Pre-emptive action and precaution in response to emerging threats

Sustainable pathways generally entail addressing risks well before system-specific proof of impact has been established.

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019 Evidence

The scenario and pathway studies consulted involve a timely response to a variety of risks facing biodiversity and ecosystem services, either explicitly or implicitly. While scenarios do not generally detail the process of scientific study or the demonstration of proof, based on the long time lag between scientific focus on a phenomenon and consensus about causality (let alone proof; Oreskes, 2004), we can infer that most scenarios entail managing risky activities before establishment of proof that those activities cause particular harms. Furthermore, backcasting studies sometimes indicate that certain interventions require early implementation (Brunner et al., 2016).

The need for early, precautionary action is also supported by arguments from theory, supported by a wide range of associated evidence. Many important challenges facing nature and its contributions to people involve several key complications of complex adaptive systems

(numerous time-lags in social and ecological subsystems, multi-causality that impedes proof, and non-linear responses that may appear slow until a threshold is passed, after which reversal may be impossible or impracticable; for more, see 5.4.2.4). These complications mean that empirical demonstration of system-specific cause-and-effect relationships is difficult (sometimes

impossible), that it may take a long time, and that major and near-irreversible harms may have occurred before proof is established (e.g., Burgess et al., 2013).

The various components of this argument from theory have considerable empirical backing.

First, there is abundant evidence of time lags between ecological degradation and their societal consequences (e.g., Jackson et al., 2001). This is exacerbated by interacting regime shifts at multiple scales (Leadley et al., 2014). Second, ample evidence demonstrates that many changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services are the result of simultaneous action of diverse processes operating at multiple scales, which would impede the demonstration of any one factor as the cause of a given decline (e.g., Levin et al., 1992; Schindler et al., 2003; Marmorek et al., 2011;

Graham et al., 2013). Third, many systems exhibit thresholds (e.g., Folke et al. 2004; Hastings &

Wysham, 2010) combined with path-dependency (hysteresis, e.g., Hughes et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2015), which are difficult to reverse (Walker & Meyers, 2004) and the difficulty reducing stressors sufficiently to encourage reversal (Graham et al., 2013).

This drawback of reactive management is particularly relevant for managing effects on “slow”

system variables (variables that historically would generally have changed slowly, on

evolutionary timescales), such as habitat availability. Such “slow” variables are often secondary concerns for stakeholders and managers more concerned with “fast” variables, such as annual fishery productivity, except where the habitat itself is widely appreciated (e.g., coral reefs—

Pratchett et al., 2014). However, should a slow variable pass a threshold, the system may shift rapidly to an alternate state, thus changing the dynamics of fast variables (Walker et al., 2012). In such situations, even if the slow variable is restored to its previous level, the fast variables may be unable to return to their previous configurations due to the effects of path dependency.

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

The management of risks to slow variables is a key aspect of governing for resilience (Folke et al., 2004; see also 5.4.2.4). However, as indicated above, it can be very costly if management waits for system change before acting to identify and manage risks. Due to their generally slower rates of change and susceptibility to threshold effects, slow variables in particular may often require precautionary approaches. This is the rationale for this specific lever as an issue that is separate but complementary to both integrated management (5.4.2.2) and management for resilience, adaptation, and transformation (5.4.2.4).

Possible points of action

Based on the above, it would appear that management, policies, and laws that place a strong burden of proof for the establishment of harm before requiring action are not conducive to long-term sustainability. Accordingly, a precautionary approach can be embedded in resource

management and a diverse set of environmental policies and laws (e.g., Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of CHemicals (REACH) regulations). This point is pertinent to a wide range of actors including private industry (e.g., forestry, agriculture, resource users of all kinds), NGOs (e.g., land trusts), IPLCs, and governments of all kinds. However, precautionary approaches will be much more likely when encouraged or required by underlying regulations and influential private and NGO actors (e.g., insurance and reinsurance companies, companies

exerting control over value chains, investors, lenders, certification systems and other standards).

Precautionary approaches have been subject of much debate (Stirling, 2007), but they have become accepted aspects of management in some respects. A precautionary approach is one of the principles of the UN’s voluntary Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, for example, and thus has become established as a commonly invoked tenet of fisheries management. In the Alaska groundfish fisheries, for example, precaution has been integrated into the process by which allowable catches are determined, with estimates of maximum yield serving as a limit to be avoided rather than a target to be achieved; allowable catches are reduced from this limit following a series of steps that buffer against uncertainty, requiring greater reductions in catches in situations of less information (Witherell et al., 2000).

A key precautionary mechanism is the maintenance of diversity. For instance, genetic diversity within and among species contributes substantially to ecosystem services – just as a diversity of species do. Genetic diversity within species maintains the potential for them to respond

adaptively to environmental changes, thus facilitating and improving persistence in the face of environmental change. Diversity also maintains options for the future (NCP18).

The precautionary approach was not necessarily formulated to address issues of complex adaptive system management. However, it does provide a framework for the management of risks and uncertainty associated with complex social-ecological systems (Levin et al., 2013), and thus represents an existing policy lever by which the challenges of complex adaptive system management may be addressed. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment may be useful for identifying appropriate early and pre-emptive actions (Levin & Möllmann, 2015), via a formal synthesis and

Unedited Draft Chapter 31 May 2019

quantitative analysis of relevant natural and socioeconomic factors in relation to specified ecosystem management objectives. Regardless, it is particularly important to avoid inaction (DeFries and Nagendra, 2017).