Interdependent Social-Ecological Systems and Adaptive Governance 149Samoa represents an example of such a practice. A minor food crop, yams, became
the most important food for an extended period of time following a large-scale
cyclone. Polyculture and ‘multiple-disturbance tolerant’ species among the char-
dwellers in Bangladesh serve the same function by reducing the potential impacts
of flooding or droughts (Colding et al, 2003). Diversification of livestock species
among many pastoral groups in the African Sahel may reduce the effects of various
disturbance regimes such as disease outbreaks and droughts.
Locally protected habitats, such as sacred groves, buffer zone areas and range
reserves, may be important for the reorganization of ecosystems following distur-
bance events. Such areas may provide dispersal and migration of animals and plants
into disturbed ecosystems. Even taboos imposed on populations of common spe-
cies may have critical functions in the reorganization phase – especially those
imposed on mobile link species (Elmqvist et al, 2001; Lundberg and Moberg,
2003; Bodin et al, 2006).
These are examples of practices common in traditional societies and local com-
munities and that help insure the communities against uncertainty in resource
flows and make people adaptive to change (Folke et al, 1998a, 2006)
Social taboos and ecosystem services
Successful resource management systems require flexible social mechanisms for
continual adjustments to environmental dynamics. Thus, institutional structures
(rules and norms in use) are needed to take environmental variability and ecologi-
cal feedbacks into account and provide capacity for management to respond to
such dynamics. We have analysed social taboos in this context, defining a taboo as
a prohibition imposed by social custom or as a protective measure. Such institu-
tions are based on cultural norms that are not governed by government for either
promulgation or enforcement. In Colding and Folke (2001) social taboos were
grouped into six major categories in relation to their resource and ecosystem man-
agement functions (Table 7.2). The last two categories of Table 7.2 can be referred
Table 7.2 Resource and habitat taboos (RHTs) and their nature conservation and
resource management functionsCategory Function
Segment taboos Regulate resource withdrawal
Temporal taboos Regulate access to resources in time
Method taboos Regulate methods of withdrawal
Life history taboos Regulate withdrawal of vulnerable life history stages of
species
Specific-species taboos Total protection to species in time and space
Habitat taboos Restrict access and use of resources in time and spaceSource: Colding and Folke, 2001