political drivers (cpwf-gd workshop, sept 2011)
Post on 24-May-2015
936 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Political Drivers
By Louis Lebel
Scoping definitions A global driver is a set of related structures and
processes which act at distances well beyond individual river basin boundaries and are widely shared
Global political drivers are sets of institutions, interests, discourses and policy processes Institutions are rules (laws, customs, regulations) Interests underlie positions and reflect needs,
wants, fears and values Discourses are concepts and ideas that frame
analysis, debates and perceptions Policy processes include combinations of above and
public policy and administrative systems
Dynamics Global political drivers influence many
different types of drivers at the within-basin level not just political drivers, and in turn, are influenced by many other types of drivers
Drivers may remain relatively constant, show long-term trends, or fluctuate widely
Looking ahead the behavior of some drivers may appear fairly certain whereas for others it is very uncertain
Both types are important consider when developing scenarios
Political drivers – an initial classificationDrivers Institutional indicators
Regionalization International agreements
Standardization Private Voluntary Standards
Democratization Laws and policy commitments to transparency, accountability and participation
Integration IWRM principles adopted in legislation
Decentralization Re-allocation of authority, responsibilities and budgets
Globalization or ‘norm’alization
Sharing of political norms and principles through discourses
Adaptation Policy monitoring and review Interests, discourses and policy processes
around each set of institutional indicators are complex and heterogeneous
Tensions and reconciliation Drivers overlap and
interact Trends are not forever,
nor are they linear Moreover it may not be
either/or, but possible to reconcile opposing tensions…
Institutional changes are ratchet-like and evidence that drivers have had some persistent influence
Policy actors Multilateral organizations
World Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IMF
Big NGOs WWF, Oxfam, Human Rights groups
International agencies and bodies UNDP, UNEP, GWP, ASEAN
Large consultancy firms Expert/advocacy networks Professional associations
What is the evidence? Political Drivers are pushing in directions
claimed and that these are important for river basin management
Sources Reviews of paradigm shifts in water management Individual case studies Comparative studies of institutional design and
performance
Political driversDrivers Institutional indicators
Regionalization International agreements
Standardization Private Voluntary Standards
Democratization Laws and policy commitments to transparency, accountability and participation
Integration IWRM principles adopted in legislation
Decentralization Re-allocation of authority, responsibilities and budgets
Globalization Sharing of political norms and principles through discourses
Adaptation Policy monitoring and review Can you think of examples of each of these
types of drivers? How do you think about political drivers?
Evidence: Twin2Go Project are diverse views on what needs
to be done to make water governance regimes more effective
are many excellent case studies, but few comprehensive empirical analyses
Twin2Go project: synthesizes research on adaptive and integrated water resources management from previous EU-twinning basin projects for policy
Approach: systematically collect information from previously studied basins through expert workshops
Biobio/Chile Norrström/Sweden Brahmaputra/Nepal
Catamayo/Peru Nura/Kazahstan Tisza/Hungary
Catamayo/Ecuador Okavango/Namibia Guadiana/Spain
Cauca/Colombia Thames/UK Elbe/Germany
Quaraí/Brasil Kyoga/Uganda Rhine/TheNetherlands
Cocibolca/Nicaragua Niger/Mali Amudarya/Uzbekistan
Baker/Chile BangPakong/Thailand Orange/SouthAfrica
Cuareim/Uruguay Volga/Russia RedRiver/Vietnam
Guayas/Ecuador Brahmaputra/Bhutan Olifants/SouthAfrica
Paute/Ecuador Brahmaputra/India
Coordinating Twinning partnerships towards more adaptive Governance in river basins
Questionnaire
Analytical framework
explored associations between properties of governance regimes and performance adjusting as appropriate for influence of context
Examples of indicators Regime
Legal frameworks Formalized basin principles Polycentric arrangements
Performance Good governance principles in practice Climate change adaptation policies Environmental management systems in place
Context Economic & institutional development Water availability Extent of watershed modification
Design
Derived Measures
Performance, regime & context measures were developed by aggregating scores from 2-10 individual indicators
Summed scores for each indicator with 1 meaning a ‘highest possible’ and 0 ‘lowest’ (i.e. equal weight)
divided by number of indicators so that all composite measures varied between 0 and 1
Responsiveness to climate change was one of the key performance measures we analyzed:
P4 Responsiveness to climate change or ‘adaptation policies’
Questions 81-86((4-q81)/3+(5-q82)/4 +(3-q83)/2+(4-q84)/3+(5-q85)/4+(3-q86)/2)/6
Design
Indicators used for P4 Strategy for adaptation to climate change in
water sector Availability of specific knowledge enabling
adaptation Awareness of water managers regarding
adaptation to climate change Coordinated implementation process
regarding adaptation to climate change (e.g. plan)
Operational activities Ways to deal with climate variability (Floods
and droughts)
Variation in regime measures
Variation in performance
Associations adjusting for Context
Performance
Regime
P1MDG goals
P2Good
governance
P4Adaptation
Policies
P5AEnvironmental
conditions
P5BEnvironmentalm
anagement
R1 Legal frameworks - + +
R2 Basin principles +
R3 Informal-formal +
R5 Econ. instruments + +
R4 Polycentricity - + +
R8 Knowledge - + +
R9 Adaptive capacity + +
R10 IWRM + +
R12 Good governance principles in legislation
- + +
Context variables C1 C1 & C4 C1 C3 C1
Findings
Findings 1 All regime variables were associated with
adoption of good governance principles (including stakeholder engagement)
A subset of regimes measures were also associated with responsiveness to climate change
No regime variables were closely associated with environmental conditions and few with environmental management measures
Findings 2 Context variables helped explain a lot of
additional variation in performance measures Institutional and economic development for
example was strongly associated with progress towards goals, adoption of good governance principles, and environmental management practices.
the extent of land and water modification was associated with environmental conditions
But adjusting for context had little impact on most associations between regime features and performance
Polycentric arrangements Proposition:
multi-level and –centred systems of governance that foster horizontal and vertical coordination as well as sharing of power and authority support adaptive governance
Measured: vertical and horizontal coordination structures and
levels of decentralization Evidence:
Overly centralized and fragmented regimes score low
Best practice reports emphasize quality of coordination among and within levels
Policy implications > regimes
Opportunities and drivers of BP&T
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Political
Institutional
Financial
Organizational
Informational
Social
Environmental
Infrastructural
Opportunities& Drivers
Barriers & Constraints
Limitations basin-specific indicators were based on
judgments of experts some variables used to derive performance
measures were national level rather than basin specific
Performance measured in terms of systems in place and not ultimate social and environmental outcomes
initial sample of “Twinning” basins is not ideal – all ‘developed country’ basins are in Europe
Limitations & conclusions
top related