Classification of responses to LEDD

2012-06-20T13:40:36+00:00

Author: Eleni Briassoulis

{xtypo_info}This article is currently restricted to project partners only, who should »login to access it.{/xtypo_info}{f90filter RESTRICT SHOW}

{xtypo_alert}Editor's note 12Jun2012. Text extracted from D711-2.2. Re-read and check this text{/xtypo_alert}

Responses to environmental degradation in general have been defined and classified variously. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) defines them generally as “Human actions, including policies, strategies, and interventions, to address specific issues, needs, opportunities, or problems. In the context of ecosystem management, responses may be of legal, technical, institutional, economic, and behavioral nature and may operate at local or micro, regional, national, or international level and at various time scales” (MEA 2005a: 39).

Focusing on those responses that aim at combating environmental degradation, i.e., on the intended type of (positive) action (in different phases of ecosystem change), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005a) grouped responses into five major classes: (ecosystem) development, prevention, mitigation, adaptation, restoration/ rehabilitation. {showhide title="»more details ..." changetitle="«more details ..."}

Ecosystem development is aimed at increasing the provision of selected ecosystems services, often at the expense of others and/or by transforming important features of the ecosystem.
Prevention is an attempt to foreclose unwanted changes in the ecosystem before their commencement.
Mitigation aims at slowing down and halting an already on-going transformation process.
Adaptation recognizes that some kind and degree of change is inevitable and attempt to cope with the changing ecosystem conditions.
Rehabilitative responses strive to improve degraded ecosystems in general or to restore them to a specific earlier status (MEA 2005a: 39)

{/showhide}

Moreover, MEA has employed a number of criteria to identify and classify response options. The classification dimensions/criteria used are: nature of intervention, impact on drivers, actors and scale of operation of the decision maker (MEA 2005).

Based on the work of MEA, LEDDRA adopts a broad and all-encompassing definition of human responses to LEDD as any type of action, planned (formal, institutionalized) or unplanned (informal, non-institutionalized), in LEDD-affected regions that purports to (a) directly and explicitly tackle a LEDD problem or to address other socio-economic problems as well as individual and collective goals.

{xtypo_quote}Responses to LEDD depend critically on WHO does WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and WHY. (Briassoulis 2010){/xtypo_quote}

LEDDRA introduces two criteria in addition to those used in MEA in order to identify and classify responses: (a) aim of the human action and (b) institutional origin of the response.

According to the aim of human action, responses to LEDD are distinguished into: no action, negative and positive.

No action means that, in the presence of LEDD: (a) either a purposeful decision is made to leave an area without human intervention (to recover naturally) or (b) that human activities in affected regions continue as usual (with usually detrimental effects as regards LEDD)
Negative response means that, in the presence of LEDD, new human activities are planned or undertaken that have negative consequences for LEDD (aggravating already adverse environmental and social conditions)
Positive response is any planned (direct) or unplanned (indirect) response that alleviates LEDD and contributes to strengthening the socio-ecological resilience of the affected region.

According to the institutional origin of the response, responses may be planned (formal, institutionalized) or unplanned (informal). In LEDDRA, planned, positive responses to LEDD correspond to MEA’s five major classes: (ecosystem) development, prevention, mitigation, adaptation, and restoration/ rehabilitation. Unplanned actions flow from societal dynamics and change. The fact that they are unplanned does not mean that they will necessarily have a negative impact on LEDD as they may lead, for example, to the abandonment of places that subsequently recover once the main drivers of degradation (human activities), have been removed.

Finally, human responses to LEDD are characterized according to the kind of intervention that is a function of the types of measures used in a given situation (either in a planned or in an unplanned way). Such measures are either physical (infrastructure, land use changes, etc.) or non-physical (legal, administrative, economic, etc.).

LEDD and human responses to LEDD cannot be studied meaningfully outside their biophysical and socio-economic context. To explore human responses to LEDD in a holistic and integrated way, LEDDRA set up a research framework that is described in »Research framework.

For the purposes of LEDDRA, a classification scheme is proposed to organize the presentation of the variety of responses to LEDD and to facilitate their systematic description, the assessment of the associated impacts and the assessment of the fit of the RA under study. The proposed classification scheme agrees with the classification scheme of stakeholders (who are involved in the ‘responses’ to LEDD) that is used in the stakeholder consultation process undertaken in LEDDRA.

The idea behind the proposed scheme is that the classification should be kept as simple and functional as possible. Each response classified according to this scheme can be further characterized on the basis of any additional criteria the researchers deem necessary .

The major dimensions/criteria of the proposed classification scheme are: (a) the institutional origin of the response (planned/unplanned) and (b) the nature of intervention (thematic criterion). The institutional origin of the response dimension/criterion embodies the ‘actors’ dimension/criterion and the ‘scale of operation of the decision maker’ dimension/criterion of MEA (2005).

The table summarizes selected individual response options that can be identified in practice.

Table. Classification scheme for Responses to LEDD

THEMATIC TYPE (NATURE OF INTERVENTION)	INSTITUTIONAL ORIGIN OF THE RESPONSE
	Planned – direct – formal (No action, prevention, mitigation, adaptation, restoration/rehabilitation)	Unplanned – Informal (No action, negative, indirect positive)
Physical/technological	Examples SLM measures (detail), infrastructure works, reforestation, etc.	Examples Informal SLM measures, Autonomous land use change (conversion/modification), infrastructure works, settlements, tourism facilities, forest fires, etc.
Economic	Examples Resources pricing (water, etc.) Financing schemes Voluntary measures (ecolabeling, EMAS, etc.) Research funding	Examples Introduction of new economic activities (e.g. tourism), change in economic activities
Social	Examples Social policy measures (concerning employment, unemployment, businesses, social services provision, etc.)	Examples Land abandonment, migration, change of occupation, etc.
Institutional/Legal	Examples All types of policies, laws, strategies, etc.Spatial (land use) plans, NAPs, BAPs, development plans, etc. Management Plan of SIC (Site of Community Importance) Formal land rights Regional forestry laws Triennial Forestation Plan Triennial Fire Protection Plan Forest Management Plan	Examples Informal institutions, spontaneous collective action Informal land rights Customary rules Informal arrangements NGOs
Research	Examples Research	Examples Informal (customary?) research
Education/Communication	Examples Environmental awareness raising campaigns, environmental education, communication	Examples Informal awareness raising by NGOs, education, communication

{/f90filter}