Resilience, Critical Transitions, and Integrated Risk Governance

1
Resilience, Critical Transitions, and Integrated
Risk Governance

• Guoyi Han
• Stockholm Environment Institute

International Workshop on Global Environmental
Change and Integrated Risk Governance 57 June
2007. Beijing, China
2
Rationale of the Talk

• China today is in the midst of multiple
  transitions
• From a traditional agrarian society to a
  industrial nation
• From rural to urban
• From a planning to a market based economy
• Along with it, the reform of the financial
  system, the social welfare system, education,
  medical care, etc, etc.
• Those transitions are critical for that,
  depending the paths chosen, they bring both
  opportunities and risks, and the results have
  profound implications for China as well as to the
  world in large. Managing the risk in transition
  is a central challenge, not only the risk
  management of each one of those transitions, but
  an integrated approach that has to deal with the
  intricate inter-linkages of the multiple
  transitions simultaneously.
• Even more so, when
• Those transitions happen in a stunning speed at a
  massive scale
• Those transitions happen in a world of global
  change and globalization
• The Resilience perspective offers new insights
  and approaches that are useful for addressing the
  integrated risk governance challenge.

3
Structure of the talk tripartite

• Start with a brief review of the development of
  the resilience research and the scholar networks
• Second part focuses on the key core concepts with
  the current resilience theory, and some examples
  as illustrations and research propositions and
• In third part of the talk, if time allows, to
  share a few thoughts on the resilience and
  disaster risk reduction
• Conclude with a few remarks and reflections on
  the implications of a resilience perspective for
  the governance of social ecological system as
  adaptive complex systems

4
PART I A brief history
5
The Concept

• Derived from latin word resilio, meaning to jump
  back
• Multiple usage from various disciplines
• Physics
• Psychology and Psychiatry
• Ecology engineering resilience vs. ecological
  reslience
• Holling 1973 Resilience and stability of
  ecological systems
• Resilience Alliance, since 1999
  www.resilience.org
• The Stockholm Resilience Center

6
Resilience of the SESs

• The capacity of linked social-ecological systems
  to absorb recurrent disturbances such as
  hurricanes or floods so as to retain essential
  structures, processes and feedbacks
• (Holling, 1973 Walker et al., 2004).
• the degree to which a complex adaptive system is
  capable of self-organisation and the degree to
  which the system can build capacity for learning
  and adaptation
• (Carpenter et al., 2004 Folke et al., 2002).
• The capacity of a system, community or society
  potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by
  resisting or changing in order to reach and
  maintain an acceptable level of functioning and
  structure This is determined by the degree to
  which the social system is capable of organising
  itself to increase this capacity for learning
  from past disasters for better future protection
  and to improve risk reduction measures.
• (UN/ISDR. 2004).

The amount of stress The degree of
self-organization and The capacity for learning
and adaptation.
7
Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptability

• There are all central concepts for understanding
  and coping with, and adapt to change and dealing
  with stresses.
• They however have a different focus or entry
  point in framing the research questions. In turn,
  it has different policy implications.
• RESILIENCE is more concerned with the state of
  being, therefore the key question for them is
  when the state will change regime shift,
  tipping points, feedback loops .
• VULNERABILITY is about the potential to be
  harmed so the central question is what if
  something happens (not limited to the state
  shift and who and where will be more affected
• ADAPATBILITY is central for building resilience
  and reducing vulnerability.

8
M. Janssen, et al. (2006), Scholarly networks on
resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within
the human dimensions of global environmental
change, Global Environmental Change 16(3)
240-252 
9
M. Janssen, et al. (2006), Scholarly networks on
resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within
the human dimensions of global environmental
change, Global Environmental Change 16(3)
240-252 
10
M. Janssen, et al. (2006), Scholarly networks on
resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within
the human dimensions of global environmental
change, Global Environmental Change 16(3)
240-252 
11
PART II Resilience Thinking
12
The Four Basic Tenets of Resilience Theory

• Social ecological systems
• Are self-organizing with centripetal dynamics
• Have multiple stability domains
• Change through four phases of an adaptive cycle
  and
• function at multiple scales with critical
  cross-scale (panarchy) effects

Source Brain Walker
13
Multiple Stable Domains
Scheffer, et al. 2001. Nature Vol. 413
14
The trajectories can be complicated
Degradation of resource base/system
Requires family
Requires international aid
Requires social network
Insurance mechanisms
15
Adaptive Cycle
The four stages r, K ?, a
The Backloop and forward loop
16
Adaptive Cycle
17
Panarchy
18
Regime shift and thresholds
Source Walker, B. and J. A. Meyers. 2004.
Ecology and Society 9(2) 3.
19
Multiple thresholds, feedback Dynamics
Source Kinzig, et al. 2006, Ecology and Society
11(1)20
20
Possible trajectories of a 2-variable system
through time. The positions of the dashed lines
on the axes represent critical threshold levels
Source Walker, B., S. Carpenter, and others.
2002. Conservation Ecology 6(1) 14.
21
Resilience Assessment/Management Scenario
Planning
A framework for the analysis of resilience in
social-ecological systems
Source Walker, B., S. Carpenter, and others.
2002. Conservation Ecology 6(1) 14.
22
Sources C. Folke, et al. 2002 Adger et al. 2005
23
Will YueYaQuan survive?
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
How to examine the YYQ problem proposition

• This project will start by compiling a history of
  the YYQ area and characterize the SES then map
  out the changes in the past 30 years, in order to
  examine whether, when, and what kind of
  thresholds has been passed, how the feed back
  loops have been altered as result, eventually to
  test whether a regime shift has happened at
  YYQ, which will lead to a new state where there
  will be no YYQ as we know it.
• Thresholds matrix cross-domain and cross-scale

27
The transportation example
28
The Challenge

• Beijing Experienced tenfold increase of private
  cars in the last 10 years, and widespread
  congestion
• Shanghai Experienced increases of private cars
  from 10k to 250k in 8 years and rising congestion
• Shenzhen Traffic accidents are a main cause of
  death, especially among the 20-40 age group
• Nationwide Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon from
  auto emissions account for nearly 80 of the
  total in urban areas.

(source Graham Smith, 2006 China Environment
Forum 2006)
29
The Costs

• Slow and congested transport system stifles the
  efficiency of the urban economy.
• Excessive conversion of farmland for urban
  development wastes scarce resources.
• Excessive investment in urban transport incurs
  heavy financial liabilities.
• Rising fuel consumption endangers the nations
  long-run energy security.
• Growing green house gas (GHG) emissions are
  increasingly an international concern.

30
Eroding the resilience

• No coherent urban transport strategy
• Piecemeal and ad hoc approach
• Heavy investment in road capacity
• Bicycle rights-of-way dismantled
• Pedestrian sidewalks and roadside trees
  eliminated
• Parking not managed

31
Proposition

• Lowering card prices Increasing income
• Private card ownership

Rapidly Increasing Middle Class
Pressure on car friendly urban transportation
infrastructure
Automobile dependent lock-in
32
PART 3 Resilience and Disaster Risk Reduction
in Coupled SESs
33
Refining and reshaping the disaster paradigm

• IDNDR, 1990s
• Yokohama Declaration, 1994
• UNISDR
• Rio (1992) Kyoto (1997)
• MDGs (2000)
• WSSD, Johannesburg 2002
• FAO, UNDP UN HABITAT
• IFRC, World Disaster Reports (since 1993)
• WB IADB
• WCDR 2005, Kobe The Hyogo Framework for Action
  2005-2010
• IDRC 2006 Davos

34
(No Transcript)
35
The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005 2015
The Yokohama Strategy adopted in 1994, was the
landmark in setting the path towards a Culture of
Prevention. Much was said and remain to be done,
so what are the new opportunities with the new
Hyogo Framework for Action that should guide us
in the decade to come??

• International acknowledgement that disaster risk
  reduction (DRR) is a matter of sustainable
  development development it must be seen as a
  integral part of development planning, livelihood
  security, resource management and environmental
  protection.
• There is trend and clear emphases of refocusing
  aid in making those linkages from both
  development and humanitarian agencies, which
  provides new opportunities for regional and
  international cooperation in disaster risk
  reduction.
• There are tremendous opportunities on linking DRR
  to other major international and national
  agendas, such as the Johannesburg Plan of Action,
  MDGs, climate change adaptation (example??),
  poverty reduction (e,g., PRSPs).
• The firm realization of the centrality of
  vulnerability analysis and resilience building in
  DRR from both communities of researcher and
  practitioners.
• The vulnerability and resilience focus demand a
  multi-hazard/stress approach

36
Key Elements of the Paradigm Shift in DRR
Call for integrated disaster management, living
with natural disasters, mainstreaming DRR
37
Factors Driving the Shift

• Worsening global impact of natural disasters
  impact globally - particularly uneven pattern
• Linkage between development and disaster has
  become increasingly clear
• Promise of the vulnerability and resilience
  concepts, which underlie the shift and allow it
  to be framed

38
Promises of the Vulnerability and Resilience
Concepts

• Coupled social and ecological system focus -
  focus on receiver unit rather than trigger event
• Multiple stresses/stressors - linkage between
  livelihood and disaster
• Spatial and temporal dynamics and cross-scale
  linkages
• To adapt rather than to Control from
  resilience thinking.
• Link to sustainable development

39
Beauty Is Also The Beast The Challenges Stem
Precisely from the Promises

• The conceptual advances represented by the
  vulnerability/resilience-based approach to DRR 
  has not been matched by an empirical/operational
  one. 
• Therefore, we are at a stage where we know the
  practices are inadequate, but we do not yet have
  the conceptual tools, political will, and
  methodologies to meaningfully implement new
  approaches

40
Linking Resilience to DRR

• The four phases of transition and four stages of
  the disaster risk management
• Pre-disaster
• During
• Immediate relief
• Long term reconstruction/recovery
• Resilience shifts the focus from perturbation to
  the system. It is a desired property of the
  system in most cases.
• The feed back dynamics is the key. As the
  feedback changes, the resilience of the system
  will change

41
A very simplified example floodplain land use
and flood risk management
42
Conceptual/Operational Divide

• Lack of adequate analytical tools
• Missing the linkages between the core concepts
• Policy penetration is still limited
• The enabling institutional structure is not there

43
Building Social-ecological Resilience

• Rather than rigid command and control
  approaches to development and natural resources
  management resilience thinking places greater
  emphasis on
• Flexibility
• Adaptation
• Diversity
• Connectedness
• Improving social resilience involves
• Good governance
• Social learning
• Adaptive capacity
• Social equity

44
Implications of Resilience Perspective

• Today the world is a novel and turbulent
  place. Resilience perspective provides a new
  framework for analyzing socialecological systems
  in a changing world facing many uncertainties and
  challenges.
• In well-understood stable situations our
  expectations about the future are often correct,
  however in more turbulent times expectations will
  frequently be proved wrong.  We need better tools
  for thinking about the future in turbulent
  times. 
• Resilience perspective requires that emphasis be
  focused on coping with disasters rather than
  promising on control or avoid their underlying
  physical forces.
• It is not the maximum yield it is where the
  thresholds are.

45
Reflections

• China building resilience to avoid the lock-in
  risks that present a major research challenge
  for the integrated risk governance for the social
  ecological systems that are in rapid transition,
  such as China today.
• In the past couple of years, particularly since
  the 11th FYP, we have noticed the shift of
  perspectives ( at least a call for shift) by the
  Chinese government.
• From Fast and Good to Good and Fast