Michele-Lee Moore

Studying the complexity of change: Toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations

Faced with numerous seemingly intractable social and environmental challenges, many scholars and practitioners are increasingly interested in understanding how to actively engage and transform the existing systems holding such problems in place. Although a variety of analytical models have emerged in recent years, most emphasize either the social or ecological elements of such transformations rather than their coupled nature. To address this, first we have presented a definition of the core elements of a social-ecological system (SES) that could potentially be altered in a transformation. Second, we drew on insights about transformation from three branches of literature focused on radical change, i.e., social movements, socio-technical transitions, and social innovation, and gave consideration to the similarities and differences with the current studies by resilience scholars. Drawing on these findings, we have proposed a framework that outlines the process and phases of transformative change in an SES. Future research will be able to utilize the framework as a tool for analyzing the alteration of social-ecological feedbacks, identifying critical barriers and leverage points and assessing the outcome of social-ecological transformations.

The Social Finance and Social Innovation Nexus 1

Abstract Social innovation will be essential for addressing todays complex social and ecological challenges. Social entrepreneurs involved in the generation and implementation of innovative endeavours have repeatedly pointed to the critical need for financial support. However, mainstream financial institutions and practices have tended to marginalize both the social entrepreneurs and the individuals and communities who may benefit the most from a variety of social innovations, largely due to perceived risks associated with return on investment. Significant barriers and disincentives exist within current mainstream economic structures despite a growing interest and willingness of some individuals and organizations capable of channelling private capital into innovative social and environmental products or processes. This article provides a conceptual framework for bridging social innovation theory and social finance practices in order to develop an improved understanding of the conditions most conducive to the success of social finance and social innovation.

Social Finance Intermediaries and Social Innovation

Abstract This paper uses the social transitions framework to explore the ways in which foundations may partner with intermediaries to support social innovation for broad system change. It examines the efforts of a Canadian foundation to incorporate partnerships with intermediary organizations into its philanthropic investment strategy aimed at generating social innovation at three successive scales. The results demonstrate different patterns in the social innovation processes and in the foundation-intermediary relationships at each scale. These differences are explained by altered degrees of coordination and opportunities for learning, and by the types of intermediary organizations engaged at each scale. The most successful social innovation processes occurred when intermediaries had their own internal resources and when the initiative focused on transforming macro scale elements. As philanthropic funding becomes an important source of support for social innovation, these lessons are critical for those interested in ensuring that social investments build the capacity to respond effectively to societal challenges.

The Loop, the Lens, and the Lesson: Using Resilience Theory to Examine Public Policy and Social Innovation

The role of social innovation and social entrepreneurship in addressing complex problems has increasingly gained traction in policy-making circles with policy practitioners’ interest piqued about how governments may best support such innovations (e.g. PRI, 2010). Various governments are attempting to support social innovation through a variety of means. For instance, the Office of Civil Society in the UK and the Australian Centre for Social Innovation are recent attempts by these national governments formally to institutionalize the fostering of social entrepreneurs and social enterprises. Other national governments have chosen simply to promote the ‘production’ side of innovation, by funding research and development, specifically for the technology sectors (Nelson, 1993). But while there is a growing body of grey literature that mirrors policy practitioners’ own interest in this field (e.g. Leadbeater, 2007), scholarship within the social innovation and social entrepreneurship community has largely neglected the role of public policy in supporting or hindering social innovation (for an exception, see Chapman et al., 2007).

From coastal timber supply area to Great Bear Rainforest: exploring power in a social-ecological governance innovation.

As the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment revealed, many social-ecological systems around the world are currently being governed unsustainably. Consequently, social innovation is needed to transform current governance regimes and introduce new more resilient arrangements. Although dominant institutions and social groups may resist such innovations which threaten the status quo and their interests, groups on the margins of the established social order can often trigger governance transformations, despite a lack of conventional financial and institutional resources. In particular, there are numerous cases of marginalized groups initiating processes of radical change to establish sustainable governance practices for threatened social- ecological systems. We investigate one such case, and introduce a typology of power developed by Barnett and Duvall (2005) to illuminate the role that nongovernmental organizations and indigenous nations played in the transformation of a social- ecological governance regime for an area known as the Great Bear Rainforest, located in British Columbia, Canada. The analysis shows the interplay of compulsory, structural, institutional, and productive forms of power as the four key interest groups in this case enacted the governance transformation. The conclusions draw lessons about how the use and distribution of certain types of power can shape the course and outcomes of social-ecological governance transformations.

The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability

After tracing the antecedents of the concept and considering its intersection in social innovation research, we put forward the argument that the Anthropocene concept points to three areas of thought that are strategically imperative and must be accelerated if social innovation theory and practice is to prove transformative and respond to the challenges associated with the Anthropocene. First, we contend that the current debate on social innovation for sustainability lacks a deeper focus on human-environmental interactions and the related feedbacks, which will be necessary to understand and achieve large-scale change and transformations to global sustainability. Many innovations focus on only the social or the ecological, and we believe a more integrated approach will be needed moving forward. Second, social innovation research must confront the path-dependencies embedded within systems, and we propose that the act of “bricolage,” which recombines existing elements in novel ways, will be essential, rather than single variable solutions, which currently dominate social innovation discussions. Finally, we put forward the idea that confronting the cross-scalar nature of the Anthropocene requires revisiting both the scope and temporal nature of social innovations that are most typically focused upon by scholars and funders alike. We believe the concept of the Anthropocene creates new opportunities for social innovation scholars to imagine new possibilities.

Introducing Resilience Practice to Watershed Groups: What Are the Learning Effects?

ABSTRACT Resilience as an organizing framework for addressing dynamics of social–ecological systems has experienced strong uptake; however, its application is nascent. This research study aimed to address the gap between resilience thinking and practice by focusing on learning, a key aspect of resilience. Two Canadian watershed groups were led in 2-day workshops focused on resilience. Learning effects were measured using a survey administered both before and after the workshop, and a qualitative survey was administered 6 months later to understand longer term effects. Short-term learning effects were similar between the two case studies, with strong cognitive and relational learning and less normative learning. Longer term effects showed enduring cognitive and normative learning in both cases; however, relational learning persisted only in the watershed where a resilience practice approach to watershed planning had been incorporated. Future research directions include refinements to the learning measurement methodology and continuing to build resilience practice literature.

Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Senegal: Livelihoods, Customary Authority, and Formalization

ABSTRACT In Sub-Saharan Africa, efforts to formalize the artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) sector under legal frameworks and to improve its environmental and health practices have largely failed as a result of top-down policy measures that make change complicated and burdensome for low-resource miners. Using evidence from a case study of the ASGM sector within areas of Senegal, this article demonstrates that ASGM has become an important source of income for many traditionally agricultural rural populations. The findings point toward the embedded nature of ASGM within customary management structures in Senegal, and demonstrate that customary authority is an important component of ASGM operations and development, and should be recognized and integrated into innovative formalization policies and better practices initiatives.

Navigating emergence and system reflexivity as key transformative capacities: experiences from a Global Fellowship program

The distinction between adaptive and transformative capacities is still not well understood, and in this study we aimed to build a transformative learning space to strengthen transformative capacit ...

Patchy Resources for the Governance of Canada’s Resource Patches: How Hydraulic Fracturing Is Illuminating the Need to Improve Water Governance in Canada

Hydraulic fracturing emerged in the mid-2000s, with polarizing results across Canada. Provincial governments either embraced the technology for energy development as a key component of their economic strategy, or put moratoriums in place. These two extreme responses have emerged worldwide, and thus, much can be learned from the varying experiences across the Canadian landscape. However, everywhere that exploration and development has taken place, has been met with significant opposition by Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, largely due to the concerns about the associated use of water in the hydraulic fracturing process, and the potential impacts to quality and quantity. Therefore, we argue that hydraulic fracturing has shone a spotlight on, although not caused, existing water governance concerns in Canada and the contestation that underpins many water decision-making processes. This chapter will examine three main challenges. First, we illustrate how water governance approaches across the provinces and territories are patchy and fragmented, which leads to a perceived lack of transparency in the system. Second, we explain how capacity across the many actors involved in governing water or using water is not uniform and we reveal how this affects individual and collective abilities to make substantive changes that would improve the various water governance approaches across the country. On this matter, we add that the allocation of water for industrial use is often perceived as government favouring economic interests over all other values, which can lead to a perceived lack of accountability and conflicts of interest by those responsible for governing water use. Third, we describe how water governance has failed to adequately include Indigenous peoples vis-a-vis free, prior, and informed consent. Many Indigenous peoples are Treaty and Aboriginal rights holders with active land-based livelihood practices in regions affected by extractive activities. Thus, there are unique and significant impacts related to water use for hydraulic fracturing that must be resolved through Nation-to-Nation negotiations with Indigenous peoples. Each of these challenges will be explored in detail in the remainder of this chapter as a means to identify priority areas for change and governance innovation.