Introduction
This text abridges
1 and sharpens a more comprehensive essay
2. Purpose is to contextualise the FAO "Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication" (FAO SSF Guidelines
3) with reflections on 'Geoethics'
4".
The first context, "Global change and the future ocean: a grand challenge for marine sciences" [Duarte 2014] describes the state of the global ocean and coastal seas under the impact of anthropogenic global change, that is, within the 'Anthropocene'. Duarte also offers a definition of 'anthropogenic global change' [p.1], namely "the global-scale changes resulting from the impact of human activity on the major processes that regulate the functioning of the [Geo-]Biosphere". The second context, "Global Ocean Governance: New and Emerging Issues" [Campbell et al. 2016] brings into focus marine issue such as 'small-scale fisheries', 'ocean acidification' and 'blue carbon' as pressing governance concerns, which need to be addressed at regional and global scales, and for which the FAO-SSF Guidelines provide an advanced application case. The third context, "Walking the talk: implementing the international guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries" [Jentoft 2014] emphasise that governance is the key challenge to implementing the FAO-SSF Guidelines. Jentoft explains its wicked nature, which therefore requires more than a managerial approach to address it. The fourth context, "Earth System Governance – world politics in the Anthropocene" [Biermann 2014] shows that the particular implementation challenge of the FAO-SSF Guidelines is a realisation of a general governance challenge. He explains that the sustainable governance of the 'wicked' global commons requires a normative approach.
The human agent is a key-feature for the reflections about each of these contexts. Similarly, the understanding the meanings of the notions 'Anthropocene' and 'Geoethics' requires to put the human actor into the centre of the reflections. Thus, the focus on the human agent is the thread that entangles SSF-Guidelines, Geoethics, and the notion "Human Niche".
Human
Niche, Fish & Geoethics
Niche-building is an anthropocentric and historical process [Bonneuil and Fressoz 2013, Ellis 2015, Latour 2015, Hamilton et al 2015, Bohle 2016, Fuentes 2016, Hamilton 2017]. Since prehistoric times people purposefully alter their environments, at local, regional or continental scale; including the coastal zone [Mee 2012]. What changed during the last century is the scale of human niche-building. It got amplified much by the number of people and the ample use of natural resources.
The current shift of the dynamics of the Earth systems, the anthropogenic global change
5 that we witness, happens mainly because of the impact of the industrial global supply chains. Cumulated local artisanal activities have their impact too. This impact gets accentuated in environmental systems, which are already strained by industrial exploitation. Small-scale fishery may serve as an example for this: Small-scale fishery operates within the industrialised use of the coastal zone (Newton et al. 2012), contributes to about half of the global fish catch, employs about 90% of the workforce
6 working the fisheries sector and provides for an example of a 'cascading ecological crisis'. A 'cascading ecological crisis' is the failure of a local socio-ecological system (example: decreasing fish stocks in Central West Africa because of industrial over fishing) that drives a cascade of crisis (example: Ebola haemorrhagic fever outbreak):
'Fish stocks have declined
along the Central West African coast due to a large extent to rapid
exploitation by high-tech international fishing fleet and due to the
degradation of mangrove forests, sea grass beds and coral communities
as a result of, for example, climate change and pollution.
Consequently, diets and trading activities shift to so-called
‘bushmeat’ such as chimpanzees and flying foxes. These are
well-known sources of zoonotic diseases such as Ebola, Marburg
viruses and human monkeypox – all with the suspected ability to
rapidly spread and cascade across scales through travel and trade.
Moreover, increased bushmeat hunting has reportedly contributed to
the loss of species that promote important functions in ecosystems,
such as pollinators for food production. Loss of such organisms often
undermine the resilience of food producing landscapes and forest
ecosystems rendering them increasingly vulnerable to droughts and
forest fires. The combined impacts of fish stock decline, epidemic
outbreaks, additional losses in ecosystem services, water stress, and
poverty put already fragile states such as Congo and Cameroon under
severe pressure
[Galaz et al. 2010, p. 7-8, edited] '
In
the contemporary world, the change processes of the geo-biosphere are
happening simultaneously at a local, regional and planetary scale,
and they are composite of natural and social processes [Hulme 2011,
Tickell 2011, Monastersky 2015, Seitzinger et al. 2015, Schimel et
al. 2015]. Addressing change simultaneously at these different scales
and across various processes requires a common normative framework.
Geoethical thinking can provide such a framework.
Application
context: Geoethics
Modern
geoethical thinking is well established (Mayer 2015, Peppoloni and Di
Capua 2016, Bobrowsky et al. 2017). Compared to earlier reflections
[Lynn 2000, Martínez-Fríaz 2011] it puts the human actor into the
centre of considerations. As conceptualised nowadays, geoethical
thinking offers a common normative framework, initially conceived for
geoscientists. Applying geoethical thinking, by many requires putting
new subjects into six application contexts, which however are
well-known.
In a
first context, geoethical thinking is perceived as a tool for the
individual professional:
To
that end, Geoethics
includes various ethical dimensions such as of individual behaviour,
social responsibility, and viewing Earth from different angles as a
home for many. Geoethical thinking searches different equilibria for
a society-earth-centric view because different equilibria within a
wider, universal framework are needed in a diverse world: i) to
reflect upon individual professional behaviour in different societal
settings, as well as ii) to dwell on shared professional
responsibility, integrity, know-how, mutual understanding of
diversity, and intellectual honesty.
In a
second context, geoethical thinking is about professional ethics:
Addressing
anthropogenic global change gets addressed is a governance challenge.
Therefore firm professional ethics will be needed in a context of
applied geosciences; for example for matters such as risk taking,
managing uncertainties, or revising options. Regarding the
underpinning scientific, technical and socio-economic matters, each
of these includes a range of standard ethical issues, such as whether
the particular scientific and governance choice is professional
‘sound'.
In
a third context, geoethical thinking is about the ethics of expert
advice and (shared) common sense:
Today,
many people ignore the processes that shape the intersections of
people's activities and the geo-biosphere. So far anthropogenic
global change was unintended. How insights about anthropogenic
global change take shape, including denial of global change, is
subject to dynamic social and political processes. They include, for
example, debates about lifestyles, preferences, values, and
worldviews. To that end, the practitioners, professionals, and
researchers who understand these processes and related phenomena
should share their professional insights with decision makers and lay
person and debate publically value statements, worldviews, and
preferences.
In a
fourth context, geoethical thinking extends the application case of
human value systems:
Our
species has acquired the power to alter planet Earth, namely to drive
anthropocentric global change by the number of people, societal
structures, and technological skills. Narrowly, anthropocentric
global change is about governing the intersections of human economic
activities and the geo-biosphere in function of people's needs.
Therefore, as for any governance issue, also governing
anthropocentric global change is subject to value-systems.
In a
fifth context, geoethical thinking means to extend the range of
applied ethics to new topics:
The
overarching societal matters that relate to anthropocentric global
change are value-driven, e.g. how to appropriate and distribute
natural resources by whom and for what cost, whether to accepted
side-effects and risk of collateral damages. These matters are known
ethical issues. However, their complexity in the context of
anthropocentric global change has no precedent, because of the number
of people with different needs, diverse world-views and various
preferences.
In
a sixth context, geoethical thinking is about how to take
responsibility for Earth system dynamics, in anyone's daily dealings:
So
far people did not intend to modify planet Earth, although many were
aware of the effects on the biosphere of people's cumulative
activities. Still, rather recently most people had no insights into
the intersection of human economic activity with the geo-biosphere.
Nowadays, having lost innocence, anthropocentric global change is an
intentional act, and its denial a liability.
Overlapping
perimeters
The
phase of human history has ended during which anthropogenic global
change has happened unnoticed [Zalasiewicz 2015, Waters et al. 2016].
That insight also applies the coastal ocean and the open sea [Durate
2014]. As an illustration, the small-scale fishery is one of many
drivers of change. In this case, the drive is through cumulated
actions of many actors across several social-economic and natural
environments, which happens within an external frame of a dominating
industrialised fishery and exploitation of the coastal zone by a
multitude of other actors. The resulting compound
'system-to-be-governed' presents a set of wicked problems [Jentoft
and Chuenpagdee 2009], which in turn engulf wicked
'governing-systems' too [Chuenpadgee and Jentoft 2013].
The
insight gained from small-scale fisheries within an industrialised
exploitation of the
coastal zone,
thus from one particular global change process, provides a metric for
the complexity of anthropogenic global change in general. It also
emphasises the key-understanding that sustainable governance of
peoples' activities at planetary scales is a wicked problem, be it
for small-scale fisheries [Jentoft 2014] or mitigation of climate
change [Pollitt 2016]. Hence [Chuenpadgee and Jentoft 2013, p. 344],
'overall values, norms and principles that guide institutions and
actions'
set an essential meta-order to iterate the way forward. Geoethical
thinking is a contribution to develop such a meta-order for
appropriate behaviours and practices, wherever human activities
interact with the Earth system.
Summarising,
once having lost innocence and such the citizen recognise
anthropogenic global change as its anthropocentric intentional act
then ethical scrutiny of actions is required. Under these
circumstances, namely the perspective of an anthropocentric Holocene
or the Anthropocene, geoethical thinking is a shared resource that
offers a common framework for the mutually respectful governance
[Biermann 2014] of a sustainable planetary human niche for a global
population of billions of citizens.
Copyright for photos: Ukko El'hob
References
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth System Governance - World
Politics in the Anthropocene. London: MIT
Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1287hkh
Bobrowsky, P., Cronin, V. ., Di
Capua, G., Kieffer, S. ., Peppoloni, S., P., B., …
Peppoloni, S. (2017). The emerging field of geoethics. In G. L.C.
(Ed.), Scientific Integrity and Ethics with Applications to the
Geosciences (pp. xx–xx). John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Bohle, M. (2016). Handling of Human-Geosphere
Intersections. Geosciences,
6(1), 3.
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences6010003
Bonneuil, C., & Fressoz, J.-B.
(2013). L’événement Anthropocène -
La terre, l’histoire et nous.
Le Seuil.
Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. J., Fairbanks, L., Silver, J.
J., Gruby, R. L., Dubik, B. A., & Basurto, X. (2016). Global
Oceans Governance: New and Emerging Issues. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 41(1), 517–543.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021121
Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2013). Assessing
Governability ? What?s Next. In M. Bavinck, R. Chuenpagdee, S.
Jentoft, & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Governability of Fisheries and
Aquaculture: Theory and Applications (pp. 335–349). Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6107-0_18
United Nations Economic and Social Council. (2016).
Economic and Social Council (Vol. E/2016). Retrieved from
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2016/secretary-general-sdg-report-2016--EN.pdf
Ellis, E. C. (2015). Ecology in an anthropogenic
biosphere. Ecological Monographs, 85(3), 287–331.
https://doi.org/10.1890/14-2274.1
Fuentes, A. (2016). The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,
Ethnography, and the Human Niche: Toward an Integrated Anthropology.
Current Anthropology, 57, S000–S000.
https://doi.org/10.1086/685684
Galaz, V., Moberg, F., Olsson, E.-K., Paglia, E., &
Parker, C. (2011). Institutional and Political Leadership Dimensions
of Cascading Ecological Crises. Public Administration,
89(2), 361–380.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01883.x
Hamilton, C. (2017). Defiant Earth - The Fate of
Humans in the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hamilton, C., Bonneuil, C., & Gemenne, F. (2015).
Thinking the Anthropocene. In The Anthropocene and the
Environmental Crisis (pp. 1–13). Routledge.
Haraway. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene,
Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin. Environmental
Humanities, 6, 159–165.
Jentoft, S. (2014). Walking the talk: implementing the
international voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable
small-scale fisheries. Maritime Studies, 13(1), 16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-014-0016-3
Jentoft, S., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and
coastal governance as a wicked problem.
Latour, B. (2015).
Face à Gaia Huit conférences sur le Nouveau Régime Climatique.
Paris: Editions La Découverte.
Lynn W.S. (2000).
Geoethics: Ethics, Geography and Moral Understanding. Minnesota.
http://philpapers.org/rec/LYNGEG.
Martínez-Frías
J., González J.L., Rull Pérez F. (2011).
“Geoethics and Deontology: From Fundamentals to Applications in
Planetary Protection. Episodes 34 (4): 257–62.
Mayer, T. (2015). Research Integrity the Bedrock of the
geosciences. In Geoethics: Ethical Challenges and Case Studies in
Earth Sciences (pp. 71–81).
Mee, L. (2012). Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea:
The coastal zone in an Era of globalisation. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science, 96, 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2010.02.013
Newton, A., Carruthers, T. J. B., & Icely, J.
(2012). The coastal syndromes and hotspots on the coast.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 96, 39–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.07.012
Peppoloni, S., & Di Capua, G.
(2016). Geoethics: Ethical, social, and cultural values in
geosciences research, practice, and education. In Geological
Society of America Special Papers (pp. 17–21).
https://doi.org/10.1130/2016.2520(03)
Pollitt, C. (2016). Debate: Climate change—the
ultimate wicked issue. Public Money & Management,
36(2), 78–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2016.1118925
Schimel, D., Hibbard, K., Costa, D., Cox, P., &
Leeuw, S. Van Der. (2015). Analysis, Integration and Modelling of the
Earth System (AIMES): Advancing the post-disciplinary understanding
of coupled human–environment dynamics in the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene, 12(2015), 99–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.02.001
Seitzinger, S., Gaffney, O., Brasseur, G., Broadgate,
W., Ciais, P., Claussen, M., … Uematsu, M. (2015). International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and Earth system science: Three decades
of co-evolution. Anthropocene, 12(2015), 3–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ancene.2016.01.001
Tickell, C. (2011). Societal responses to the
Anthropocene. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical,
Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 926–932.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0302
Waters, C. N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C.,
Barnosky, A. D., Poirier, C., Gauszka, A., … Wolfe, A. P. (2016).
The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from
the Holocene. Science, 351(6269), aad2622-aad2622.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622
Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C. N., Williams, M., Barnosky,
A. D., Cearreta, A., Crutzen, P., … Oreskes, N. (2015). When did
the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is
stratigraphically optimal. Quaternary International.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045
