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
risk management
informing the public
management practices
? 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
sciencepolicy 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