problems of the Baltic Sea, on: (A) preservation of biodiversity, (B) threats posed by toxins, (C) eutrophication. In the following, I describe what sort of specific problems are identified in the papers

6. Biodiversity (A1) Introduced species: about 60-70 altogether; economic loss: the barnacle. (A2) The American mink (Mustela vison) is particularly harmful – a removal experiment. (A3) Eutrophication  a change in littoral algal communities – reduced transparency of water is a ‘forcing function’. (A4) Grazing by molluscs and crustaceans may counteract the impoverishment of algal communities in the littoral – experimental evidence.

7. Toxic substances (i) (B1) Organohalogens end up in the Baltic from multiple sources: incineration of various types; industrial effluents; polluted sediments and soils; and garbage dumps. (B2) Dioxin in fish is a health risk to humans. (B3) As a possible method to mitigate the health risk  intensified fishing? – However, simulation: the risk size would increase from 17 to 17,5 cm. (B4) A side theme: farmed fish fed with industrial fodder is safe for humans to eat.

8. Toxic substances (ii)‏ (B5) The risk of a major oil catastrophe increases. (B6) Purposeful oil spills. (B7) Experimental research on the toxic effects of oil. (B8) Oil cleaning; cotton grass fiber, a side product of peat excavation, is a good, non-toxic oil absorbent. (B9) Several endangered species – sea birds, plants and insects – are vulnerable to coastal oil pollution. (B10) Improving the control of environmental risks: increase of knowledge, more stringent regulations and control, and new technologies.

9. Eutrophication (i)‏ (C1) External nutrient load from rivers  eutrophication of coastal waters; shallow lakes are major sources of nutrients. (C2) Biomanipulation has proved in some cases an efficient means of reducing the nutrient load. (C3) Point source pollution, particularly from St. Petersburg, is a serious problem.

10. Eutrophication (ii)‏ (C4) Phosphorus compounds accumulated in the bottom sediments show complicated dynamics; there are complex interactions between external and internal load. (C5) Nitrogen is the limiting nutrient of algal growth in the main basin of the Baltic; exhaust fumes from car traffic, via aerial transportation, form an important source of nitrogen pollution. (C6) Ecosystem models are an essential tool. (C7) Changing land-use in the catchment area of the Baltic is unpredictable.

11. 2) PROBLEM SPACE: A problem space is an analogy of a physical phase space; this analogy draws upon Alan Garfinkel (1981) and Chuck Dyke (1988). The aim of a physical phase space is to give a representation of the possible ways of change (“trajectory”) of a particular physical system. Analogously, we can think of a problem space as a summarizing description of the possible types of variation that can be found among problems of the type that are of interest.

12. The Baltic: All the topics are specified by three questions: • What, precisely, is threatened/ damaged? (‘target’); • Where does the threat/ damage originate from? (‘source’); • What can be done about the threat/ damage? (‘mitigation’).  a first approximation of the dimensions of the problem space

13. Dimensions of the problem space (or spaces??)‏ target impoverishment of ecological communities harmful ecosystem effects systemic damage to human use specific economic cost human heath hazard threat to specific species source leakage form industrial processes purposeful human acts inadvertent human acts increasing transportation multiple-source stress uncontrolled development mitigation administrative regulation and control innovation in research methods new technologies informing the public management practices risk management  increasing generality 

14. How to assess the congruence between science and policy? 3) FRAMING = figuring out first, what is the factual background of the problem second, what is the context in which a particular problem is meaningful (significant); third, specifying what kind of contrasting/ deviating meaning-systems lay behind political controversies concerning the problem at hand

15. Framing & closure: Policy argument (or ”claims making”)‏ CLOSURE: Nothing new shows up during the policy process ”Warrants” Framing: explicating preconditions of a particular policy toward solving the problem Defining a problem Conclusions: policy & implementation

16. More complicated policy argument What kind of warrants? - Type and quality of expert knowledge - Technical expertise - Realistic policy options: functional success - Societal vindication: public consent - ”Ideological” acceptability The FRAMING of the problem connects different types of warrants together Policy & implementation FRAMING of the problem Problem Closure?? NOVELTIES happen: in practice, closure is assessed iteratively

17. Simple examples of congruence vs. incongruence of science—policy closure : Exhaust fumes of cars: Research routines: laboratory tests in a stable setting Policy target well-defined: fuel delivery & traffic code Leakage of nutrients from fields into waterways: Research: a multidimensional setting with considerable local variation (soil type, drainage, etc.)‏ Policy target ill-defined: cultivation practices, land use, agricultural expertise etc.

18. The leakage case: Warrants: (1) Establish leakage as a fact (2) Sort out local variation (3) Come up with alternatives in cultivation practices (4) Deal with the sectoral corporatism in agriculture (5) Get the farming community to comply Conclusions: (a) policy: top-down?? bottom up?? (b)implementation – problems all through: norms  specialized knowledge management routines public consent Eutrophication: the role of fertilizers?

19. The meaning of problem space is intuitively pretty clear; but identifying the dimensions is tricky. My basic supposition is that this is fundamentally an empirical question – problems always have their origin in real life situations, i.e., problems are located in what could be called praxical space (vs. conceptual space)  we need to look at what is done in practice. Nutrients: (i) knowledge & expertise (ii) management routines (iii) public consent

20. What about interactions between the axes? knowledge & expertise management routines • Available policy options? • - • - •  CONDITIONS OF STABILITY of a particular policy option?? public consent

21. For assessing the conditions of stability of a particular policy option, an additional conceptual resource: 4) CONTRAST SPACE (Garfinkel 1981): it defines the relevant mutually contrasting alternatives which define criteria for assessing success vs. failure. Eutrophication: 'target' relatively precise 'source' relative importance?? 'mitigation' process: involvement & learning ASSESSMENT at the end point (the Baltic) vs. at the source (which one of the sources??)‏

22. We have to elaborate further the praxical aspects of the problem space; we have got to pecify what can actually be done: • technical feasibility (practices)‏ • administrative routines (policy learning)‏ • International agreements (the Baltic: HELCOM)‏ • -public involvement and consent – but WHO MAKE UP RELEVANT PUBLICS?

23. The publics (in the plurals)‏ Stakeholder public: direct interests Public engaged in management: joint action Concerned public: activism The potential shaping of publics constitute critical interactions shaping the problem space General public: climate of opinion

24. Provisioning services • foods (including seafood and game) and spices • precursors to pharmaceutical and industrial products • energy (hydropower, biomass fuels)‏ Regulating services • carbon sequestration and climate regulation • waste decomposition and detoxification • nutrient dispersal and cycling Supporting services • purification of water and air • crop pollination and seed dispersal • pest and disease control Cultural services • cultural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration • recreational experiences (including ecotourism)‏ • scientific discovery Preserving services • genetic and species diversity for future use • accounting for uncertainty • protection of options