Linking Scales of Regulation to Scales of Environmental Change Processes By Tim 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 (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 ( )* *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 ( )* *Source: FAO Statistical Database

Worldwide Salmonid Capture ( )* *Source: FAO Statistical Database

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

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 ( )* *Source: FAO Statistical Database

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