Linking Scales of Regulation to Scales of Environmental Change Processes

ByTim McDaniels and Hadi Dowlatabadi

UBC, CMU, CISHDGC

Acknowledgements Thanks to the CISHDGC, supported by the

NSF Thanks to the Centers of Excellence in

Aquaculture Research supported by the Canadian SSHRC and NSERC

Thanks to Sara Stevens, Holly Longstaff, Patricia Keen, Daniel Galland and Kira Gerwing

Basic Message There are scales within regulatory structures for

global change issues, as well as scales in many other dimensions (e.g., space, time, trophic levels, etc)

Effective regulation requires matching scales of regulation to the nature and scales of institutional decisions required for that issue

Mismatches and gaps in scales of regulation can be an underlying of source of conflict or regulatory failure

Outline Multiple Scales in Regulatory Contexts

Aquaculture as a global change process

Salmon Aquaculture in British Columbia : multiple scales and gaps

Implications for linking regulation to scales

Multiple Scales In Global Change Many writers have stressed the importance of

scale in understanding global change issues Concerns for scales range from biological to

human systems, from patterns of leaves to patterns of landscapes, and from local to global levels

Example: Rotmans and Rothman (eds.) 2003

Cash and Moser, 2000: typology of regulatory problems across scales

Problems of Institutional fit Mismatch in scale at which institutions enact regulation and

the scale of environmental problem

Problems of Scale Discordance Mismatch between scale of assessment and scale at which

information is needed for regulation

Problems of Cross-Scale dynamics Regulation proceeds at one scale but problem operates

across many scales

Gaps, but no regulatory framework? There seems to be little writing on the nature

of or ideals for regulatory structures in problems with multiple scales

Some related concepts (federalism, instrument choice) but these do not directly address notions of regulatory tasks in problems with multiple scales

Thoughts on a definition A cross-scale regulatory problem arises when

the impacts of an activity extend beyond the boundaries of initial institutional control for the activity

Hence any externality as defined by economists is a cross-scale problem. The impacts of a transaction extend beyond the parties to the transaction (the market as the institution)

Simple example Emissions from one power plant have

regional impacts and so require regulation beyond the local or plant level

Emissions from all the power plants in a region have impacts on national and international air quality and so require even broader levels of regulation

Scale Problems Everywhere With this definition, scale problems arise in all

kinds of situations (levels and kinds of urban development, siting facilities, fisheries, technology standards, reliability, global change, air, water etc)

What is the nature of regulation across scales for these contexts?

Flows Across Scale Levels From broader to narrower (e.g., regional to

local) Constraints on activities (bounds of operation) to

address the broader level implications of local activities

From narrower to broader (e.g., local to regional) The acceptability and desirability of the bounds of

operation, as seen from the narrower level

Information needed across scales Flows in both directions (up and down)

Values of the interested parties (what is important, their views on tradeoffs)

Alternatives and their impacts Wise, justifiable choices more acceptable

A sense of trust in the process, belief in fairness, needed for acceptance when constraints hurt

Hence effective regulation across scales requires understanding of values, technical information and good decision process

Figure 1. Flows of Constraints, Feedback and Information in Regulatory Structures for Issues with Multiple Scales

INFORMATION

Broader Values and Alternatives

Broader Scale

Narrower Scale

FEEDBACK

Narrower Values and Alternatives

CONSTRAINTS

Constraints on Activities to Operate within Broader Scale

Limits and Goals

Acceptability of Constraints on Activities to Meet Broader

Scale Limits and Goals

Possible Implications When some elements are missing, at one or

more scales, cross-scale problems can arise in regulation

The wider the range of scales, the greater potential for gaps or mismatches

Diagnose gaps and mismatches with an eye to prescriptions for improvement

Aquaculture as global change Earth’s land surface was transformed by

emergence of agriculture

Remote coastlines following this same pattern, only faster Decline of wild fisheries Growth in aquaculture based on property rights

Aquaculture as global change Doubling in volume and value from 1987-97

(Nature, 2000, Naylor et al) Diverse kinds and effects of aquaculture

Herbivores versus carnivores shellfish versus finfish

Substantial ecological implications Farming up the food chain Disease spread, introduced species Substantial habitat loss Major social, cultural, economic implications

Salmon Aquaculture Salmon aquaculture: phenomenal growth in

Norway, Scotland, BC, Chile, NZ Dominated by five multinational corporations

(capital, knowledge, markets, technology) Impacts focused on remote coastlines, small

(Native) communities Major controversies over environmental (fish

disease, escapes, effects on shellfish) and social impacts (effects on neighbors, communities), food and economic benefits

Salmon Aquaculture in BC Remarkable growth since 1985 (large areas

of seascape on Canada’s west coast are altered)

Substantial environmental, social and economic impacts

Multiple scales are apparent, and a good way to examine complexity in the industry

B.C. Salmonid Aquaculture Production (1984-2001)*

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Tonnes

Year

Coho (silver) salmon

Chinook (King) salmon

Atlantic salmon

*Source: FAO Statistical Database

Typical BC Fish Farm Site (1)

Typical BC Fish Farm Site (2)

Policy Decisions At Each Scale International scale

What role should salmon aquaculture play in worldwide food production?

National scale What role should salmon aquaculture play in Canada?

Regional Scale What is the best scale and type of salmon

aquaculture? Local Scale

Where should salmon farms be sited?

Policies in place International: fits within trade, food

agreements National: highly encouraged, if

sustainable Provincial: highly encouraged Local: ranges from despised to tolerated

BC Regulatory Mismatches Site-by-site regulation is focus through

permitting (federal and provincial agencies) Cumulative (regional) impacts are profound

Potential for disease spread (sea lice) to wild stocks, escapes (colonizing) all regional

Siting and permits supposed to address cumulative impacts, but have no basis or method

Enormous frustration, direct action against siting farms, particularly in Native communities

Local to regional conflicts Province, Feds regulate the environmental

aspects of aquaculture Local government has control of land use In last two years, three farms with all

provincial and federal permits in place, turned down at the local level due to concerns over environmental impacts

Cause of great dismay among fish farm investors and regulators in senior governments

Diagnosis lack of real attention to cumulative impacts

leads to a major regulatory gap An underlying source of controversy and

frustration because key issues are unaddressed

Local governments try to take up cumulative impacts although beyond their expertise

Problems of institutional fit, scale discordance, cross-scale dynamics all evident

4.) Implications Regulatory gaps at multiple scales are a

subtle yet important source of failure to address global change

Concepts of the nature of and ideals for regulation across scales is a start to understand these gaps

The gaps may be greatest at the global level nations advocate strongly for their economic and

sovereignty interests, with few looking out for global well-being

Adding to the typology of regulatory gaps A competence gap:

the higher level is not able to understand or make use of lower level values, its own values, the alternatives and the impacts in setting constraints on lower level operations (e.g., lack of attention to cumulative impacts)

A legitimacy gap: the higher level is not seen as legitimate or fair in

setting lower level constraints on operations (e.g., Native protests, local refusals)

The distance across the scales A suggestion:

A wider distance between the scale at which driving forces lead to change, and the scale at which impacts are manifest, leads to greater potential for regulatory gaps

Worldwide Salmonid Aquaculture Production (1986-2001)*

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Tonnes

1986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Rainbow Trout

Coho

Chinook

Atlantic salmon

*Source: FAO Statistical Database

Worldwide Salmonid Capture (1950-2001)*

*Source: FAO Statistical Database

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Tonnes

1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998

Year

Table 2. Summary of Government Regulatory Responsibilities for Salmon Aquaculture in B.C.

Level of Government Regulatory Body Regulatory Responsibilities

Department of Fisheries and OceansProtection of fish and fish habitats.Maintain navigation safety.Regulate transfer of fish and eggs.

Health CanadaRegulate the use of pesticides anddrugs.

Canadian Environmental Assessment AgencyResponsible for environmentalassessments of aquacultureproposals.

Agriculture and Agri-Foods CanadaRegulate the handling, holding,transport, and processing of fish forinterprovincial trade or export.

Responsible for environmentalassessments of aquacultureproposals.

Federal Government

Agriculture and Agri-Foods CanadaRegulate the handling, holding,transport, and processing of fish forinterprovincial trade or export.

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Issue and monitor salmonaquaculture operating licences.Monitor ongoing aquacultureoperations.

Land and Water British Columbia Inc.Allocate and administer tenure ofCrown lands.

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management

Protect the heritage value of objectsand land in BC.Maintain coastal resourceinventories.

Provincial Government

Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Regulate waste management.Local Government Local or regional governments Regulate local land use via zoning.

Our various papers/theses Multiple scales and regulatory mismatches

(Sara Stevens) Linking objectives and performance measures

(Holly Longstaff) Risk ranking among experts (Patricia) Evolution of siting criteria (Daniel Galland) First Nations values and indicators (Kira

Gerwing) Risk Communication experiment about GM fish

food for salmon aquaculture (Holly again)

Additional Purpose Report to and thank NSF for our support

through the CISHDGC at CMU Results from one of several products

from one of four projects from last year Leveraged support of $80K (Cdn) from

Canada Centers of Excellence in Aquaculture (SSHRC and NSERC)

Purpose Use our research as a basis for

exploring implications of regulatory approaches

Examine concepts regarding regulatory gaps and mismatches across scales

Illustrate with examples from salmon aquaculture

Typical BC Fish Farm Site (1)

Canada’s Salmonid Capture (1950-2001)*

*Source: FAO Statistical Database

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Tonnes

1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001

Year

Insights from our related projects Using “value-focused thinking” to clarify how

objectives and measures change as scales of decisions increases

Actors and regulatory structures at every major decision scale

Means-ends networks to show how various ends are related to policy choices

The End Paper in draft