Unpacking pathways to diversified livelihoods from projects in Pacific Island coastal fisheries

Livelihood diversification has become an integral focus of policies and investments aiming to reduce poverty, vulnerability, and pressure on fishery resources in coastal communities around the globe. In this regard, coastal fisheries in the Pacific Islands have long been a sector where livelihood diversification has featured prominently. Yet, despite the widespread promotion and international investment in this strategy, the ability of externally funded livelihood diversification projects to facilitate improved resource management and rural development outcomes often remains inconsistent. We argue these inconsistencies can be attributed to a conceptual ambiguity stemming from a lack of attention and awareness to the complexity of livelihood diversification. There is still much to learn about the process of livelihood diversification, both in its theoretical conceptualizations and its practical applications. Herein, we utilize a common diversity framework to clarify some of this ambiguity by distinguishing three diversification pathways. These pathways are illustrated using an ideal-typical Pacific Island coastal household and supported by examples provided in the literature that detail livelihood diversification projects in the Pacific. Through this perspective, we seek a more nuanced understanding of what is meant within the policy and practice goal of livelihood diversification. Thereby enabling more targeted and deliberate planning for development investments that facilitates outcomes in support of sustainable livelihoods.

How much of a market is involved in a biodiversity offset? A typology of biodiversity offset policies

Biodiversity offsets (BO) are increasingly promoted and adopted by governments and companies worldwide as a policy instrument to compensate for biodiversity losses from infrastructure development projects. BO are often classified as 'market-based instruments' both by proponents and critics, but this representation fails to capture the varieties of how BO policies actually operate. To provide a framing for understanding the empirical diversity of BO policy designs, we present an ideal-typical typology based on the institutions from which BO is organised: Public Agency, Mandatory Market and Voluntary Offset. With cross-case comparison and stakeholder mapping, we identified the institutional arrangements of six BO policies to analyse how the biodiversity losses and gains are decided. Based on these results, we examined how these six policies relate to the BO ideal types. Our results suggested that the government, contrary to received wisdom, plays a key role not just in enforcing mandatory policies but also in determining the supply and demand of biodiversity units, supervising the transaction or granting legitimacy to the compensation site. Mandatory BO policies can be anything from pure government regulations defining industry liabilities to liability-driven markets where choice sets for trading credits are constrained and biodiversity credit prices are negotiated under state supervision. It is important to distinguish between two processes in BO: the matching of biodiversity losses and gains (commensurability) and the trading of biodiversity credits (commodification). We conclude that the commensurability of natural capital is restricted in BO policies; biodiversity is always exchanged with biodiversity. However, different degrees of commodification are possible, depending on the policy design and role of price signals in trading credits. Like payments for ecosystem services, the price of a biodiversity credit is most commonly based on the cost of management measures rather than the 'value' of biodiversity; which corresponds to a low degree of commodification.

The historical dynamics of social-ecological traps

Environmental degradation is a typical unintended outcome of collective human behavior. Hardin's metaphor of the "tragedy of the commons" has become a conceived wisdom that captures the social dynamics leading to environmental degradation. Recently, "traps" has gained currency as an alternative concept to explain the rigidity of social and ecological processes that produce environmental degradation and livelihood impoverishment. The trap metaphor is, however, a great deal more complex compared to Hardin's insight. This paper takes stock of studies using the trap metaphor. It argues that the concept includes time and history in the analysis, but only as background conditions and not as a factor of causality. From a historical-sociological perspective this is remarkable since social-ecological traps are clearly path-dependent processes, which are causally produced through a conjunction of events. To prove this point the paper conceptualizes social-ecological traps as a process instead of a condition, and systematically compares history and timing in one classic and three recent studies of social-ecological traps. Based on this comparison it concludes that conjunction of social and environmental events contributes profoundly to the production of trap processes. The paper further discusses the implications of this conclusion for policy intervention and outlines how future research might generalize insights from historical-sociological studies of traps.