Introduction

Chapter 4 highlighted the paramount importance of ecosystem services (ES) in protecting the various ecosystems from degradation and loss of biodiversity, in so far as they constitute an interface between human and nature. With the help of these "services", an attempt is made to stop the negative anthropogenic effects on the ecology of the planet or to compensate for such effects that have already occurred. Conversely, the "profit" of mankind from the valuable resources of nature is to be preserved and, within certain limits, even increased - without, however, endangering the existence of nature (and thus also humanity) or permanently disturbing its essential functions.

In the present chapter, these ES goals are taken up again by providing them, or rather the interrelationships between humans and nature, with a theoretical foundation based on fundamental insights of general systems theory, or more precisely: on the basic assumptions of the theory of complex and dynamic systems, which are relevant for both human social systems and natural ecosystems. At the same time, this chapter also aims to introduce the reader to "systemic thinking". After all, the system-theoretical terms should not be understandable from the outset to anyone who is not already professionally familiar with them, so that misunderstandings or perplexity can often arise here. Therefore, in the following, not only the theory of "social-ecological systems" will be presented, but also the particularities that distinguish especially complex and dynamic systems from other (non-systemic) entities - such as simple things (stones, tools, etc.) - will be briefly discussed. In connection with this, it should also become clear with which specific epistemological and methodological problems each system theory has to struggle with, which it undertakes to determine and coherently model the individual components of a system (or even several systems coupled with each other) and their interactions.

This is because systems theory not only models and analyzes the dynamics of individual (isolated) systems in exchange with their environment, but also the complex interplay of several systems that are interdependent with each other's environment by examining the internal effects of each of the systems on the other: in doing so, system theory considers the interrelationships between the various systems as if they were the interactions between the components of a single "supersystem", but without ignoring the respective characteristics of the two "components" (the subsystems).

Within the framework of this trans- or inter-systemic approach, the "theory of social-ecological systems", which is decisive for our context, has emerged in recent decades, in which human systems (societies) and ecosystems (nature) are interlinked. The SES approach is an "integrative approach", which, so to speak, investigates and models the causal interconnection of systems of different types.

A "social-ecological system" (SES)can roughly be understood as follows: A "social-ecological system" is a system "that includes societal (human) and ecological (biophysical) subsystems in mutual interactions" (Harrington et al. 2010: 2773). In such an "adaptive system", geophysical and biotic factors on the one hand and social and cultural factors on the other interact in such a way that the SES as a whole is able to exist resiliently and sustainably: Everything here is in an "eternal cycle" in which, at least in terms of material, nothing is lost in principle, because the released matter is immediately fed back into the cycle. The dynamics of this system is driven by the energy of the sun and the earth's interior (even if it first has to be released from fossil deposits). And everything here is interaction: both within the ecosphere and the human sphere, and between these two spheres: man influences nature and nature influences man, so that man only appears to be able to control nature, but in reality is only ever in an exchange with nature. There is no escape from nature, but also nature does not remain untouched by the activities of man - if one wants to compare man and nature at all, because this distinction is only due to a perspective that classifies and evaluates everything non-human from the point of view of man ("anthropocentrism"). Now, although science is not "value-neutral" either, insofar as it is always carried and driven by human interests, science at least strives for an objective view (a "view from nowhere"), whereby it overcomes the one-sidedness of a merely subjective view insofar as it critically evaluates and tries to avoid it. For this reason alone, we need science if we want to understand the interactions between the eco- and human spheres in as unprejudiced a way as possible. And here it is the research approaches of the various SES theories (and the empirical studies based on them) that bring us closer to an understanding of social-ecological interrelationships in a way that is appropriate to the complexity of these interrelationships.

In the following, however, the aim is not to trace the history of the SES approach in all its numerous variants, but rather to present those theoretical ideas and findings relevant to practice that are indispensable for strengthening "public awareness" with regard to the sustainable conservation or renewal of natural resources and living conditions. This chapter is divided into two major sections: "Theoretical Framework" (6.1.) and "Systematic Indicators" (6.2.).

Subchapter 6.1. (author: Rainer Paslack) pursues the following objectives or questions:

• What are the reasons why we should consider the world as a comprehensive social-ecological system?
• What are the most important characteristics of complex dynamic systems in society and nature?
• What does the theory of "social-ecological systems" achieve?

Subchapter 6.2. (author: Jürgen Simon) is dedicated to the following goals or questions:

• Which indicators ("key tools") does SES research use?
• In which way can these indicators support the monitoring of Social-Ecological Systems (SES)?

6.1. Theoretical framework

6.1.1. The problematic relationship between human and ecosystems

We all live in an extremely complex and dynamic world. No one can any longer grasp the multitude and variety of components and their complex interplay, which together produce what we call "our reality". In the course of the modern globalization of the world in economy, politics and culture, the earth has been covered with a huge and unmanageable network of traffic connections, on which countless people and goods as well as data are transported day and night. And although there are numerous international agreements that attempt to order and regulate this "jungle", this process is on the whole rather "wild", since in the mostly neo-liberal economic systems, especially in the western world, the transnationally active companies act primarily according to business efficiency and return criteria and seize every opportunity that presents itself to develop further profitable products and to open up new markets wherever this is possible and appears opportune.

In particular, agriculture, which must feed a growing human population or meet the increasing demands for prosperity, is expanding more and more over all areas of land that can be used at all. Neither the "invisible hand" of the market, which does not actually exist, nor the community of states is apparently in a position to intervene here in a regulatory capacity and counteract the general proliferation. The economic globalization of the earth is thus proceeding largely blindly, i.e. in the form of a self-organizing process in which countless actors with their often competing interests are involved. Of course, every single company and every single state pursues its own goals with care, i.e. systematically, rationally and in a planned manner; there is also a legal framework that has to be adhered to almost everywhere (admittedly, there are also "tax havens" that grant economic entities a great deal of freedom). Yet, seen as a whole, the many ventures of the countless actors compete in a confusing way; and it is not uncommon for global economic interdependencies in particular to be so opaque that movements are set in motion, especially in the financial markets, that elude all control and can easily lead to chaotic situations. International tourism, for example, which is also industrially organized, also contributes to this global process. Not only states and companies, but also each and every one of us is therefore involved in the ongoing globalization and its "side effects" on society and nature, which are inestimable in detail. It is part of the nature of complex systems, in which many different things always happen at the same time and discrepancies, incompatibilities, but also linkages (temporary alliances) and overlaps can occur, so that risky developments or undesirable trends ultimately arise, which are sometimes noticed only late and are even more difficult to control.

This process is also accompanied by a growing technization of all areas of life and even the last corners of our globe, which does not stop at even the most remote "reserves" of nature: The unchecked hunger of human civilization for more and more and better consumer goods as well as for a more and more closely meshed and efficient infrastructure, for roads and canals, for factory and residential complexes, for further energy sources and raw materials does not only lead to an increasing exploitation of nature, but also to a growing demand for energy and raw materials("land grabbing") and the development of new water and raw material resources, but also to closer and more intensive interactions between man and nature. The negative consequences of this development are well known: Soil sealing and water pollution, loss of species and climate change are only the largest items on the negative side of the balance sheet within human-environment relations. In the meantime, both the "limits of growth" and the environmental costs are becoming increasingly visible. In particular, rising environmental costs could soon put an end to our desire for further prosperity and economic wealth and even bring entire economies to their knees. For this reason, there is a growing willingness to change our behaviour towards nature and in particular to "redirect" our economy by, for example, making technological use of renewable energies (sun, wind and water power), feeding used raw materials back into the economic cycle ("recycling") or substituting or saving natural raw materials with artificial materials. The reduction of pollutant emissions (such as CO2, methane and fine aerosols), which are downright "climate killers" and can also have a serious impact on health, plays a particularly important role in this context. Furthermore, in many places, nature is being given areas of retreat and "recreation" (e.g. in the floodplain forests and rainforest zones, in the moors and other wet biotopes), agriculture and forestry are being converted to "ecological cultivation" and the extraction and use of the increasingly scarce natural resources are being subjected to strict consumption and sustainability management. But so far a start has been made here at best - and the time until a possible environmental and climate collapse is becoming ever shorter (especially since nobody knows where the "tipping points" are where the climate irreversibly tips over into a new "regime").

Of particular importance in all this is environmental management, which operates at the interface between humans and nature. Of course, the socio-cultural systems of the past have never been disconnected from the ecological systems of nature, so that man-made "environmental crises" have occasionally occurred in the past: For example, deforestation for the construction of houses, ships and mines or for the firewood needed for heating and cooking in larger settlements or for the operation of smelting furnaces; the extensive and intensive grazing of meadows and savannahs, excessive hunting of game or excessive exploitation of fishing grounds, the diversion of streams for the operation of water mills or the pollution of waters by tanneries and dye works or for paper production have already caused serious environmental damage or pollution relatively early in human history. For this reason, the first tentative measures, e.g. for water, soil and forest protection, can be traced back to the Sumerians and ancient Egyptians as well as to ancient India and China and even to the pre-Columbian cultures of ancient America.

But the environmental problems that had to be overcome at that time, which resulted from a precarious interplay between human demands for use and nature's limited capacity for self-regeneration, were nothing compared to the problems we face today, since the existence of man (and with him numerous plant and animal species) is clearly at stake. Now, environmental management that takes all relevant factors into account is becoming indispensable, even essential for survival. But this is easier demanded than put into practice! As already mentioned above with regard to economic globalisation and a generally unregulated technization of all areas of life, we do not even have control over our own socio-economic systems in which we interact, communicate, produce and trade with each other. For not only have the movements on the markets for goods, services and finance become increasingly inscrutable due to their intransparent structures and global interdependencies, but the political and intercultural conditions are also so confused, sometimes unstable and polarised that we have cause for concern here too. Therefore, for many contemporaries, an intact nature seems to be the (utopian) counter-image to the confused and precarious conditions within the "world society" of competing states and social as well as religious-fundamental movements and groups. But this is deceptive: for in nature, too, everything is in a constant state of flux, and in the history of the earth there have already been repeated cases of enormous "natural disasters" (such as "big extinctions" of many species). And in general, the diversity of species and climatic conditions that we can observe on Earth today are the result of a natural evolution that has dragged on for billions of years. And even within a single biotope, there is not only sheer harmony and peaceful cooperation (in the sense of sociability or symbiosis), but above all an all-round struggle for survival over scarce food resources, which repeatedly leads to unstable situations and the resilience (resistance) of the biotope to its limits: New advantageous mutations give one species a survival advantage over another species, or the immigration of alien species releases unsuspecte forces of selection that can lead to the displacement or even extinction of endemic species. But it is true: sometimes biotopes or special ecosystems remain relatively stable over a long period of time by repeatedly succeeding in dampening any fluctuations that may occur (e.g. fluctuations in the composition or internal dynamics of the system).

And a comparable mastery of dangerous fluctuations is of course also sought in human social systems: above all through the formation of value and legal systems and the establishment of executive institutions (such as the administration or police), in order both to establish and to control and maintain "law and order". Cooperative, administrative and work-sharing processes play a decisive role here, as do clear assignments of social roles with specific rights and duties, as well as political power relations. And for all of this to work, citizens need to have confidence in the legitimacy and non-corruption of governance; but also in the justice of legislation and the adequacy of law enforcement. As long as the majority of the population has this basic trust in the state institutions, the social system will be able to function smoothly for the most part and will endure (otherwise there is a risk of uprisings or even revolutionary upheavals).

In nature this is quite different: For, apart from certain "friendly" convivial relationships within animal societies (e.g. in the case of great apes) or the rigorous division of labour within bee or ant colonies, in nature it is predominantly "physical superiority" that dominates, so that violence and "natural intelligence" set the tone here. In short: here the "law of eating and being eaten" determines the biological process. And only within groups of animals from a certain stage of development (as with mammals and birds) are cooperative behaviour, care and even helpfulness observable, since here the individuals are dependent on each other for their survival and well-being. Thus, a preliminary stage is already reached at which "social learning" to a rudimentary extent is already possible. This development finally takes its most pronounced form in humans. For in human social systems the propensity to violence (aggressiveness) is usually "channelled" through the acceptance of moral rules of the game (values and norms) and through ritualised forms of behaviour and thus kept within limits. Ideally, this peaceful organization of all human concerns can encompass the whole of humanity - but we are still a long way from this, as the armed conflicts in several regions of the world show. It is therefore one of the greatest and most difficult tasks of every human community and society to keep the inner potential for violence of every human being, which is an inherited part of biological evolution, as low as possible, for example through education and the threat of legal punishment, or to redirect it to harmless areas of behaviour (such as sport, but also state-regulated competition for market advantages, career opportunities, etc.). However, since this is only ever possible within a society, it usually maintains an army that can defend it against external enemies in case of emergency.

But why all these long remarks on the structure and functioning of social systems, when this article is about social-ecological systems? The reason is that this kind of system modelling is not only about ecology, but also about sociology and other social and cultural sciences - yes, it must be! It is important for us to point out the characteristic differences in the nature of natural ecosystems and cultural human systems. In SES theories, knowledge of these differences is usually presupposed - with the consequence that the interaction of these different types of systems is only incompletely understood and often even causes misunderstandings. However, the quality and strength of "systemic thinking" can also be seen in the extent to which the special characteristics of different types of systems have become conscious. For only then can the inter-systemic relationships be adequately understood. The epistemological prerequisites for the description and understanding of human social systems are in part very different from those for the analysis of ecosystems - and in some respects even opposite to them. A complete SES theory must therefore try to do justice to both types of systems. At the very least, however, it is advantageous to be aware of the different modes of operation of both types of systems. Failure to do so can easily lead to certain misjudgements from which even science is not spared: A famous example is the so-called "naturalistic fallacy", which is based on the fact that one derives from the observation that in nature obviously always the stronger one survives, the idea that there is or should be also in human society a "right of the stronger one" (which leads to the well-known "Social Darwinist" ideologies). Generally applies: Both the resolute fighting position against the "dangerous nature" and the attempt to raise the allegedly so "harmonious nature" to the model for human behaviour, as well as also the idea that nature is only a "stock" of economically usable materials and energies from which one can make use of as one likes, are only expressions of a deficient attitude of consciousness that lacks the ability to differentiate. In particular, opinions have always been divided on the question of whether and, if so, what we can learn from nature. To mention just two of the frequently asked questions: is there a universal "natural law"? Are there "natural foods" so that genetically modified foods are to be rejected? An appropriate answer can also be found in a system theory that is suitable for the different food groups.

Let us ask, for example, whether the laws prevailing in nature (such as those of "natural selection") can provide a model for the organization of human communities by adopting them for stabilizing social dynamics and for containing the above-mentioned "tendency to aggression", which is apparently innate in humans. Let us ask, then, whether authoritarian state regimes are better able to contain the propensity to violence of their citizens by controlling them with police and intelligence measures than democratic communities which, in the legal "suppression" of interpersonal and political violence, depend on the free consent of their citizens in order to be legitimate? And are such dictatorship-like states therefore more stable than democracies? Answer: From a systems theory perspective, this question cannot be answered in the affirmative, since authoritarian regimes always lead to the mobilization of internal resistance after a certain period of time and then to insurrections; even in the case of natural disasters (e.g. Even in the case of natural disasters (like earthquakes and floods) they often react more ponderously; and finally, economic emergencies based on central economic planning can be rather difficult to cope with, since individual action is usually given too little leeway (at least this applies to extreme forms of inwardly repressive rule). Therefore, "free societies", in which great importance is attached to the democratic and civil liberties of the individual, cannot necessarily be considered more unstable or crisis-prone than authoritarian states or collectivist communities. Liberal societies are generally characterised by a high degree of innovativeness (inventiveness) and a not inconsiderable ability to adapt (flexibility) in times of crisis.

If we now look at modern civil societies of the democratic-legal state type, it is striking that they consist of a "mixture" of self-organising (informal) processes on the one hand and of politico-legally regulated (i.e., from the perspective of the individual, "externally organised") processes on the other. This is of course due to the fact that humans can take up a "reflexive distance" to themselves, i.e. they can reflect on their actions and will and take responsibility or accountability towards other persons. On the other hand, we do not find such a "mixture" or overlap in ecological systems in nature (as long as we do not intervene in them from the outside): natural ecosystems are rather consistently self-organized - for here there are no "controlling instances" that would counteract the "blind" natural processes: i.e. no cooperative planning or evaluation of measures implemented in order to correct their results or to optimize the instruments and methods of action. Only human beings seem to be able to evaluate the consequences of their actions and to learn from them in a sustainable way (even to foresee such consequences within limits), to stimulate and promote new technological developments and to reorganize the forms of their collective action again and again, if this seems necessary or useful. None of this is possible in nature. ^*1* Nevertheless, we will see later on that there are also certain "margins" and "degrees of freedom" in natural ecosystems which contribute to the resilience and stability of the system; only that this has nothing to do with "free decisions".

And the ability of humans to learn from failures (bad planning) is also absolutely necessary, because in complex social contexts (for example, in the case of a comprehensive reform of the tax or health system or an attempt to reorient economic processes) it is often not possible, or only to a limited extent, to foresee the potential effects of innovative action. And even the assessment of the long-term consequences of habitual actions can be extremely difficult - as the example of the continued "overexploitation" of natural resources impressively shows, where in the early phases of industrialisation mankind abundantly "naively" assumed that the planet's raw material and energy reserves were inexhaustible. This attitude has now changed fundamentally. However, some politicians and economic experts still behave as if they believed they could make a deal with nature - as they are used to doing on the international diplomatic scene. But you can't make "offers" to nature, for example to gain time before an important "tipping point" is reached, after which climate change and all its associated consequences (such as species extinction, rising sea levels, expansion of desert zones) will take their inevitable course. ^*2* That is precisely the problem: nature simply always follows its own unchangeable laws and is not open to discussion. Whatever cumulative or systemic feedback effects occur here (for example, in the case of progressive ocean acidification or the increasing release of methane from the Siberian permafrost soils due to a "positive feedback" between rising temperatures and methane emissions), it simply happens because the laws of nature require it to happen just that way (not only can it, so that there could be a kind of "bargaining space"). So while "positive legislation" in human societies repeatedly permits legal adjustments in the form of amendments to the law, the laws of nature apply absolutely and irrevocably. The only thing that humans can do in such a situation is to respect the prevailing laws of nature either by exercising restraint, by treating natural resources carefully and sustainably (for example, by reforestation or by allowing fish stocks time to recover), or by technological means, for example by tapping new (non-fossil) energy sources (for example, through wind power and photovoltaic systems) or by using the latest technologies. structuring the products of his economic activity from the outset in such a way that they can be reused ("recycled") in order to reduce the consumption of new raw materials as far as possible. In other words: Man can only ever act in accordance with the laws of nature by obeying them or using them technologically, but not against them.

This may be a truism, but it leads to considerable consequences for any system management at the interface between man and nature. For while we can only ever change the behaviour of ecosystems in a planned manner to the extent that this is possible within the framework of the applicable laws of nature (or the genetics based on them), we can change the rules and patterns of our own behaviour to a far greater extent because, unlike most other living beings, we are not (or only rudimentarily) bound by instinct programmes in our actions, so that we can rethink the appropriateness of our behaviour and institutions and can also fundamentally transform them at will.Precisely such a rethinking of our modes of action and the performance of our institutions seems to be necessary at present to answer the central question of the management of social-ecological systems: How can we gain "control" in the development of the human-nature relationship so that this relationship does not lead to social-ecological chaos? To do this, we obviously not only have to understand how ecosystems function, but we also have to create at least enough order in our "own house" so that an orderly and promising approach to social-ecological management becomes possible at all! Consequently, we must not only identify and learn to control the "critical points" within the dynamics of ecological systems, but also the "neuralgic points" within human societies. A reordering of the relationship between man and nature thus requires a reordering of the world social conditions, which above all concerns the orientation of the global economy. Otherwise, all the fine theories of social-ecological systems that have already been developed will remain largely a waste of time.

What does this finding mean for the tasks and procedures of a management that attempts to harmonize the social structures, economic interests and technical operations of human societies with the structures, processes and laws of the ecosystems that are important for our survival and well-being? Such management will itself have to take on a systemic character. And it will ultimately have to treat the interplay between human social and ecological systems as a single large system, in which the human and ecological systems, each with their own dynamics, form "subsystems", as it were, which do not operate independently of one another, but rather touch and constantly influence one another at countless points. Therefore, it was obvious to develop a theory of so-called "social-ecological systems", in particular to be able to depict the interplay of ecology and economy (but also of other areas of human practice) in models, and to gain knowledge from these models that would allow us to estimate and evaluate every conscious intervention in the natural environment, but also every other effect on it. This is an extremely difficult undertaking, which places high demands, especially on the methodological approach: in order to be able to create a factually appropriate model that is instructive for practical purposes, it is necessary, for example, to determine all relevant components of the system, all constants and variables, and to develop indicators with the help of which we can monitor the ongoing changes in a socio-ecological system (and thus the success or failure of our environmental measures). This is a huge task for theory and modelling, which cannot be solved in one fell swoop, but only gradually, by gathering experience and feeding it back into the model so that it gradually takes on a meaningful and practically useful form.

*1*An area of arable land does not develop by itself, but is the result of a planned reclamation of wilderness, because it first has to be wrested from nature. Of course, many (perhaps even all) living creatures also structure their environment according to their "interests" and habits (think, for example, of beaver castles or termite mounds, which can greatly change and shape the existing landscape; or coral reefs and guano bird colonies), but below the primate level, all these activities take place on the basis of an innate instinct program, because the non-human creatures cannot choose an alternative for their behavior. Which is why one rightly tends to distinguish between merely instinctive or reflex-reactive behaviour and human action: because only action is intentional and purposeful, and there are usually alternatives for action between which a "free choice" is made. Obviously, only man is capable of acting in a fully purposeful and reasoned way, setting priorities and making plans with the help of his imagination. This is the source of man's special responsibility for his actions and omissions: Only man can demand justification for his actions. It is true that higher "intelligent" animals can occasionally "trick" their fellow species by apparently deliberately deceiving them, e.g. about the location of a hidden prey, but we would not hold them accountable or assign blame to them for this. Only from humans one could expect a "bad conscience" here, if they have violated an existing moral or legal norm. Some people might reply that their dog knows very well when ithave done something "bad". However, it is more likely that the dog merely realises that his owner is angry with him and he must therefore fear his anger. - But the fact that man alone is a "moral", i.e. responsible being, does not mean that other living beings need not be granted any "ethical value" whatsoever: that a fox, for example, cannot be guilty of "chicken theft" does not justify that man may treat it as if it were some "thing", since the fox is a sentient being that is capable of suffering, so that here there is a ban on inflicting suffering on man. He may indeed defend his chicken possessions against the fox, but without causing avoidable suffering to the animal. Above all, however, a predator must be granted an unconditional right to life, since this too has a morally relevant "intrinsic life value". Animal protection not only serves the preservation of the species, but also insists on the well-being of every single individual of every sentient animal species. The preservation of biodiversity on this planet should therefore not only be done out of self-interest, but also out of ethical respect for all living things. In this respect, nature conservation is also an "ethical duty". (The reader will find more detailed explanations in Paslack 2012, p. 65 ff).

*2*Environmental politicians are therefore moving in a terrain that confronts them with unusual tasks, because there is an exchange with nature, but no dialogue. And although man can fight for his life (for example in the case of an earthquake or a flood disaster), he cannot fight against nature, because nature itself is neither against nor for man, but simply happens. Nor does nature know any "catastrophes", but only restructurings of a lesser or greater extent. What we can learn from nature, therefore, are not rules for our coexistence, but only model solutions for technical questions regarding feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency. And finally, we can also learn something from nature about the biological foundations of our own species: e.g. about those "archaic" psychological mechanisms that shape and control our spontaneous behavioural reactions (reflexes). Above all, however, our knowledge of nature can help us not to damage or disturb those natural conditions and natural processes that are indispensable for our survival.

6.1.2. Basic properties of complex dynamic systems

The following presentation goes into detail mainly because its intention is to sensitize the reader to "systemic thinking". The reader should be familiarized with the basic concepts, but also with the pitfalls and difficulties of their application. Therefore only a little foreknowledge is assumed. Gradually it should become clear what it means to see reality as one system or as a network of many (sub-) systems. As is well known, it can easily happen that one cannot see "the forest for the trees". However, in the system analysis it is precisely the "forest" that matters, because forest trees behave differently than single trees. But it is not true that any tree would ever stand alone: there is always a soil rich in water and bacteria on which it stands, and there is always an atmosphere, often covered with clouds, and a sun that gives light, with which every tree interacts (even if the tree does not, of course, react to the distant sun itself, but can only use its light energy photosynthetically for its metabolism).

In general, "systems" can be defined as controlled structural populations of more or less many components, in which the relations between the components are more important than the components themselves. In this book, however, only dynamic systems are dealt with (not, for example, systems of thought, not systems of concepts or classification). And the systems discussed here are particularly complex, i.e. internally networked in many ways, with their components interacting or "communicating" with each other in different ways. Also, the components here are by no means all the same, but often very different. Therefore, only those systems which form a holistic structure-process-connection are discussed here. In addition, the systems considered here are all self-organized and self-sustaining, i.e. not planned or "constructed" like machines. Moreover, they are capable of evolution in that they can change their internal structures, their rules of operation and also their size (their spatial extension, but also their temporal duration). Finally, the systems of interest here are (at least to a large extent) "functionally closed", which stabilizes their order and makes them to a certain extent resistant to disturbances from their environment. The systems we are dealing with in this book are probably even the most complex dynamical systems we know of. Accordingly, it is challenging and difficult to understand these systems theoretically and to manage them successfully in practice.

If we are talking about a "social-ecological system" (SES)^*3* , then we are obviously dealing with an extremely complex dynamic system - or more precisely: with a whole network of different systems, all of which are interdependent and whose internal and interdependent interactions lead to results that cannot be predicted, or only within limits. Especially since we are not used to thinking in terms of complex ("circular-causal" and non-linear) process sequences and, moreover, to taking into account the immense amounts of data that are generated when observing these processes: if we have this data at all, because they first have to be obtained laboriously and in a methodically reliable way. And even if we had all conceivable empirical data available, even then we would still have to find out which of them are important and in what respect. This also means asking the right questions and having the methodological (especially mathematical) tools at our disposal to order and evaluate the data material appropriately. In short: In order to obtain a meaningful result, we must also be able to interpret the collected data, because only then will it become informative and worth knowing. And it goes without saying that the creation of a comprehensive model can only be achieved in an interdisciplinary manner, i.e. only through the cooperation of numerous social, cultural and natural science disciplines. A single academic discipline would simply be overtaxed here.

In the following the essential characteristics of complex and dynamic systems are described. ^*4*Because these characteristics are also of central importance for the "social-ecological system" discussed below.

*3*In the German-speaking world, the term "socio-ecological system" is also commonly used (in analogy to the descriptions of socio-cultural, socio-economic or socio-technical systems). Instead of speaking in the singular of only one "socio-ecological system", one can also speak in the plural of many "socio-ecological systems", if one takes certain "ecological complexes" (or systemic units) out of the "ecosystem earth" and thematizes them for the analysis. Thus there are not only countless local ecosystems but also many regional ecosystems, which all together make up the global ecosystem of our planet. The methodological problem of how individual social-ecological systems can be "tailored" or separated from each other will be discussed further below.

*4*The description of the basic properties of complex dynamic systems is essentially based on preliminary work of one of the two authors of this chapter: see especially Paslack (1991), Paslack (2012) and especially Paslack (2019).

6.1.2.1. Self-organisation, "environmental openness" and "operational coherence

Systems of the social and environmental type are essentially self-organising, as already indicated in the introduction (7.1.1.). What is meant by this is that such systems both build up their internal structures themselves and also themselves (autonomously) determine the rules according to which this structure is built up and reproduced (structure maintenance). In contrast to "trivial" machines (e.g. automata), there is no constructor here who determines the structure and processing (functioning) of the system from the outside, nor is there an internal central instance that would control this "self-generation" and self-regulation, but instead a complex interaction of all system elements or structural components from which the form and functioning of the system "emerge" spontaneously (i.e. undirected and unplanned) - which, however, usually does not happen at once, but over numerous steps (evolutionarily). And, of course, this process can only ever take place within the framework of the applicable laws of nature, whereby (as we will see later) the "mastery" of the laws of thermodynamics plays a special role. But for such systems to determine their structure and behaviour themselves, on the one hand, and to be able to develop further by continuously adapting to changing environmental conditions, on the other hand, they must be "evolutionarily open". For this purpose, the individual system elements must not be too "rigid" (inelastic) linked, so that "evolutionary leeway" can open up in the network of their interactions. We are therefore also dealing here with "self-adaptive systems".^*5*

If one speaks of a "system", then one must also speak of the "environment", since both terms form a pair: namely of its environment, because complex (e.g. living) systems are not simply located in an "environment", but maintain very specific exchange relationships with it, with the consequence that not everything that happens "outside" is (at least not directly) relevant to a particular system: Only that which the system "needs" for its maintenance is of interest and segregated from the environment. This means that such a system is "sensitive" (receptive and reactive) in a particular way to a particular "segment" of the overall reality: and this "segment" then forms the specific "environment" of the system. Thus, for example, social human systems with their various subsystems (such as economy, law and culture) are usually only "interested" in specific aspects of their environment: for the economic subsystem of society, for example, objects in nature (deposits, water resources, cultivable creatures, etc.) that can be exploited economically (and with which money can be made) are of particular interest.

This "selective access" to the environment, which provides the system with its special environment, is now meaningful and understandable from the point of view of the system, but with it the overall reality has by no means disappeared, but has only been faded out on the basis of a certain "systemic perspective", i.e. has been pushed into the general "world background" (horizon of being). For, what is taking place here is merely a respective system-related "reduction of world complexity" (as the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann has called it), which the system has carried out for its own purposes in order not to have to pay attention to everything at once, i.e., to have to "intrasystemically process" the entire diversity of being, which would inevitably lead to an operative overload of the system. This selective restriction of the "gaze" is, however, not free of certain risks, since it can also easily make one "blind" to processes in one's environment, which may well be of considerable relevance for one's survival and well-being! And it is precisely this situation that humanity is currently in, having operated at the expense of nature for too long and now having to realize that its interventions in nature have led to contamination and degradation on the one hand and (in connection with this) to cumulative developments (such as a "critical" accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere and rising temperatures) on the other. These developments could also be easily overlooked for a while because they were outside of the focus of the economy, settlement planning, water regulation and transport.

Although care has always been taken to ensure that "small-scale" and "medium-term" (i.e. in relation to the planning project currently underway) the available natural resources are used as sensibly and efficiently as possible, the more complex, i.e. "long-range" and "long-term" feedback effects within the self-dynamic balance of nature could or would not be taken into account. In psychology one would probably speak here of a certain "operational blindness" or short-sightedness. But still, nature with its huge net of interacting ecosystems is completely there! So if nature is to continue to form a viable environment for us in the future, we must find a way to overcome the "home-made" (human-systemic) limitations of our environmental perception at least as far as is necessary for the future viability of humanity. This is not least also a commandment of intergenerational justice, insofar as also our more distant descendants have a right to a living environment that allows them a bearable, even pleasant life in exchange with a nature that is as intact as possible.

But how could we, despite our "systemic glasses", achieve this extended "environmental openness" towards nature? Fortunately, there is a special "functional system" among the subsystems of modern society, which is now very strongly differentiated and possesses reserves of knowledge that allow us to look beyond our predominantly economic interests in the utilization of nature: science. Even though science (like any other function-specific social system) is bound to very specific "functional imperatives" (knowledge and cognition) and "methodological standards" (e.g. experimental rules and statistical relevance criteria) as well as to "discursive ideals" (only the best rational argument counts), it is nevertheless in principle capable of acquiring all knowledge about nature that is possible for man and making it available for other social purposes. For this, however, society must consistently orient itself as a "knowledge society" that subjects all its planned or even unintended interactions with nature to a rational examination according to scientific criteria. And in this process not only the findings of the natural sciences would be discussed, but the methods and knowledge stocks of the social and cultural sciences would also have to be included, since human interests in the use of nature should continue to exist. All relevant scientific disciplines, including, for example, the engineering sciences or psychology and medicine, must therefore be involved in developing a comprehensive and practicable model for the processes in social-ecological systems.

In all this, the aesthetic aspects of our experience of nature should not be ignored either, which cannot be easily integrated into a scientific model, but which have a significant influence on our general relationship with nature: an intact nature, that is always also a "beautiful nature" in which we feel comfortable and can gather new strength. So this aesthetic and emotional interest in nature must also be taken into account when we take measures to care for the environment and protect it. The conservation of natural resources and landscapes as well as the preservation of biodiversity must therefore always include the aesthetic (and perhaps even spiritual) needs of human beings, because as a cultural being we do not only do business, science and engineering. ^*6*

If we now summarize the aspect of the "environmental openness" of complex systems with the aspect of their self-organization and internal self-regulation (according to autonomous rules), the following picture emerges: All social and ecological systems will, on the one hand, be dominated by their own rules, which is why they can be regarded as "operationally closed systems", but on the other hand they also represent "open systems" in so far as they absorb and release energy and matter: thus the social system continuously draws raw materials for food and production from the ecological system for internal processing or consumption, but at some point returns them to nature and its material cycles - be it in the form of waste heat or material waste. It is then also said that the social system relieves itself of everything it no longer needs and that, if it remains, it could even disrupt the internal order of the social system: physically speaking, this is an export (or externalization) of "entropy", i.e. of "disorder".^*7* And, of course, ecosystems (just as individual living beings already do) also are "open systems" that exchange matter and energy with their environment. It is thus a characteristic of operationally closed and at the same time energetically and materially open systems that they can only establish, stabilize and maintain their internal order by selectively taking from their environment what they need for their continued existence on the one hand, and on the other hand by returning to the environment everything that could impair their internal functions.

*5*The term "self" here, by the way, does not refer to some ominous "self" to which all processes are related (as we assume in the case of the psyche, insofar as at least all conscious processes here refer to an "ego-self"); rather, in a term like "self-organized", the "self" means only as much as "spontaneously" or "by itself" occurring.

*6*In religion and in the fine arts (but also in poetry), man's relationship to nature has always been of great importance: But while art (starting with antiquity) has almost always virtually celebrated the beauties of nature and at times even took nature as its model, the high religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) in particular have often attached a rather dubious value to nature (which often included the low esteem for the human body and "sinful" sexuality): for example, when the Bible speaks of man's "subjugation" of nature - an imperative that modern technological civilization has been all too happy to follow. But there are also indications here that nature should be cherished and cared for like a "good shepherd", since it too (besides soul and spirit) is a "creation" of God and therefore worth preserving. Altogether the relationship of religion to nature (and this already in myth) is marked by a high ambivalence. In contrast to this, artists have often felt that their own creativity is often twinned with the creative nature. But it was precisely this that sometimes made them suspicious of religion: did the artists want to be "equal to God", i.e. to become divine themselves? A reproach that many theologians and believers, however, also made to research and technology. This "hybris" accusation used to mainly concern efforts to "create life" (such as the golem or the Frankenstein monster). At present, the suspicion is more directed against certain developments in the area of “Artificial Intelligence”, genetic engineering (e.g. kloning), the possible creation of cyborgs (man-machine hybrids) and "synthetic biology" - precisely because life and spirit are divine creations that should not be artificially simulated or manipulated. For today it is rather the case that religion rather appreciates the value of nature - and a spiritual connection with it - (provided that this connection to nature does not drift into esoteric realms). And there has always been in all religions also a nature-mystical side branch or undercurrent that tried to read the "Book of Nature" in a contemplative way as a revelation text. There have also always been pantheists who insisted on the identity (equality of essence) of nature and God (such as Giordano Bruno or Spinoza). In any case, in art, religion and mysticism there are always efforts to emphasize and invoke the unity of (divine) spirit and nature - and thus to see man's relationship to nature not only as an economic or technical relationship.

*7*Thermodynamic aspects (such as the effects of entropy) therefore also play an important role in some SES approaches. For example, the SOHO concept of Kay and Boyle (2008) explicitly uses terms such as "energetic dissipation", "non-equilibrium" and "exergy" (meaning the quality of the available energy): "The proponents of the [SOHO-] framework argue that as systems move further from equilibrium, exergy increases, more dissipative opportunities become available, and more organization emerges. Flows from ecosystems provide exergy both supporting and constraining human society. The flow of structurally utilizable energy in systems far from equilibrium even enables the (innovative) self-organization of these systems." This systems-theoretical knowledge does not, of course, relieve us of the need to empirically demonstrate the self-organizing structural changes in each individual system. For each system has its own (specific) "inner boundary conditions" under which it operates and evolves.

6.1.2.2. Resilience and robustness

But social systems can also, within limits, adapt to new challenges from the natural environment by redistributing and using their available resources differently or by partially replacing (substituting) needed environmental resources that have become scarce; indeed, they can sometimes even change their own rules and priorities, develop themselves further or restructure their internal processes. In other words, social systems often seem to be surprisingly flexible in their behaviour when shortages or turbulence occur in their environment that cause them difficulties or even threaten their existence. This is what makes them resilient or resistant in precarious situations.

Flexible and, within limits, resilient are also the ecological systems in which restructuring can also occur, perhaps accompanied by the death of many individuals of a species or even the extinction of entire species, but which need not result in the complete destruction of the system.^*8* In this case, however, it is not decisions on priorities and measures, as in the case of human social systems, that play a role, but above all processes of population size reduction or a remixing of the species living in them, as well as the random occurrence of favourable genetic mutations that give some species a selection advantage over their competitors. Nevertheless, such transformation processes are always risky in all open systems, so that they may not succeed in keeping themselves alive despite all efforts to adapt.^*9* If, for example, humanity, which not only lives in its self-created social and cultural systems but is also part of the Earth's ecology as a biological species, should die out, then nature will of course continue to exist (geologically speaking alone): only that biological evolution would then continue without us. In order to prevent this, which is precisely why it is so important to understand the socio-ecological interactions better and better and thus also to increase our chances of successfully adapting to a changed environment. And of course it would be best if the economic and social costs of such adaptation were to be kept as low as possible or if serious environmental changes (such as major climate change) were not to occur in the first place.

The adaptive resilience of biological or ecological systems often goes hand in hand with robustness, which is the evolutionary stability of a particular property of the system in the event of disturbances or under conditions of uncertainty. The more robust a system is to external disturbances, the more it is able to maintain its original identity. For the analysis of SES and especially for the predictability of their behaviour, the identification of the "robust factors" is crucial, as they limit the scope of possible variability.

This all outlines the essential goal of social-ecological modelling: namely to identify emerging major environmental problems as early as possible and to estimate their scope (monitoring and warning function), to identify their causes (causal analysis and explanatory function) and to provide indications for efficient countermeasures (recommendation function).However, even among scientists it is not always clear which measures are the most suitable, so that fundamental controversies about the right approach often arise: Is it, for example, more sensible to "help" endangered forests by "cleaning up" them and reforesting them with more climate-robust trees from other parts of the world, or would it be better to simply leave the forests alone for a while so that they can recover by themselves and adapt to changing climatic conditions? The various social-ecological models provide quite different answers to these and similar questions, depending on the premises on which they are based.

In order to achieve all this, a special way of thinking is required: "systemic thinking", i.e. thinking in terms of understanding the interactions between recursively interlinked components that together form a "whole" in whicheverything is connected with everything else. However, "systemic thinking" is not self-evident, but must be learned and practiced. But to do this is not easy, because in general we think "linearly", i.e. in simple causal chains that develop in different directions and branch out like trees. Here we quickly lose the overview. "Non-linear" or feedback "circle-causal" relationships, as they are typical for complex networked systems, usually exceeds our understanding, especially since in everyday life we usually get along with simple cause-and-effect relationships. However, this also applies to exponential growth processes in which the quantity of a certain factor doubles in a given period of time (which is why many people find it difficult to understand the exponential development rate of a pandemic such as that of Covid 19). In addition, we are used to thinking and planning in the short term, which is why the long-term consequences of our actions usually remain hidden from us. Everyday thinking, but also the thinking of many politicians and business leaders, takes place predominantly on small temporal and spatial scales, so that far-reaching (especially global) consequences are hardly ever considered. In a sense, we almost always behave opportunistically (by giving preference to the nearest advantage) and "future-blind" when it comes to developments beyond our short or medium-term horizon of action ("in the long run"). In a strongly networked and at the same time "systemically closed" world (such as ours), however, such thinking can easily "take revenge" by suddenly confronting us with unexpected and perhaps even irreversible consequences of our actions (especially in the case of deep interventions in the balance of nature).

*8*"Resilience can be described as the ability of a system to maintain its identity" (Cumming/Collier 2005). As long as a system is able to sufficiently "resist" major disruptions, it maintains its identity so that it remains recognisable.

*9*Expressions such as "risky" or "successful" can always only be understood metaphorically in the case of natural processes, because nature knows neither risks nor success or failure, as it has no self-confidence or intentionality. However, it is extremely difficult to avoid such "anthropomorphic" metaphors entirely when talking about nature.

6.1.2.3. Limited predictability of complex system processes

It is precisely for this reason that we need to learn how to deal with complexity, exponentiality, procedural feedback, non-linearity and circular causality. And fortunately, we have a number of mathematical methods at our disposal for this purpose, with the help of which networked and recursive processes can be modelled in principle. Nevertheless, the predictive power of such processes is also subject to certain methodological limitations, precisely because these processes are so complex that even unlikely “bifurcations” and "feed backs", even "chaotic" or "fractal effects" can occur due to unpredictable process fluctuations. Therefore, measures that are intended to intervene in the balance of nature in a positive way must always be designed in such a way that even possible undesirable effects that were not anticipated remain controllable by allowing them to be revised ("retrievability").

The relative unpredictability of the course of system processes does not mean, however, that in many cases it is not possible to produce reasonably reliable forecasts and trend estimates (at least in the medium term): the more data we can collect on natural processes and evaluate them with suitable models and algorithms (in the sense of a "big data analysis"), the more promising the success of measures that are implemented cautiously and accompanied by monitoring as closely as possible. There is therefore less and less reason for a pessimistic or "fatalistic" attitude with regard to our positive control options for precarious developments in ecosystems. A recurrent problem is rather a lack of political and administrative will (governance) to implement the necessary environmental measures "sensitively" and consistently, as such implementation is often hindered by economic interests and conflicts. In addition, ecosystems do not respect national boundaries (just think of the global climate system) and therefore require international and transnational agreements, which are sometimes only reached with great effort (of which the difficult negotiation processes, for example, on a worldwide limitation of carbon emissions at international "climate summits" provide an eloquent example).

With regard to the fundamentally inadequate predictability of the future behaviour of complex systems (which of course includes the social human systems), we can state that every measure that intervenes in complex systems always has a certain "experimental character", since not all possible consequences can be clearly predicted: what is beneficial and advantageous in one place (e.g. improving the yield of a crop) can sometimes have quite negative consequences in another part of the ecological system (e.g. climate). And since these are "real experiments" and not laboratory experiments, the success of which is fundamentally threatened by contingency (random events), environmental managers must proceed with due caution and step-by-step (successively and cyclically) to ensure that the effects can be "retrieved"; for example, continuous monitoring is indispensable for this. Complex dynamic systems are not "trivial machines" whose functioning is well-known and which are relatively easy to master technically, but their behaviour is more like that of "autopoietic living beings" (H. Maturana and F. Varela 1980), where certain "degrees of freedom" are always given.^*10* What every fruit grower knows, for example, when he sees how the same fruit trees can often react extremely differently to only slight changes in environmental conditions (e.g. slight variations in the ambient temperature or in the amount of fertiliser used, or depending on the type of pruning, etc.) This "sensitivity" of systems (be they single plants or complex ecosystems) to small fluctuations in important parameters is characteristic of the behaviour of "open" systems (even if the famous "butterfly effect" does not occur as often as was once thought).

*10*Autopoiesis" means the "self-production" and self-reproduction of all physiological processes and their products within the operationally closed metabolism of a living being. This is because living systems are always organised in such a way that the whole of the system and all its components produce and maintain themselves recursively and reciprocally. This leads to a certain "production cycle" of all biochemical components of the organism, as can already be observed in a single-celled organism. Of course, "regulators" (genes and other biochemical "attractors" and "order parameters") on different hierarchical levels also play a role here (cf. Matura/Varela 1980).

6.1.2.4. Complexity, balance and stability

Under no circumstances - and even this is difficult for everyday consciousness to understand - should "complexity" (in the sense of a highly sensitive interaction between the system components) be confused with "complicatedness" (the number of system components): even an apparently simple physical system such as a double pendulum can prove surprisingly complex, i.e. highly variable, in its behaviour. And even in ecosystems, especially when their stability threatens to get out of hand, the number of possible "development paths" that these systems can take in an evolutionary way is sometimes unmanageable. But again, "stability" should not be confused with "equilibrium"^*11* , since ecosystems (and even individual organisms) owe their stability at best to a "floating equilibrium": indeed, it is even said that they organize and stabilize themselves (thermodynamically speaking) "far from equilibrium" by continuously "redirecting" (channeling) the entropy (the tendency to disorder) in their interior in such a way that it has the opposite effect: namely, to build and maintain structures; the "entropic energy flow" through the system is "managed" by the system according to its own operational rules in such a way that the maximization of entropy is achieved precisely by the fact that the energy flow produces flow-optimized structures in its path (just like the well-known honeycomb-shaped convection cells in "Bénard convection" in thin layers of liquid). At first glance this seems paradoxical because it contradicts our everyday intuition, but (physically speaking) it is a completely logical and causally determined process.

In other words, the stable structure and regular behaviour of self-organising systems are subject to an "imbalance thermodynamics" (Ilya Prigogine) or a "steady state equilibrium" (Ludwig v. Bertalanffy), although phases of instability can always occur. But it is precisely these temporary unstable phases that can also increase the "resilience" of the system, its resistance and adaptability to external disturbances, so that they ultimately even form the "motor of evolution". Thus, when one repeatedly hears talk of a "balance of nature", one should actually more accurately speak of an inherent or intrinsic "stability of natural ecosystems", the maintenance of which ecosystems succeed in maintaining precisely because they process "far from (thermodynamic) equilibrium". Actually balanced or absolutely stable systems (following the model of classical mechanics), on the other hand, would be too rigid and inflexible to adapt to changing environmental conditions and would therefore easily perish. It is just that this adaptive and evolutionary advantage of structurally and behaviorally flexible systems also implies that their development cannot be exactly predicted when influenced from outside - which is a disadvantage for environmental management.

*11*Such confusion of terms is often observed in the debate about the right balance between ecology and economy: For example, the term "sustainability" is often used to refer only to long-lasting effects or measures (in this sense, however, environmental damage could also be "lasting"), whereas "sustainable development" is characterized by the fact that a certain resource (e.g. wood or energy) is managed in such a way that (a) it can be renewed again and again (e.g. by recycling materials already used or by reforestation, i.e. the regrowth of forest wood), or if this (b) involves the use of a resource that is basically not exhaustible (such as solar or wind energy).

6.1.2.5. Hierarchy and heterarchy, emergence and scale differences

We have already said above that in nature there is no "control centre", no instance dominating all processes. Such a central power does not exist, at least not in modern democratic society: although there is the legislative and executive power of government, there is the judiciary and the administration, there is the police and the military, but in addition to these political and administrative institutions with their "separation of powers", there are also the economic enterprises, which act relatively autonomously within the framework of legislation, and the "free market" of goods and services, which no one is able to dominate (as long as no monopolies are created) and whose development is therefore often "chaotic". And many cultural institutions (such as religions, research, the media and numerous art institutions) also lead a relative life of their own, which, although often dependent on state or corporate financing, nevertheless follows its own rules and interests. Of course, all these institutions and actors "observe" and influence each other in an incessant game of "action and reaction", innovation and provocation, etc., but overall they form a "fluid mix" within which no one has absolute control or sets the tone. But after all, in democratically constituted social systems there is not only certain scope for self-organization and self-regulation, but almost everywhere there is also a considerable degree of "foreign organization" through regulations, norms, state laws as well as public morality, perhaps even a kind of "guiding culture" that asserts itself in many areas.

It is quite different in non-human nature: Here, everything is self-organized from the outset due to evolutionary processes, i.e., completely unconsciously and haphazardly created solely by "accidental" physical and (bio)chemical interactions. This does not mean, however, that ecological structures of order ("order regimes") have not also arisen in nature, through which the continuation of evolutionary processes is considerably restricted in its possibilities: The respective "state of evolution" (i.e. what is already there) that has already been reached restricts the possible paths along which an ecosystem can change. This structural robustness or resistance of the ecosystem must then be taken into account when humans attempt to steer the ecosystem's "course" in a different direction. All natural systems have an inherent "structural conservatism" that makes it rather unlikely that innovations (of mutations or "evolutionary thrusts") will prevail (except perhaps in "supercritical" situations where the whole is at stake). The "natural order" of ecosystems (or of nature as a whole) includes not only "model solutions" (such as the flying apparatus of birds and insects) but also hierarchical structures, i.e. macro levels of order to which micro levels are subordinate. This already begins with the individual organism, which is differentiated into countless levels of regulation, whereby the central nervous system (of mammals, for example) forms only the topmost point of this hierarchical architecture.

Nevertheless, the lower levels (e.g. the cellular level) always have a certain "degree of freedom", especially in the processing of information (e.g. regarding the available amount of water or the mineral and energy supply), so that the metabolism of the living being is not always "decided" only "from above". For example, it could be that the "dirigate" of the superordinate (macrostructural) patterns in the reactive processing of unusual information, which triggers a kind of "stress" in the organism, depends to a certain degree on the variability of locally effective heterarchical structures in order to find an appropriate "answer". In multi-layered systems there is always a lot possible.^*12* Among the unusual information that can be processed heterarchically are, for example, such "negative" (life-threatening) information that occurs, for example, in the case of an inadequate supply of vital substances, forcing the organism to take "economy measures" or internal redistribution; however, this can also involve the "perception" of damage (e.g. through parasite infestation), to which the organism must also be able to react flexibly. As far as the range of possible adaptation reactions is concerned, it is unlikely that it is always possible to make exact predictions - precisely because the dominance of established hierarchical reaction patterns can also be "broken" by heterarchical processes, so that growth and behaviour move in an unexpected direction.

And systems-theoretical modelling is confronted with yet another somewhat puzzling phenomenon: that of emergence. This means that the special properties of systems cannot simply be derived from the properties of the system components. "Emergent properties" already emerge at the lower stages of nature's development: for example, the flow properties of water (i.e. a "loose" accumulation of many water molecules) cannot be derived from the properties of hydrogen or oxygen.^*13* This applies even more to complex ecosystems that are subject to certain laws that are not determined by any of the physical, chemical or biological components involved. Therefore, only empirical analysis of the concrete behaviour of the ecosystem can help here. Only then do the "superimposed features" of the system (relative to the component properties) become apparent. The "emergent" system properties cannot be read from the system elements themselves, but only from their interaction, i.e. the interactions between them: they are thus relational properties (but again not of individual relations, but of the entire relational structure). Although a certain interaction relation presupposes that the "relations" are suitable for the relation (therefore, grazing animals, for example, interact with each other differently than with plants, for example), the character of a relation depends on the environment of all other relations: Thus, interactions always take place in the context of all circumstances and influences to which they are exposed, but also have an effect on these circumstances and influencing factors.

In other words, systems always form entireties that are "more" and different than just the totality of their parts (their elements), so we have to look at them from a "holistic perspective". This approach poses certain methodological problems, however, in that an analysis always requires the "isolation" of a certain system variable in order to observe how its variability affects the behaviour of various other system variables. Only then, when certain "macro-structural" mechanisms and patterns of rules within the system context have been successfully elucidated, only then can more complex internal (intrasystemic) and external (environmental) interactions be considered quasi "holistically".

Now, the components of an ecosystem are often themselves complexly structured - as in the case of organisms, which themselves embody systems - which means that these components often have a wider range of behavioural options than one would expect. From this spectrum, however, under the dominance of the macro rules of the system, only those component properties can manifest themselves that the system permits or that the components need in order to survive within the ecosystem (or within the ecosystem-environment-interaction-network): the more rigid the system-environment conditions are, the fewer degrees of freedom remain for the vital components to ensure their existence. The "surplus" of behavioural complexity does not disappear, however, but remains "latent".^*14* If now the ecosystem as a whole should get into a "critical" situation, in which its stability is threatened (e.g. when a "tipping point" in climate development is reached), then a certain "loosening" of the hitherto close interactions between the system components will sometimes occur, so that their manifest behavioural scope will increase (but, of course, also the pressure on them to adapt): it may now become important that the components (organisms) have behavioural reserves whose survival value or "evolutionary fitness" they can test in a "trial and error" process; and genetic mutations, too, now have an increased chance to prove their advantageousness for survival within the ecosystem. This is one of those stress situations in which "heterarchic impulses" are able to partially or temporarily overcome the dominance of hierarchical ecosystem structures: Fluctuations in the structure and behaviour of the subsystems (the organisms) can under certain circumstances even lead to a change in the macrostructures of the ecosystem, for example by a certain species gaining a hitherto impossible preponderance over the other species of the ecosystem, thereby changing the character of the ecosystem as a whole.^*15*

In the case of "social-ecological systems", we are now dealing with the special case that man, on the basis of his intellectual capacity, can even conquer a certain amount of freedom from the restrictive natural conditions by using his innate "surplus" of cognitive powers to devise technologies with the help of which he can apparently transform or exploit his natural environment at will. While this creative surplus of human thought and action (e.g. being able to do higher mathematics) is only a random result of biological evolution but, once it is there, it can provide man with a tremendous potential to eventually expand into all available habitats on Earth, i.e. to subject all natural resources to his interests. It is precisely this that has made humans the most successful species on the planet - and a threat to them.^*16*

What makes the prediction or management of ecosystem development even more difficult are the different time scales on which ecosystem processes take place (with the consequence that, for example, the effective regeneration of forest stands or animal populations takes different amounts of time); also cumulative processes (which can occur particularly in the case of contamination and are often difficult to slow down); finally also periodic fluctuations (for example in the sizes of a predator and prey population) or climatic rhythms (e.g. in the El Nino phenomenon). Despite their regularity, even these can only be predicted and modelled within limits in terms of their impact. But at least they provide a framework within which the "order of nature" can be understood in principle.^*17* However, knowledge of the universal laws of nature alone is not sufficient to understand the specific behaviour patterns of complex ecosystems: The peculiar "rules of the game" that determine the structure and functioning of the various ecosystems do not exceed the framework of natural laws anywhere, but they cannot be directly reduced to physics and chemistry. And this is perhaps the most important lesson that can be learned from the analysis of ecosystems.

*12*For a long time it was believed that genes determine everything that can happen in an organism. However, it is now known that other cellular processes also have a considerable influence on the way genes work (for example through the folding of DNA), which can lead to feedback between different levels of regulation. In addition, so-called "epigenetic" mechanisms have also been discovered which, especially in stress situations, mark (methylate) the DNA in a certain way so that the expression of certain genes is increased or decreased. This epigenetic modification of gene expression can even be inherited over several generations before it disappears again.

*13*The fact that organismic systems, for example, are capable of unexpectedly assuming new properties is shown in animals equipped with a brain: here mental properties such as consciousness, sensory perception and emotions suddenly appear, which require a material basis (a central nervous system as a subsystem of the organism), but which cannot be seen by neuronal processes from the outside, since they are only revealed in the inner subjective experience of a psyche. Nobody is yet able to say how the brain arrives at its psychic functions and experiences, but this riddle (the so-called "body-soul problem") is not yet a reason to assume the existence of an autonomous psyche, i.e. independent of the brain, as is usually postulated by religions. After all, the example of the emergence of mental characteristics in the realm of higher beings shows that one must always expect surprises in complex systems. Even the question whether "life" is also an emergent phenomenon has so far not been answered convincingly by anyone. For what we find empirically when we approach nature from the outside as observers, these are always only material or energetic phenomena, i.e. physical or chemical entities and processes. Do living beings as such (i.e. already at the pre-mental stage) possess specific properties that cannot be understood from their biochemistry? Properties such as self-activity or self-determination or even "self-interest"? Do living beings only behave as if they were pursuing "purposes", or are "teleological mechanisms" actually effective in them? These are all unanswered questions: How vitality and subjectivity can arise within certain organisms, this eludes (perhaps even in principle) any purely materialistic understanding of nature. At best, we understand the correlations and conditional dependencies (e.g. between neuronal circuits and certain experiences of consciousness), but not the causality that connects objective events with subjective sensations.

*14*The astonishing adaptation strategies of birds, for example, which have become accustomed to life in the city by tapping into new food sources (e.g. inspecting garbage cans or picking the aluminium caps of milk bottles or cracking open nuts from passing cars), show what possibilities, especially learning capacities, can be hidden in more intelligent animals. As a result, our settlements have become new ecosystems not only for us humans, but also for non-human "opportunists".

*15*In the field of humane social systems this is not infrequently the case. If, for example, a company gets into an economic imbalance, so that its continued existence in the market becomes questionable, then sometimes the (formal) management structures that have been firmly established up to now are loosened, in that the creative imagination of the employees suddenly takes on greater significance even at the lower levels of the company's hierarchy: the "informal relationships" between employees are now more important and the normally low level of "bottom-up" feedback is becoming more numerous and significant, making the corporate system as a whole more "informationally transparent" and the decision-making process more open. In addition, however, there is often an increase in "external organisation", in that the management calls in an external consultancy firm to explore the company for internal restructuring possibilities (e.g. savings and redistribution).

*16*What may be considered an "evolutionary success", however, is not easy to determine: Are not, for example, the soil bacteria or numerous species of insects, some of which have been colonizing the Earth for many millions of years, to be regarded as at least as successful (if not more successful) as humans, who have only been appearing for a relatively short time? What really is "success" is ultimately determined by the length of time spent on this planet. Also, "more complex in structure" does not always mean "ecologically fitter": for it is precisely its enormous biological complexity that could soon be the undoing of mankind and make it a "threatened species".

*17*One should always keep in mind that the periodic (i.e. regularly recurring) processes in ecosystems should be regarded as properties of evolutionary, disruption-prone and flexible systems that are more variable than the periodic processes in "conservative systems": as in the case of the solar system, for example, where the planets and moons follow their orbits extremely closely, so that solar and lunar eclipses, for example, can be predicted very accurately.

6.1.3. Different approaches to modelling social-ecological systems

Modelling the relationships between humans and nature in a singlecomprehensive "social-ecological system" is in some ways much closer to reality than a systems-theoretical modelling that compares human social systems with ecological systems. This is because such a contrast, which corresponds to the traditional opposition "culture vs. nature”. It is true that (as Niklas Luhmann, for example, has said) the communicative processes of a society can be described as an operationally closed system, relative to which nature as an ecological overall system ("Gaia") only forms the environment of the society; but on the one hand, intra-societal communication is not little concerned with the exchange relationships with nature, and on the other hand, people, the social actors, are not only citizens of socio-cultural communities, but always also natural beings. Seen in this way, namely from an anthropological point of view, nature is present to us not only as an environment, but at the same time also as an "in-world"; which is already visible in the fact that we all have a body, i.e. we are biological organisms and must therefore be nourished, protected and cared for in order to be able to exist at all.^*18* From a biological point of view we are only "higher animals" with special mental and linguistic abilities, but at the same time we are also equipped with "natural needs" which we can only satisfy materially. The way we deal with our own bodies or with the bodies of other people may be culturally shaped or "transformed", but our bodies still remain thoroughly organic bodies, i.e. "natural things", which we use in physical work (despite all the support of all kinds of technology) or with or on which we use violence (in war, corporal punishment or when committing violent crimes). Last but not least, we need food, clothing and shelter for our physical survival and well-being; as well as the services of medicine when we fall ill, or of physical hygiene and health prevention in order not to fall ill in the first place. In fact, our body, our naturalness, is the very centre of social life - and this also applies to the execution of our communications, which, even when communication technologies are used, ultimately remain body-bound.^*19* Our biological nature asserts itself everywhere: in work and sexuality, in sports, games and dance, in procreation and motherhood.

In other words, cultural human systems have always been intimately intertwined with ecological natural systems, because we ourselves "embody" ecologically integrated natural beings. Therefore, it is right, because it is appropriate to the matter, that the theory of "social-ecological systems" considers human cultural activities from the outset as integrated into the more comprehensive ecological system of the earth (even if, for methodological or pragmatic reasons, it often only considers local or regional sections of this global ecosystem). Although the global ecosystem may be substructurable (i.e. subsystemically differentiable) into human-cultural system formations on the one hand and "purely natural" ecosystems on the other, which then interact with each other, there is actually only one "universal" socio-ecological system: Planet Earth as a whole. And what is to say about its environment? Well, this is all that which is already mentioned in a well-known children's song: "Sun, Moon and Stars". However, not everything that makes up "space" is equally relevant to the Earth's ecosystem: most important here is probably the Sun, which gives light to the Earth; then there is the Moon, which is involved in regulating the tides, for example; finally, there is also cosmic radiation from electrically charged particles, which fortunately is largely reflected by the Earth's magnetic field or deflected towards the poles, where the fascinating northern lights often appear.^*20*

Here it is also evident that almost all systems (especially those in the natural world) are ultimately theoreticalconstructions: What we actually perceive in nature are always only conspicuous interactions, dependencies, correlations, causal relationships, etc., but in order to be able to "see" systems in this confusion, we must construct system models whose boundaries to their environment are often blurred or fluid: In the case of an isolated desert oasis, it is still relatively easy to understand it as a system delimited towards the desert; but even in the case of the Wadden Sea or an atoll, such a delimitation towards the open sea is not so easy to achieve; and certainly not in the case of the tropical rainforest, which frays everywhere at its edges, so that it is not possible to say exactly where it actually begins and where it ends.^*21* And from how many trees and at what distance between the trees does the ecosystem of a forest actually begin? Of course, the scientific demarcation of an ecosystem from its environment is not arbitrary or random, but always based on certain criteria (i.e. according to certain empirical indicators, general definitions and pragmatic aspects), but ultimately we have to draw a more or less clear line somewhere in order to arrive at a "system" whose behaviour we can then analyse. Whether we have made our system delimitation correctly (or whether it is too wide or too narrow), this is basically only revealed in practice, i.e. by the success of our model-based predictions about its development or also by the success of our interventions in the system, if everything develops exactly as we intended. And after all, the appropriateness of a particular system model is not only about the correct spatial delimitation of the system, but also about having captured all relevant factors (all parameters and variables) so that we can arrive at a complete picture of the presumed system context.^*22* As is common practice in (natural) science, the criterion of success has replaced the criterion of truth: Nobody can say what nature itself is like, so we rely on the plausibility of our theoretical premises and on the success of our experimental expectations and computer-aided modelling.^*23* The climate models of the IPCC (the "International Panel of Climate Change") are a good example of this. However, this already applied to the early future scenarios in the reports of the "Club of Rome".

If one thinks the theory of social-ecological systems to its conclusion, then the original system-environment relationship is transformed into a comprehensive world relationship in which man can or should regard himself as a culturally acting subject and at the same time as an "object" (more precisely: as a component) of nature: he is more of a player within nature than its master and transformer (although he naturally already tries to transform and exploit nature according to his interests). At any case, he should not be an opponent of nature, cause lastly (like everything else) he is subject to its laws. And this also applies to his mental and moral becoming, which in the end always has to be oriented and proven by empirical facts: for sensual beings like us, for example, even ethics cannot avoid making our physical neediness, our vulnerability and mortality an essential starting point for all moral considerations. And this also includes our moral relationship with non-human "fellow creatures", the animals and perhaps even the plants, in so far as these too are entitled to our respect because of their physical sensitivity to pain. Thus, a social-ecological consideration of the overall reality will also have to take into account the animal- and nature-ethical dimension, which means that philosophy also belongs in the "interdisciplinary setting" of SES-theory. To deal with nature that always contains an ethical component - even if it is only a matter of conserving natural resources. In the context of a world, everything is basically equally important and of equal value - but nothing is indifferent or superfluous.^*24*

In other words, man is only a single link in the extremely ramified "chain of beings" - and can neither break away from nor rise above it (even if some religions and ideologies would like to tell us so). The history of mankind is therefore only a single moment within the planetary "big history", which also takes into account the geological aspects (e.g. plate tectonics and rock formation) and the development of the climate in order to reconstruct the gradual development of mankind from a "global perspective". Thus, even if the representatives of social-ecological systems theory occasionally compare the human cultural sphere with the natural sphere in their modelling, since humans with their special needs like to face nature, this does not change the fact that the social-ecological approach is a fundamentally global systems approach (despite all local or regional differentiations in certain practical issues).

As is to be expected, there are numerous definitions of Social-Ecological Systems (SES), of which only the perhaps most complex one is mentioned here, especially since it includes many of the aspects of such systems discussed above: According to this definition, SES embody "complex adaptive systems with key characteristics such as: (1) integrated biogeophysical and socio-cultural processes, (2) self-organization, (3) nonlinear and unpredictable dynamics, (4) feedback between social and ecological processes, (5) changing behavior in space (spatial thresholds) and time (time thresholds), (6) legacy behavioral effects with outcomes at very different time scales, (7) emergent properties, and (8) the impossibility to etrapolate the information from one SES to another" (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2015).^*25*

Since the 1990s, numerous SES approaches have been developed which will not be presented in detail here, although they highlight and analyse very different aspects of SES. G. S. Cumming (2014), who himself is one of the earliest and most important representatives of the SES approach, has proposed a classification of the different SES frameworks into five categories, which may be helpful to get a certain overview. It distinguishes "(1) hypothesis-oriented frameworks; (2) assessment-oriented frameworks; (3) action-oriented frameworks; (4) problem-oriented frameworks; and (5) theory-oriented frameworks".

Together with Cumming, we should be particularly interested in the "theory-oriented frameworks", which according to Cumming should satisfy seven "assessment criteria". Due to their importance, these criteria will be cited here in full (Cumming 2014):

• 1. Social-ecological core: a framework may have its origins in either the social or the ecological sciences, but it needs to provide a clear way of linking social and ecological systems and to be strong in both disciplines. Frameworks that deal primarily with economies and claim to be interdisciplinary because they mention ecosystem goods and services, or frameworks created for ecosystems which indirectly include anthropogenic drivers of habitat change, do not fit this criterion. It also excludes conceptual frameworks which offer general ways of thinking about the world, such as integral theory, but do not make specific claims about social-ecological relationships.
• 2. Empirical support and translation modes: frameworks that claim to be scientific, no matter how elegant, should be supported by rigorous empirical studies. Analyses, results, and conclusions should be framed in a way that is repeatable, at least in principle, and different scientists should ideally reach the same conclusions independently. The criterion of empirical support also includes Popper’s falsification criterion; it should be possible in principle to find counter-examples or to disprove empirical claims. Likewise, frameworks should include translation modes that allow theory to be connected to empirical observations, and vice versa. Theory should provide a way of distinguishing between significant and irrelevant observations; and, conversely, observation should provide a way of distinguishing between significant and irrelevant theories. This is not possible if the predictions of a theory cannot be framed in terms of testable hypotheses.
• 3. Mechanisms: frameworks should offer insights into causality. They should ideally be based on first principles, or at least on accepted observations, and should offer clear statements of cause and effect. Frameworks for SESs should also offer explanations for the complex behaviors observed in real-world SESs. System descriptions alone, whether of system elements or system behaviors, do not provide a complete framework.
• 4. Spatiotemporal dynamics: frameworks should deal with the dynamic aspects of SESs and the nature of change through time, as well as with the spatial nature of SES and spatial variation.
• 5. Disciplinary context: frameworks should relate to previous frameworks and, ideally, should be able to explain their weaknesses and/or incorporate their strengths. In a discipline such as physics, for example, the theory of relativity builds on and expands Newtonian physics rather than discarding or ignoring it. In my subjective view, the study of SESs has suffered from an excess of isolated development of frameworks with too little synthesis between frameworks and too much ignorance of preceding ideas.
• 6. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: this builds on the preceding criterion of disciplinary context, but more broadly. Frameworks for SESs should be able to cope with, and offer connections between, complementary perspectives and different epistemologies.
• 7. Direction: frameworks should provide direction for the study of SESs by suggesting or guiding new empirical studies which will advance our theoretical understanding of SESs.

In general, a "framework" can be understood as a "family of models" which "not necessarily depend on deductive logic to connect different ideas (i.e., it does not have to present a single argument in which the conclusions follow from the premises)". For example, such a "framework" can consider SESs as interactional systems of humans and nature, with different sub-modules focusing primarily on the social aspects of SES, such as decision making within social networks. Strictly speaking, "frameworks" are always "metatheoretical schema facilitating the organization of diagnosis, analysis, and prescription". Such frameworks relate to different objectives and are never "right" or "wrong". In this respect they resemble worldviews that also cannot be "true" or "untrue" either, since they are the first to set the criteria for the evaluation of statements. This means that "frameworks" always define the epistemological conditions under which SES can be observed and analysed in principle.

None of the existing SES theories already meets all seven criteria, so that Cumming states: "The development of a stronger theoretical framework remains an important goal for SES theory" or "we still lack a cohesive body of SES theory". Especially with regard to their epistemology, the central SES theories often differ substantially, since they reflect their own epistemic presuppositions in different ways, i.e. they are aware of their own conditionality to a different degree. Here a certain naivety in following the chosen approach, i.e. a lack of self-reflection, often becomes apparent. Too little consideration is given to "the processes by which decisions are made directly influence their outcomes". According to Cumming, the development of a more coherent theory depends in particular on further progress being made in the following three respects: "(1) the development of better standards and more effective ways of assessing the quality of SES research, increasing rigor in analyses of SESs; (2) the creation of clearer linkages from the specific to the general, with case studies contributing more obviously to theoretical advancement; and (3) the development of better translation modes using theoretical constructs to generate evidence-based recommendations for social-ecological interventions which would enhance desirable aspects of social-ecological resilience". One of the peculiarities of social systems as components of SES is that not only the assumptions about the nature and delimitability of an SES play a role in its analysis, but also the results of each SES analysis have an impact on the SES analyst's view, so that any appropriate SES analysis must always also imply an analysis of the made suppositions (a "self-analysis", so to speak). Consequently, this is not only about the development and application of mathematical formulas for the description of natural SES phenomena, but also about the methodological self-image of the SES scientist, which is influenced by certain interests. Cumming therefore rightly says: "Rather, because of the 'Social' in SES, they will need to take into account the unique properties of social systems and the unavoidable subjectivity involved in analyzing themselves". This is also where what we discussed above under the term "constructivism" with regard to the construction of "social-ecological systems" becomes apparent: The empirical collection of objective data and its feed into certain epistemic and pragmatic models always links objectivity with subjectivity, insofar as there can be no "disinterested" description and explanation of the relationship between social and ecological systems. Our practical interests towards nature always influence our theoretical view of it.

However, whatever approach is preferred, it should always be borne in mind that "ecological knowledge and understanding" is a critical link between complex and dynamic ecosystems on the one hand and adaptive management practices and public institutions and social networks on the other; like as Colding and Barthel (2019) have proposed:

Figure 1. Ecological Knowledge & Understanding

Source: this scheme is a modification of a scheme by Folke & Berkes 1998

SES frameworks can have a very complex structure and their practical implementation can involve numerous work phases. This is demonstrated by the example of a problem-oriented SES approach:

Figure 2. An example of a problem-oriented framework: resilience analysis

Source: Walker & al. (2002)

And this is still a relatively simple example, as only the most important factors and process steps with regard to the special aspect of resilience are shown schematically here. Any profound SES theory that strives to include all relevant factors will have to take into account numerous variables whose evaluation and linkage is anything but easy - especially when it comes to conducting empirical studies and formulating and implementing managerial decisions (measures). In the following, at least the most important of these variables (or factors) are listed (according to Partelow 2018: 36):

• Operational choice rules
• Property rights systems
• Norms, trust, social capital
• History or past experiences
• Government organizations
• Economic value
• Spatial and temporal distribution
• Predictability of systems dynamics
• NGOs
• Technologies available
• Investment activities
• Demographic trends
• Climate patterns
• Pollution patterns
• Self-organizing activities
• Lobbying activities

Although this list is only a selection, it is intended to give a feeling for the large number of variables to be considered; to which still must be added the complexity of networking and the interdependencies of all these SES variables. It will be difficult to avoid certain model-like simplifications in the sense of a "reduction of real complexity"; just as they are accompanied by the implementation of concrete measures by which the relationship between man and nature is to be "regulated". However, nature rarely forgives such simplifications, since they are always present and effective as a whole with all its details at the same time. Turner et al. therefore rightly state: In practice, "four common general elements of human interventions" have to be considered, which can lead to negative effects: namely "simplification, reduction in natural variability, fragmentation and loss of contigious processes, and the introduction of hard boundaries" (Turner et al. 2001).

This is especially true if certain "protected areas" are to be established within the ecosphere: "For example, in the context of protected areas, people may reduce hibitat diversity, harvest animals or plants [...] or construct fences that limit movement and population expansion". This can have very drastic consequences: "As ecosystems respond to intervention and use by people, they often do unexpected things; for example, pest outbreaks and unusually large fires occur, forests are lost, or shollow lakes become dominated by toxic algae." (Cumming/Allen 2017: 1710) All these dangers pose great challenges to SES theories, with three issues in particular that SES theories have to address: "They [have to] include (1) increasing attention to the resilience and sustainability of protected areas and the landscapes in which they occur; (2) increasing consideration of the relevance of spatial context and scale for protected areas and the ecosystems services they provide; and (3) efforts to reframe what protected areas are and how they both define and are defined by the relationships of people and nature." (Cumming/Allen 2017: 1710). The cited authors present a scheme for this, in which the socio-ecological feedbacks between human interventions and the reactions of a protected area are presented:

Figure 3. A systems perspective on social-ecological feedbacks in protected area management

Source: Cumming & Allen 2017, p. 1711

In addition to interactions and feedbacks that occur within protected areas, their direct outputs have add-on effects that subsequently influence both their internal dynamics and their future outputs.

It was above all the growing awareness of the complexity of possible ecosystem impacts, which can only be predicted to a very limited extent, that brought the SES theory to the fore. The SES approach has led to a real change of perspective or paradigm in ecological thinking and especially in the management of "protected areas": "The shift in thinking entailed by SES approaches is to move away from efforts to optimize production, and towards less 'efficient' but ultimately more resilient and more sustainable ways of achiving conservation and socioeconomic goals." (Cumming/Allen 2017: 1711)

If one now tries to determine the central components of SES, one arrives at the following scheme, for example, which shows how closely and at the same time complexly the "social dimension" is linked to the "ecological dimension" (even if this scheme was developed primarily for the "ecological assessment" of land use in the tropical regions of Amazonia):

Figure 4. Multiple scales of interaction

Source: Quoted from Gardner & al. 2013

In conclusion, the most important challenges that every SES theory has to face and which, in case of success, also mark those learning successes that are indispensable in theoretical and practical terms in order to be able to manage social-ecological systems appropriately, will be summarised:

"Some of these that seem to us to be of highest priority include (1) developing and working with spatial data sets, such as atlases and remote sensing data, to better understand spatial dynamics and the role of heterogeneity within protected areas; (2) developing a better general framework to facilitate or direct the interactions of protected areas with their surrounding landscapes, including both ecological and socioeconomic spillover effects; (3) learning to align ecological, social, and economic processes and their interactions, especially where spatial, temporal, or functional mismatches between scales (...) are possible; and (4) developing a better understanding of when feedbacks between social and ecological system elements are important and when they can largely be disregarded.” (Cumming/Allen 2017: 1713)

It was the intention of this chapter to point out exactly these requirements to the (not only young) reader and to make them accessible: The aim is to convey "systemic thinking" to the people of today, which is of paramount importance almost everywhere, but especially in socio-ecological contexts. Above all, dealing with complexity and understanding non-linear processes are essential if a "new contract" with nature is to be concluded and a future worth living for all living beings on this planet is to be made possible.

*18*We become aware of how ambiguous and vague the system-environment relationship is when, for example, someone speaks of "his" environment, whereby he usually means his residential environment or social milieu. Here the speaker functions, so to speak, as the "reference system" to which everything else around him refers. And indeed, every single living being already forms a complex organismic system for which everything else belongs to its environment. So there are - strictly speaking - as many environments as there are reference systems, i.e. innumerable.

*19*The fact that almost everything in society is permeated by the physical, even carried by it, is something we become particularly painfully aware of in "Corona times", since we have to practice "physical distance" among ourselves and the physical closeness of our fellow human beings increasingly begins to be lacking; conversely, the possibly infected body of the other person can also become a threat.

*20*As far as the rest of the solar system and the space of fixed stars is concerned: their existence is mainly based on the ecological development of the earth in a historical perspective - for example, when a large meteor hits the earth (which has already led to some "great extinctions" in the past of the earth: such as the extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period about 65 million years ago). However, compared to the considerable influence of the Earth's own volcanism and the ice ages, some of which were caused by the Earth's orbit, the other influences of the farther reaches of space on the Earth's history can be described as marginal or subtle. All in all, it can be said that the "spaceship Earth" forms a largely closed system that is hardly or only rarely affected by the extrasolar rest of the universe.

*21*A system-environment delimitation is still most clearly successful where we are dealing with structures which we have also constructed ourselves as realities "bottom up": e.g. in companies, social groups or political institutions which are based on a clear and arbitrary demarcation between internal organisation ("internal milieu") and external environment ("external milieu"). Such functionally unambiguous demarcations are actually only found in nature where a living being has self-organised a cell membrane (as in the case of a unicellular organism) or an outer skin (as in humans) so that it actively demarcates itself from its environment in order to become "autonomous" (even if not self-sufficient). However, we do not find such a self-organized "membrane" in ecosystems.

*22*This can be quite difficult, considering that, for example, most soil bacteria are not yet known. Nor do we yet understand all the mechanisms that drive the flow systems in the atmosphere or in the oceans. And the terrestrial and marine food chains have by no means been fully explored.

*23*If, for example, a laboratory experiment delivers a good result that confirms the theoretical assumptions, one does not say "It's true", but more modestly "It works".

*24*Even then, if one takes a consistently "anthropocentric" stand towards nature, that is, if one judges all nature beings according to their value for man, without attributing to them a special intrinsic value, even then the direct (primary) "duties against themselves" (as Immanuel Kant says) require the observance of the indirect (or secondary) "duties against nature", since the destruction of nature also includes the destruction of man. Moreover, cruelty to animals that are sensitive to pain is also detrimental to "general morality" (Kant).

*25*Or from a slightly different perspective: "Ecosystems and social systems are characterized by bottom-up and top-down controls and thresholds, multiple scales and nonlinar dynamics. (Cumming/Allen 2017: 1712) One therefore needs both: the "view from below" and the "view from above", because in complex systems hierarchical and heterarchical structures always play together, so that "self-organization" in the sense of an interaction "between process and structure" occurs.

6.2. Systematic Indicators

6.2.1. Organized learning through youth education

"So let us plant an apple tree. The time has come"
Hoimar v. Dithfurth

"Youth education is characterised by its institutions, by its history, by young people and by lifelong learning. The traditional idea of two phases of life, which coincide exclusively and separately with either the acquisition or the application of education, is replaced by the idea that organized learning cannot be limited to an educational phase at the beginning of life. (Deutscher Bildungsrat, 1973) Can changes in the natural environment not also make continuous learning possible? Here we must first distinguish that the life situation and experience are quite different from those of children, in the sense of mediation, and that self-learning is needed. The prerequisites must therefore be examined and they must be geared to what young people bring with them. (Tietgens, 1979: 25) Or as Horst Siebert has said: "The young person must be able to determine for himself the purpose for which he learns".

In this sense, the education of young people requires first of all the awareness of the implicit interpretation of societies in terms of an environmental crisis and it is closely linked to historical development. The objectives must be seen as dependent on social interests, but social conditions can change. "Therefore one can dare to say that learning and achievement efforts in the emancipatory structure can fulfil a function in every learning area which promotes democratisation - and vice versa, that the authoritarian learning and achievement structure can again support the technocratic tendency in all areas of educational activity, especially in youth education" (Strzelewicz, 1979: 134 ff.) Technocratic and emancipatory approaches are relevant for the ecological education of young people. The question here is how these approaches relate to overcoming the ecological crisis. (Brumlik 1983: 406) In this area, however, one speaks more of learning goals than of educational goals. "Youth education is thus characterised by its institutions, by its history, by young people and by lifelong learning. The traditional idea of two phases of life, which coincide exclusively and separately, either with the acquisition or with the application of education, is replaced by the view that organised learning cannot be limited to an educational phase at the beginning of life". (Siebert, 1972: 76)

Siebert (1972) finds three forms of justification:

• the derivation from scientific disciplines,
• the empirical analysis of the use situations and
• a needs analysis of the addressees. (Siebert 1972: 76)

These goals cannot be defined scientifically, but must be negotiated in a social communication process, against the background of the respective historical and social conditions. On the basis of this background analysis, it must be considered the task of science to participate in the discussion. This means that although the goals are derived from the scientific discipline, they cannot be set absolutely. Rather, they must be seen as a contribution to a social discourse in which at least the lecturers and participants in youth education must be involved.

Three aspects of ecology are relevant here:

• the scientific, which includes above all hard facts, i.e. technical-biological knowledge.
• the philosophical, , which addresses aesthetic and ethical questions
• the political.

It places human society at the centre of the human-nature relationship. "Ecology can be defined as the science of the interactions between different organisms, between organisms and the environmental factors acting on them, and between different environmental factors. Organisms are here defined as microorganisms, plants, animals and humans".(Bick, 1987: 16 ff.)Nature is seen as a life-support system for humans; humans are also part of nature. Ecology as a biological science represents nature systematically. (Odum, 1991: 43)

Different principles can be distinguished:

• The first is the hierarchical structure, i.e. a sequence of functional units. In the ecological hierarchy, the units organism, population, biocoenosis, ecosystem, landscape as well as biome, biogeographical region and biosphere can be distinguished.
• The second principle is functional integration and means that each level of the hierarchy influences the adjacent levels. (Odum, 1991: 43)
• The third principle is homeostasis. Homeostatic mechanisms are balancing, forces and control loops.

With this we want to make clear as our position that a discussion about ecology in view of the environmental crisis must not be content with technological developments or damage descriptions, but that in the sense of a critical enlightenment a "fundamental discussion about the orientation crisis of progress" is necessary in the broadest sense for the search for a new economic and social order. (Altner 1982: 16) Here, this means in particular the participation of the individual and his or her ability to do so, but also the questioning of social structures. The concept of ecology is thus determined here by man's description of the environment, by man's assessment of the environment and by man's actions in the environment.

6.2.2. Indicators for a sustainable development

Youth education is therefore the first term. The second is how to get round the indicators for socio-ecological production landscapes. These must be introduced in the sense of organised learning, which cannot be limited to an educational phase at the beginning of life, about the economic and ecological problems.

The concept of sustainable development is the central vision for the future of humanity in the 21st century. Based on the Brundtland Report and the 1992 Rio Convention (Agenda 21), the concept of sustainable development has now acquired great international significance. Out of responsibility for the social and material living conditions of future generations, economic, ecological and social concerns are to be taken into account equally in social decision-making processes. Agriculture is of outstanding importance within the framework of global sustainable development, because securing food supplies, preserving biological diversity and protecting natural resources such as soil, water and air is inconceivable without taking agriculture into account. No other sector of the economy is so closely linked to all three aspects of sustainability.

The discussion about the various facets of sustainable development in agriculture has changed significantly in recent years. The starting point was initially comprehensive analyses and descriptions of the situation, with the emphasis mostly on resource protection and biodiversity. In addition, there has been intensive debate about the supposedly best definition of sustainable agriculture, but if sustainability is to be more than just an ethically demanding concept, so-called indicators must be found to assess the various aspects of sustainable development. The selection of indicators is of paramount importance here for two reasons. On the one hand, appropriate units of measurement must be identified in order to be able to compare sustainable development in the national and international framework as a basis for agreements in the economic but also in the environmental field. On the other hand, indicators are an absolutely necessary prerequisite for sustainable development at national and international level. There have therefore been numerous attempts in recent years to establish suitable parameters for assessing sustainable development for various economic or social contexts. In addition to publications in the scientific literature, there are a number of proposals for individual indicators or comprehensive indicator concepts at the level of national and international organizations (UN, FAO, Commission of Sustainable Development, Federal Environment Agency, etc.) that relate to environmental quality, agricultural production or land use.

The present study therefore has the following objectives:

• Documentation of the current state of discussion on the assessment of sustainable development in socio-ecological systems.
• Critical evaluation of the proposed individual indicators in terms of relevance, methodological validation, modelling possibilities and limit value capability.
• Development of a proposal for systematisation and improvement of the indicator concepts.

6.2.3. Indicators for socio-ecological production landscapes

The use of such indicators lends itself to a general view, as they are a key tool. Here, with the help of the methods tested, individuals and communities can increase their ability to respond to social issues. They can address their economic and environmental constraints in order to improve their environmental and economic conditions. In this way, social and environmental resilience can be increased. Ultimately, this can lead to progress towards a society that is in harmony with nature.

The approach here focuses on "participatory assessment workshops". They include:

• Discussion
• An evaluation procedure for the set of twenty indicators

For the use of the indicators in the past, certain aspects of the evaluation process should be highlighted in order to understand the meaning and purpose of the indicators. Therefore, two basic concepts are examined here:

• 1. "Socio-ecological production landscapes".
• 2. "Resilience".

6.2.4. Socio-organic production

Humans have influenced most ecosystems on earth through production activities such as agriculture. These human influences are often considered harmful to the environment, but many such human-nature interactions are beneficial to the conservation of biodiversity.

"All over the world, efforts by local communities over many years to adapt to the surrounding environment have created unique and sustainable landscapes and seascapes that have provided people with goods such as food and fuel, and services such as water purification and fertile soils, while also harboring a diversity of animal and plant species. These landscapes and marine landscapes are highly diverse due to their unique local, climatic, geographical, cultural and socio-economic conditions. However, they are commonly characterised as dynamic biocultural mosaics of habitats and land and marine uses in which human interaction with the landscape or increases biodiversity and provides people with the goods and services necessary for their well-being". (UNU-IAS, 2014: 2)

They are called "socio-ecological production landscapes" (SEPLS). They are designed to guarantee biological diversity and provide local communities around the world with ecosystem services.

"Recent rapid growth in human demand for food and other goods and changes in socio-economic systems due to industrialization, urbanization and globalization have transformed various production sectors into more integrated systems that require intensive use of external inputs such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. These impacts can be measured in terms of a loss of resilience and sustainability in productive areas, to an extent that threatens human well-being due to the degradation of natural resources and the reduction of ecosystem services. (UNU-IAS, 2014: 2)

6.2.5. Resilience

In addition to the effects of shocks, i.e. extreme weather events, through forest fires, droughts and short-term disturbances, ecosystems are affected by relatively gradual but continuous changes in climate and socio-cultural practices and institutions. Socio-ecological systems vary in such a way that individuals or communities can resist or recover from ecosystem damage. The capacity of such systems is what is known as "resilience". In this way, systems can play a critical role in securing long-term ecosystem services and sustainable production systems that both benefit local communities and contribute to the global goals of sustainable development.

Strengthening SEPLS resilience through local communities ensures the long-term survival of SEPLS managed by the community. They have appropriate management and use of natural resources and biodiversity defines them as resilient systems. Nevertheless, many communities face growing challenges in maintaining these landscapes and the social and environmental processes to sustain them. Given the rapid and often interrelated changes in socio-economic systems, as these are accelerated by increasing climate change and ecosystem degradation. Communities are primary stewards of processes and resources, and they need to strengthen existing management practices and institutions and be innovative. This is because they must adapt to these changes while restoring or strengthening the social and environmental resilience of landscapes and marine landscapes.

The resilience of SEPLS is a product of ecological, social, cultural and economic systems that are dynamically interconnected in a synergistic way. Improvements in ecosystem services may, for example, require the introduction of new methods of natural resource management or new types of crop, animal and related species diversity. Greater sustainability of agro-ecosystems may also require addressing access and equity issues, such as supporting the role of women in crop selection, production and marketing.

When we speak of interdependent social and environmental systems, they require the ability to accept and manage complexity and constant adaptation. This is linked to rural communities that depend on the wide range of functions with products and services that their landscapes offer. Resilience indicators are designed to help communities feel responsible for planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating their production and resource management. "The knowledge and insights gained from these activities can then be used to provide local visions and strategies for resilient landscapes and productive ecosystems as input to overarching policies and programmes that impact on community livelihoods and further planning for nature conservation and resource management". (UNU-IAS, 2014: 8)

6.2.6. About the indicators

The resilience of local communities increases as they gain a more comprehensive understanding of the state and changes in the conditions of their landscapes and marine environments. However, because this resilience is a very complex and multifaceted process, it can be difficult to measure. This toolkit introduces an approach to monitoring SEPLS, using a set of indicators that define a general measure of SEPLS resilience.

"The resilience indicators for SEPLS consist of a set of 20 indicators designed to capture different aspects of key systems - environmental, agricultural, cultural and socio-economic. They include both qualitative and quantifiable indicators, but the measurement is based on the observations, agreements, perceptions and experiences of the local communities themselves. They should be flexible in their use and can be adapted to the specific landscape or marine environment and the communities associated with it". (UNU-IAS, 2014: 9)

For the spatial extension of these SEPLS in the context of using the indicators, the members of the local communities themselves must identify the area on which they depend for their survival and livelihood. It usually involves the mosaic of land uses from which communities obtain their goods and services. This means that they depend directly or indirectly on it. At the same time, however, they exert a direct influence on the resource base, that is. That they have regular interactions with natural biodiversity. A SEPLS can be delimited by administrative boundaries, such as a national park or national borders, or by a water catchment area as a geographical boundary, or by other factors.

The indicators aim to define the points that are essential for the resilience of SEPLS, providing a framework for communities to discuss and analyse socio-environmental processes. (UNU-IAS, 2014: 9) "This refers to critical life and development goals such as food security, agricultural sustainability, institutional and human development, provision of ecosystem services and conservation of biodiversity, strengthening community and landscape level organizations, and landscape design for equity and sustainability. The discussion of indicators within communities stimulates the exchange of knowledge and analysis, which are key factors in the creation of social capital for landscape design, planning and management, and promotes community ownership of this process". The periodic use of these indicators will enable the assessment of progress towards the objectives of this development and sustainable management, and the identification of priority actions for local innovation and adaptive management. (UNU-IAS, 2014: 9)

The indicators can provide input for local communities and other stakeholders in the following areas:

• Understanding SEPLS resilience. The indicators provide an analytical framework for understanding resilience and its status and changes in SEPLS. They are defined and measured in terms that are easy for local communities to understand and use and can be adapted for successive analyses. By assessing current conditions and trends in different aspects of SEPLS, users can understand resilience as a multidimensional goal.
• Support the development and implementation of strategies to strengthen resilience.The indicators can help to identify and track social processes, institutions and practices of land use, conservation and innovation that are part of the adaptability and change capacity of a resilient system. By reviewing and discussing assessment results, communities can learn which areas and factors they should focus on, which may include components of agricultural biodiversity, food security, ecosystem services, livelihoods, governance and others.
• Improve communication between stakeholders.
• Empowering communities to make decisions and manage adaptively
• The use of indicators facilitates a continuous discussion and participation process within local communities and leads to insights into what works and what does not. This type of adaptive management model promotes a greater sense of ownership among people living in SEPLS and encourages them to take action at the policy-making level. Using the indicators as a framework for discussion also helps to build consensus on what needs to be done to build or improve the resilience of the whole landscape and guide decision-making and implementation. (UNU-IAS, 2014: 9)

6.2.7. Who can benefit from the use of the indicators?

Although the indicators are primarily designed for use by local communities, they have the potential to be valuable tools for others such as NGOs, development agencies and policy makers. The indicators can also be useful for researchers to understand SEPLS and how communities view their landscape or marine landscape. The role of the facilitator may be more important in situations where it is difficult for communities to use the indicators alone.

Below are some possible benefits for different users.

Local communities:

• Improving the common understanding of SEPLS (e.g. conditions and threats to SEPLS) within and outside of community members.
• Identify priority issues and measures to sustain SEPLS that will benefit livelihoods and well-being, and assess the Community's efforts to date.
• Contributing to strengthening trust and social capital in communities and to conflict resolution.
• Inform policy makers, donors and relevant stakeholders about the situation of their SEPLS, and Areas for more efficient support.

Exchange of experience with municipalities that have tried out the indicators NGOs and development agencies that implement the projects in SEPLS:

• Improving the understanding of resilience from the perspective of local communities.
• Promoting participatory processes.
• Monitoring and evaluation of project interventions for resilience and biodiversity protection and identification of areas to be supported.
• Communicate more effectively with policy makers and donors on the situation of the SEPLS they are working with and on areas of support needed.

Policy makers and project planners:

• Better understanding of local conditions from the perspective of local communities.
• Improving communication with local communities.
• Identify areas for improvement and take them into account in policy making, planning and other decision-making processes.
• Increasing coherence between different project sites by applying a common analytical framework and common tools.

Researcher:

• Improving the multidimensional understanding of local conditions from the perspective of local communities.
• deepening the understanding of resilience by examining the results from different sites.
• Identify gaps in research.

Indicator approaches are now used everywhere, and increasingly in different sectors and contexts:

For example, they play an important role at global and national level in monitoring progress towards specific goals and targets. For example, around 100 indicators have been listed to monitor progress in the implementation of the Strategic Biodiversity Plan 2011-2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets adopted at CBD-COP 10 in Japan in 2010, to provide a framework for action by all stakeholders to protect biodiversity and enhance its benefits for people. The MDG indicators are a set of 60 indicators to measure progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), eight international development goals to be achieved by 2015 to combat extreme poverty. The United Nations agreed at the Rio+20 Conference in 2012 to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and is currently working on the definition of the targets and relevant indicators to be adopted in 2015.

Indicators need to be quantitative and at the same time they are allowed to aggregate data on a larger spatial scale. They must stand for comparison over space and time at national and global level. Indicators must also be scientifically valid and objective, with evaluation often carried out by experts. This does not contradict them. In contrast to these overarching indicators, the resilience indicators introduced in SEPLS are determined for use at the local level, i.e. they include both qualitative and quantifiable indicators. The measurement is based on the observations, perceptions and experiences of the local communities themselves.

These local observations may be supplemented by scientific data and information from global and national observations and data sets as well as from previous studies. However, it should be possible to integrate external data into the local knowledge base. The indicators in this toolkit provide a framework for local communities to discuss both current conditions of resilience and potential areas for improvement as part of the adaptive management process. This can lead to rapid and proactive efforts by local communities to strengthen the resilience of their productive and marine landscapes. It also provides a consistent process for monitoring the resilience of the landscape or marine landscape and implementing measures to address components and factors that lead to reduced resilience. (UNU-IAS, 2014: 9)

The resilience indicators in SEPLS partly overlap and complement some of the overarching indicators. Resilient landscapes resulting from the use of the indicators and the implementation of measures resulting from their use also contribute to global and national targets, such as those set out in the CBD (e.g. the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the National Strategic Biodiversity Action Plans) and the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. The Socio-Ecological Production Landscapes and Marine Landscapes Sustainability Indicators (SEPLS) and this toolkit have been developed in cooperation within the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI).

As an international platform open to organisations dealing with SEPLS, IPSI has sought to promote synergies in the implementation of their respective activities as well as other activities planned under the Initiative. To date, over 20 IPSI collaborative activities have been initiated under IPSI, including this toolkit and its indicators. (UNU-IAS, 2014: 9)

They have been endorsed by the

• Bioversity International,
• Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES),
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and
• UNU-IAS were carried out. (UNU-IAS, 2014: 9)

The criticism of the co-optation is related to the question of whether the mutual is still competitive. This discussion goes much further, e. B. in the problems of increasing equity. But from an economic point of view, there are a few reasons to keep this form of insurance and to compete with the stock corporation.

6.2.8. The twenty Toolkits^*26*

(1) Landscape/seascape diversity

The landscape or seascape is composed of a diversity/mosaic of natural ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic) and land uses.

Examples:

Natural ecosystems: mountains, forests, grasslands, wetlands, lakes, rivers, coastal lagoons, estuaries, coral reefs, sea grassmeadows and mangrove forests.

Land uses: home gardens, cultivated fields, orchards, (seasonal) pastures, haymaking lands, aquaculture, forestry and agro-forestry, irrigation, canals, water wells.

(2) Ecosystem protection

Areas within the landscape or seascape are protected for their ecological and/or cultural importance.

Note: Protection may be formal or informal and include traditional forms of protection such as sacred sites.

Examples:

Strict nature reserves, national parks, wilderness areas, heritage sites, community conserved areas, marine protected areas, limited-use areas, sacred sites, grazing reserve areas, rules and regulations to exclude outsiders from the (seasonal) use of natural resources, etc.

(3) Ecological interactions between different components of the landscape/seascape

Ecological interactions between different components of landscape or seascape are taken into consideration in natural resource management.

Examples:

Areas slated for conservation or restoration benefit, other areas through pollination, pest control, nutrient cycling and increase of animal population. Forests protect water sources and provide fodder, medicine and food. Agricultural activities can affect other parts of the landscape. Marine protected areas may increase marine populations also in other in fishing areas (spillover effects).

(4) Recovery and regeneration of the landscape/seascape

The landscape or seascape has the ability to recover and regenerate from environmental shocks and stresses.

Examples:

Pest and disease outbreaks; Extreme weather events such as storms,extreme cold, flooding and droughts; Earthquakes and tsunamis; Forest fires.

(5) Diversity of local food system

Foods consumed in the landscape or seascape include food locally grown, gathered from local forests and/or fished from local waters.

Examples:

Cereals, vegetables, fruits, nuts, wild plants, mushrooms, berries, livestock, milk, dairy products, wildlife/insects, fish, seaweeds, etc.

(6) Maintenance and use of local crop varieties and animal breeds

Households and/or community groups maintain a diversity of local crop varieties and animal breeds.

Examples:

Seed guardians, expert animal breeders, animal breeding groups, home gardens, community seed banks.

(7) Sustainable management of common resources

Common resources are managed sustainably in order to avoid overexploitation and depletion.

Examples:

Grazing regulations; Fishing quotas; Sustainable tourism; Control of wildlife poaching and illegal logging; or harvesting of forest products.

(8) Innovation in agriculture and conservation practices

New practices in agriculture, fisheries and forestry are developed, adopted and improved and/or traditional practices are revitalized.

Examples:

Adoption of water conservation measures such as drip irrigation or water harvesting; Diversification of farming systems; Introduction or re-introduction of drought- or saline-tolerant crops; Organic agriculture; Terracing; Reintroduction of native species; Shifting and rotation of grasslands; Reforestation; Replanting of corals, sea grass and mangroves; Fish houses;Selective fishing gear.

(9) Traditional knowledge related to biodiversity

Local knowledge and cultural traditions related to biodiversity are transmitted from elders and parents to young people in the community.

Examples:

Songs, dances, rituals, festivals, stories, local terminology related to land and biodiversity; Specific knowledge about fishing, crop planting and harvesting, and the processing and cooking of food; Knowledge included in school curricula.

(10) Documentation of biodiversity-associated knowledge

The biodiversity in the landscape or seascape, including agricultural biodiversity, and knowledge associated with it is documented, stored and made available to community members.

Examples:

Traditional knowledge registers; Resource classification systems; Community biodiversity registers; Farmers’ field schools; animal breeding groups; Pasture co-management groups; Seed exchange networks (animal and seed fairs); Seasonal calendars.

(11) Women’s knowledge

Women’s knowledge, experiences and skills are ecognized and respected in the community. Women often have specific knowledge, experience and skills about biodiversity, its use and management, which are different from those of men.

Examples:

Know-how about the production of particular crops; Collection and use of medicinal plants; Caring for animals.

(12) Rights in relation to land/water and other natural resource management

Rights over land/water and other natural resources are clearly defined and recognized by relevant groups and institutions, for example governments and development agencies. Recognition can be formalized by policy, law and/or through customary practices.

Examples:

Land-use groups; Community forestry committees; Co-management groups or communities.

(13) Community-based landscape/seascape governance

The landscape or seascape has capable, accountable and transparent local institutions in place for the effective governance of its resources and the local biodiversity.

Examples:

Organizations, rules, policies, regulations and enforcement aimed at resource management; Traditional authorities and customary rules; Co-management arrangements, for example joint forest management, between local people and government.

(14) Social capital in the form of cooperation across the landscape/seascape

Individuals within and between communities are connected and coordinated through networks that manage resources and exchange materials, skills and knowledge.

Examples:

Self-help groups; Community clubs and groups (women’s and youth groups); Intercommunity networks; Associations of federations with a focus on natural resource management.

(15) Social equity (including gender equity)

Rights and access to resources and opportunities for education, information and decision-making are fair and equitable for allcommunity members, including women, at household, community and landscape levels.

Examples:

Upland and lowland communities; Community members belonging to different social or ethnic groups; Women’s voices and choices are taken into consideration in household decision-making and at community meetings where decisions about collective actions are made.

(16) Socio-economic infrastructure

Socio-economic infrastructure is adequate for community needs.

Examples:

Schools, hospitals, roads and transport; Safe drinking water; Markets; Electricity and communication infrastructure.

(17) Human health and environmental conditions

The overall state of human health in the community is satisfactory, also considering the prevailing environmental conditions.

Examples:

Absence or regular occurrence of diseases; Frequency of disease outbreaks that affect a large number of people; Absence/presence of environmental stresses like pollution, lack of clean water, exposure to extreme weather events.

(18) Income diversity

People in the landscape or seascape are involved in a variety of sustainable incomegenerating activities. Note: Diversity in economic activities can help households in case of unexpected downturns, disasters, changes in environmental conditions, etc.

19) Biodiversity-based livelihoods

Livelihood improvements in the landscape or seascape are concerned with innovative use of local biodiversity.

Examples:

Handicrafts using local materials, e.g. wood carving, basketry, painting, weaving etc.; Eco-tourism; Processing of local foods, bee-keeping, etc.

(20) Socio-ecological mobility

Households and communities are able to move around to take advantage of shifts in production opportunities and avoid land degradation and overexploitation.

Examples:

Shifting cultivation and crop rotation practices; shifting between agriculture and herding/fishing; seasonal migration of herders; shifting fishing grounds; maintaining reserve areas for periods of hardship.

*26*Source: Toolkit for the Indicators of Resilience in socio-ecological Production landscapes and seascapes (2014).

6.2.9. Education as the all-embracing factor

"The cohesion and social development of our society, our prosperity and the competitiveness of the economy increasingly depend on the importance of education. Education is the decisive factor for the future of our country, but also for the opportunities of every single person." (Coalition agreement of 11 November 2005)

Along with education, however, the broad concept of culture is also decisive: “The Committee considers that culture, for the purpose of implementing article 15 (1) (a), encompasses, inter alia, ways of life, language, oral and written literature, music and song, non-verbal communication, religion or belief systems, rites and ceremonies, sport and games, methods of production or technology, natural and manmade environments, food, clothing and shelter and the arts, customs and traditions through which individuals, groups of individuals and communities express their humanity and the meaning they give to their existence, and build their world view representing their encounter with the external forces affecting their lives. Culture shapes and mirrors the values of well-being and the economic, social and political life of individuals, groups of individuals and communities.”

This understanding of culture includes not only art and literature, but also ways of life, values, traditions and beliefs. The principle of cultural diversity plays a central role in this context: "The protection of cultural diversity is an ethical imperative, inseparable from respect for human dignity. It implies a commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, and requires the full implementation of cultural rights. This includes not only art and literature, but also ways of life, fundamental human rights, value systems, traditions and beliefs."