Slide #1 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Better biodiversity governance in transforming landscapes: !
a research analysis!!
Sarah Clement1, Prof Susan Moore1, Dr Michael Lockwood2, Dr Michael Mitchell2!
!
1: Murdoch University!2: University of Tasmania!
!!
!!
Clement, S., Moore, S.A., Lockwood, M. and Mitchell, M. (2014) Better biodiversity governance in transforming landscapes: a research analysis. In: ANU Fenner School Public Seminar Series, 28 March, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Slide #2 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Content of Presentation!I. Overview of LaP Hub and Case Studies!II. Snapshot of social & institutional research!III. Midlands results & governance options!IV. Next steps, discussion & feedback!
Photo: L. Porfirio
Slide #3 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Developing tools, techniques and policy options to integrate biodiversity conservation into regional planning.!
LANDSCAPES & POLICY HUB!
Slide #4 Fenner Seminar March 2014
• Hawke review!• Changes required beyond
EPBC Act and at multiple levels!
• Problem of fit!• Institutions are resistant
to change and challenging to ‘design’!
• Interest in applying resilience thinking!
!
Photo: Square peg into a round hole, rosipaw via Flickr CC BY-‐SA
BROADER CONTEXT!
Slide #5 Fenner Seminar March 2014
TASMANIAN MIDLANDS!• Mainly privately owned agricultural land!• Most grasslands on 12 properties!• Listed & unlisted grasslands, other biodiversity attributes - patchwork!!• Biophysical drivers include:!- irrigation development!- climate change!- land use mix and land capability!!
• Social & governance drivers include:!- Farmer profitability!- Social and human capital!- Effectiveness of engagement
processes!
Map: L. Porfirio. Photo: S. Gaynor
Slide #6 Fenner Seminar March 2014
AUSTRALIAN ALPS!
• Protected area – only alpine zone on the mainland!
• Biophysical drivers include:!- Altered fire regimes!- Climate change!- Invasive processes!!
• Social & governance drivers include:!- Supportive political will!- Level of collaborative governance!- Priority setting and resources!
Map: L. Porfirio. Photo: S. Clement
Slide #7 Fenner Seminar March 2014
RESEARCH QUESTIONS!In this Presentation:!• How do current
institutional arrangements enable (or constrain) l-s biodiversity conservation?!
• What alternative arrangements might lead to better biodiversity outcomes?!
!
Visual representa;on of a landscape. Modified from Liu and Taylor, 2002, p. 5
II. Snapshot of social and institutional research!
Slide #8 Fenner Seminar March 2014
1. Develop social- ecological systems
model
2a. Diagnose institutional arrangements
3. Develop alternative governance options
4. Test governance options
2b. Generate scenarios
Same process for both study areas!!
Slide #9 Fenner Seminar March 2014
OVERVIEW OF METHODS!• Conceptual framework,
diagnostic approach !• Interviews & doc analysis!• Alternative options
(results + literature + focus groups)!
!• Model development!• Scenario planning
workshops!
Photos: The Main range (top) and Stewarton in Tasmanian Midlands (boJom), S. Clement
Slide #10 Fenner Seminar March 2014
III. Midlands case study!
• Develop systems model (literature, experts, key informants, masters student)!– Historical
narrative of the region!
• Governance & mgmt influences!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Timeline & Figure prepared by Michael Mitchell
Slide #11 Fenner Seminar March 2014
SES MODEL & WORKSHOP!
• Initial model presented & revised through workshop!
• Model used to develop scenarios (discussed later)!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #12 Fenner Seminar March 2014
FINAL SYSTEMS MODEL!
Extent ofGrasslandEcosystem
IncreasedVariability of
Rainfall
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Quality and Adequacyof Information, and its
Deployment
Leadership,Vision andStrategy
CoordinatedGovernance and
Management
Open andInnovative
OrganisationalCulture
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
Extent ofLandholderNetworks
Organisation Abilityfor Adaptive
ManagementSocial Driver
Biophysical Driver
BiodiversityFeature
Invasive Species
Condition ofGrasslandEcosystem
Increased AverageTemperature and
Temperature Extremes
Populations ofDependent MNESStrength of
RegulatoryProtection
SupportivePolitical Will
Governance andManagement
Influences
Level ofFinancialIncentive
Land Use Mix
EnterpriseProfitability
WaterAvailability
IrrigationDevelopments
Level of EcoloigcalBurning
LandholderValues and
Attitudes
CommunityValues and
Attitudes
GovernanceDesign for
ConservationProgram
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
LandholderEconomicMotivation
LandholderSense of Place
LandholderLifestyle
Motivation
Conservation ProgramCompatiblity with
Current Management
LandholderInformation
Seeking
Level of InvasiveSpecies Management
Landholder Ability forAdaptive Management
IrrigationInfrastucture
Level of TrustBetween Key Actors
GrazingManagement
Practices
Landholders'Terms of Trade Land
Capability
Longevity ofPrograms
Time Constraintsand Prioritisation
TechnologicalInnovation
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #13 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Conceptual Framework!• Development of
diagnostic framework!
• Adaptive governance and resilience!
• Institutional, political, and organisational theory!
• 94 interviews total!• Parallel processes!
CONTEXT
DYNAMICS POWER
FRAMING CULTURE
PRACTICES COMPETENCE
CAPACITY SELF-‐
ORGANISATION INSTITUTIONAL BUFFERING
LEADERSHIP & ENTREPRENEURSHIP
POLITICS
COOPERATION
LEARNING
INTERPLAY
DIAGNOSE CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #14 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Extent ofGrasslandEcosystem
IncreasedVariability of
Rainfall
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Quality and Adequacyof Information, and its
Deployment
Leadership,Vision andStrategy
CoordinatedGovernance and
Management
Open andInnovative
OrganisationalCulture
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
Extent ofLandholderNetworks
Organisation Abilityfor Adaptive
ManagementSocial Driver
Biophysical Driver
BiodiversityFeature
Invasive Species
Condition ofGrasslandEcosystem
Increased AverageTemperature and
Temperature Extremes
Populations ofDependent MNESStrength of
RegulatoryProtection
SupportivePolitical Will
Governance andManagement
Influences
Level ofFinancialIncentive
Land Use Mix
EnterpriseProfitability
WaterAvailability
IrrigationDevelopments
Level of EcoloigcalBurning
LandholderValues and
Attitudes
CommunityValues and
Attitudes
GovernanceDesign for
ConservationProgram
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
LandholderEconomicMotivation
LandholderSense of Place
LandholderLifestyle
Motivation
Conservation ProgramCompatiblity with
Current Management
LandholderInformation
Seeking
Level of InvasiveSpecies Management
Landholder Ability forAdaptive Management
IrrigationInfrastucture
Level of TrustBetween Key Actors
GrazingManagement
Practices
Landholders'Terms of Trade Land
Capability
Longevity ofPrograms
Time Constraintsand Prioritisation
TechnologicalInnovation
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Leadership,Vision andStrategy
CoordinatedGovernance and
Management
Open andInnovative
Organisational Culture
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
OrganisationAbility forAdaptive
Management
SupportivePolitical Will
Level ofFinancialIncentive
EnterpriseProfitability
CommunityValues andAttitudes
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
LandholderLifestyle
Motivation
ConservationProgram
Compatiblity withCurrent
Management
LandholderInformation
Seeking
Landholders'Terms of
Trade
Slide #15 Fenner Seminar March 2014
LEADERSHIP, VISION, STRATEGY!
• CAP provides a vision for the NGOs, SA deals with single driver (irrigation)!
• Need for ‘honest broker’ to lead development of shared vision!
[Landholders] see Bush Heritage and TLC as only fulfilling a part of their vision for their properties. They've got a
much broader vision of sustainability. It goes right down to soil conservation and paddock maintenance, not just how well they look after the bits that are still left of native vegetation.
– Midlands participant
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #16 Fenner Seminar March 2014
COORDINATION & COLLABORATION!
• Midlands major focus of investment!• Ad hoc and often political!• Crowded organisational space!• Need for coordinator/facilitator?!
Here, people get more territorial than less…I know all the players by name and we get on quite well. But it creates a need to keep their own organisation separate…because they are competing for their
space in the structure. And if they are too collaborative, perhaps they are not needed…it's not in my best interest to have so much collaboration
without…having that as a recognised role. – Midlands participant
TLC
NRM
Land care
BHA GA
DPIPWE
Cth
TI
TFGA
Slide #17 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Framing and Vision!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
landscapeconservation
scaleareasbiodiversity
connectivityspecies
different
land
midlandswhole
contextspatial data
function
people
values
broaderapproach
catchment
farm
focal
level
across
ecological
environment
hotspot
move
protect
way
based
best
beyondcountry
depending flexible
good
identify
issue
regional
sense
time
use
whats
years
area
bigger
concept
focus
large
planning
systems
tasmania
terms
theyreaway
bioregion
bush
else
first
focused
make
modelling
natural
necessarily next
process
propertyright
social stuff
talk
talking
threatened
using
want
adaptation
agriculture
already amountaustralia
back
bigcasecatchments
change
come
coming
communities
components
ecosystem
example
fragmented
government
grasslands
habitat
high
individual
last
live local
moment
north
part
partsperson
plan
policy
programme
side
south
state thought
try
understand
unit
water
Slide #18 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Extent ofGrasslandEcosystem
IncreasedVariability of
Rainfall
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Quality and Adequacyof Information, and its
Deployment
Leadership,Vision andStrategy
CoordinatedGovernance and
Management
Open andInnovative
OrganisationalCulture
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
Extent ofLandholderNetworks
Organisation Abilityfor Adaptive
ManagementSocial Driver
Biophysical Driver
BiodiversityFeature
Invasive Species
Condition ofGrasslandEcosystem
Increased AverageTemperature and
Temperature Extremes
Populations ofDependent MNESStrength of
RegulatoryProtection
SupportivePolitical Will
Governance andManagement
Influences
Level ofFinancialIncentive
Land Use Mix
EnterpriseProfitability
WaterAvailability
IrrigationDevelopments
Level of EcoloigcalBurning
LandholderValues and
Attitudes
CommunityValues and
Attitudes
GovernanceDesign for
ConservationProgram
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
LandholderEconomicMotivation
LandholderSense of Place
LandholderLifestyle
Motivation
Conservation ProgramCompatiblity with
Current Management
LandholderInformation
Seeking
Level of InvasiveSpecies Management
Landholder Ability forAdaptive Management
IrrigationInfrastucture
Level of TrustBetween Key Actors
GrazingManagement
Practices
Landholders'Terms of Trade Land
Capability
Longevity ofPrograms
Time Constraintsand Prioritisation
TechnologicalInnovation
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
Extent ofLandholderNetworks
OrganisationAbility forAdaptive
ManagementSocial Driver
Strength ofRegulatoryProtection
SupportivePolitical Will
Governance andManagement
Influences
Level ofFinancialIncentive
EnterpriseProfitability
LandholderValues andAttitudes
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
LandholderEconomicMotivation
LandholderSense of Place
LandholderLifestyle
Motivation
ConservationProgram
Compatiblity withCurrent
Management
LandholderInformation
Seeking
Level of TrustBetween Key Actors
Landholders'Terms of
Trade
TimeConstraints and
Prioritisation
TechnologicalInnovation
Values, motivation, trust & financial incentives!
Slide #19 Fenner Seminar March 2014
LANDHOLDER VALUES, ENGAGEMENT AND DUTY OF CARE !
Principle (e.g. Cth)
Age
nt (e
.g.
land
holder) I We
I A. Strategic behaviour
B. Crowding out
We C. Crowding in D. Reciprocity/obliga>on
• Declining terms of trade & implications for grasslands!• Societal expectations & duty of care !• Trust & norm-based governance!• Policy signals (e.g. listing, tender processes) sends signals –
‘logic of calculation’!
Figure source: Vatn, 2005, p. 213.
Slide #20 Fenner Seminar March 2014
I think that farmers have the role of providing the opportunity of land to accommodate biodiversity, but with the proviso that they are paid appropriately for that service. Otherwise I don’t think they have a role. There is
absolutely no requirement for them to do it and we’ve been relying on the goodwill of farmers to do that up until now, but I know that we have reached that ceiling in
regard to relying on continued goodwill to do it. – Midlands participant
Payment for conservation!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #21 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Extent ofGrasslandEcosystem
IncreasedVariability of
Rainfall
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Quality and Adequacyof Information, and its
Deployment
Leadership,Vision andStrategy
CoordinatedGovernance and
Management
Open andInnovative
OrganisationalCulture
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
Extent ofLandholderNetworks
Organisation Abilityfor Adaptive
ManagementSocial Driver
Biophysical Driver
BiodiversityFeature
Invasive Species
Condition ofGrasslandEcosystem
Increased AverageTemperature and
Temperature Extremes
Populations ofDependent MNESStrength of
RegulatoryProtection
SupportivePolitical Will
Governance andManagement
Influences
Level ofFinancialIncentive
Land Use Mix
EnterpriseProfitability
WaterAvailability
IrrigationDevelopments
Level of EcoloigcalBurning
LandholderValues and
Attitudes
CommunityValues and
Attitudes
GovernanceDesign for
ConservationProgram
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
LandholderEconomicMotivation
LandholderSense of Place
LandholderLifestyle
Motivation
Conservation ProgramCompatiblity with
Current Management
LandholderInformation
Seeking
Level of InvasiveSpecies Management
Landholder Ability forAdaptive Management
IrrigationInfrastucture
Level of TrustBetween Key Actors
GrazingManagement
Practices
Landholders'Terms of Trade Land
Capability
Longevity ofPrograms
Time Constraintsand Prioritisation
TechnologicalInnovation
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
Extent ofLandholderNetworks
OrganisationAbility forAdaptive
Management
Land Use Mix
GovernanceDesign for
ConservationProgram
ConservationProgram
Compatiblity withCurrent
Management
Level of InvasiveSpecies
Management
Landholder Ability forAdaptive
ManagementLevel of TrustBetween Key Actors
Longevity ofPrograms
Engagement, effectiveness & design !
Slide #22 Fenner Seminar March 2014
CONSERVATION IN A ‘WORKING LANDSCAPE’!
• Long term investment in PAPL program !• Prescriptive nature of agreements & compatibility
with working farms!• Strong engagement of core group of landholders
(‘usual suspects’)!• Need for new approaches!
Slide #23 Fenner Seminar March 2014
If you want to achieve landscape-scale conservation, you really need to
spend it, I believe, in a few localised spots. And a lot of
money to a few people. And socially that’s not something we like to do.
– Midlands participant
[A recent project has] got the same old properties on it …Irrigation should be seen as the opportunity of
getting into those potential areas that have always been missed. That’s a bit sad about the Midlands: it’s always the
same old….It makes it an exclusive club. – Midlands participant
10-12 landholders
35 land- holders
200 land- holders
Slide #24 Fenner Seminar March 2014
We’ve been lucky because people like Louise Gilfedder have bothered to try and get inside the heads of farmers.
They have sat with us, they’ve talked to us… they’ve seen what it’s like to follow droughts to their end conclusion. They have
seen seasons come and go; they’ve seen succession within families. They’ve seen how time passes in our landscape and I
think that has enabled them to have a greater understanding of what we have to juggle.
– Midlands participant
Trust & landholder engagement!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #25 Fenner Seminar March 2014
EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS!
There’s been an extensive extension effort in the Midlands for the last 20 years and, in real terms, it’s been
ineffective because the community’s critically endangered, it’s still declining and we haven’t actually achieved the outcome of securing that particular set of
biodiversity values. – Midlands participant
• Self-organising by landholders to pursue new approaches!
• Attempts to address landholder needs and short-term, ad hoc gov’t programs!- Midlandscapes & Midlands Conservation Fund!
Slide #26 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Extent ofGrasslandEcosystem
IncreasedVariability of
Rainfall
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Quality and Adequacyof Information, and its
Deployment
Leadership,Vision andStrategy
CoordinatedGovernance and
Management
Open andInnovative
OrganisationalCulture
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
Extent ofLandholderNetworks
Organisation Abilityfor Adaptive
ManagementSocial Driver
Biophysical Driver
BiodiversityFeature
Invasive Species
Condition ofGrasslandEcosystem
Increased AverageTemperature and
Temperature Extremes
Populations ofDependent MNESStrength of
RegulatoryProtection
SupportivePolitical Will
Governance andManagement
Influences
Level ofFinancialIncentive
Land Use Mix
EnterpriseProfitability
WaterAvailability
IrrigationDevelopments
Level of EcoloigcalBurning
LandholderValues and
Attitudes
CommunityValues and
Attitudes
GovernanceDesign for
ConservationProgram
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
LandholderEconomicMotivation
LandholderSense of Place
LandholderLifestyle
Motivation
Conservation ProgramCompatiblity with
Current Management
LandholderInformation
Seeking
Level of InvasiveSpecies Management
Landholder Ability forAdaptive Management
IrrigationInfrastucture
Level of TrustBetween Key Actors
GrazingManagement
Practices
Landholders'Terms of Trade Land
Capability
Longevity ofPrograms
Time Constraintsand Prioritisation
TechnologicalInnovation
Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices
Level ofCollaborativeGovernance
Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses
OrganisationAbility forAdaptive
Management
Strength ofRegulatoryProtection
Level ofFinancialIncentive
EnterpriseProfitability
GovernanceDesign for
ConservationProgram
LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation
ConservationProgram
Compatiblity withCurrent
Management
Longevity ofPrograms
Strength, flexibility and uncertainty!
Slide #27 Fenner Seminar March 2014
REGULATION AS A BLUNT INSTRUMENT!
I personally don’t think regulation will protect the grasslands… It’s actually about appropriate
management that implements biodiversity conservation into those systems. With trust and goodwill,
working with the landowners. – Midlands participant
It's very easy for a landowner to change what fits the strict criteria of the threatened
grassland to something which is lower grade and not threatened like that, with just grazing. Quite legally too…They're still legally allowed to put, crazily, fertilisers on some of those areas too.... -
Midlands participant
Slide #28 Fenner Seminar March 2014
AUTHORITY AND REGULATION!
• Strategic Assessment - discretionary section of Act!• Acceptance & clarity of roles & responsibilities!• Challenge of attribution and strength of enforcement!• Strong enough to enforce, but flexible enough to
change!• Single industry &
MNES focus - landscape-scale conservation?!
Photo: Midlands property, S. Gaynor
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #29 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Strategic Assessment!
[They] felt they were only one impacter in a broader landscape and
they didn’t want to be held accountable for the actions of
others within that area…So the state took on the responsibility of a large
number of components of that landscape scale monitoring…
– Midlands participant
One of the institutional barriers for us is…has anyone actually got the teeth
when it comes to the crunch where we have to say, actually we’re moving too fast, and we
can’t shift and adapt fast enough? – Midlands participant
The only thing the [SA] programme caters for are those things that are covered by the EPBC…it’s not a
legislative stick, it’s more like a piece of string. It doesn’t stand up to anything. It’s really ineffective.
– Midlands participant
Slide #30 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Midlands Scenarios!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Exploring plausible futures!
Slide #31 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Likely system trajectories and transformation!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #32 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Transformation requires re-framing the problem!
It’s not just about the grassland… the Midlands is that classic die back
ecosystem dysfunction. It’s not about possums; it’s not about salinity; it’s about ecosystem dysfunction where we need the shrubs back in the landscape.”
– Midlands participant
So I think the question for me has changed a little bit away from the traditional conserve, protect,
language to functional thresholds in terms of biodiversity’s contribution to the broader space. It’s to look after our species … but also just what makes a healthy functional landscape that other things can operate in, like agriculture.
– Midlands participant
Slide #33 Fenner Seminar March 2014
GOVERNANCE OPTIONS!
• Can our options change system trajectories?!
• Diagnostic used to identify gaps, misfits & opportunities !
• Governance options developed by researchers (literature + analyses)!
• Focus groups assessed practicality of these options!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #34 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Community Government
Market
Op>on 2: Midlands Alliance
Op>on 1: Landholder-‐
Driven Regional Program of Ac>on
Another op>on: Midlands protected landscape
(based on statute)
Current arrangements: Majority of grasslands
privately managed on private lands
Selec4on of governance possibili4es -‐ Midlands
Slide #35 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Option 1:
Landholder-driven regional program of action!• Guided by principle that Midlands
landholders have primary responsibility for managing the landscape, including biodiversity!
• Gives landholders discretion forhow they meet Australia’s biodiversity obligations on their land!
• Regional action program aims to enable collaboration among landholders at landscape scale!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Photo: S. Gaynor
Slide #36 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Option 1: Landholder-driven regional program of action!
1. Enable a regional program of action to be established by a landholders’ working group who also enable landholder self-organising and input into the action program.!
2. Negotiate with government and NGOs to help deliver the program and identify instruments.!
3. Identifies opportunities to use existing tools (e.g. Strategic Assessment) in new ways to devolve authority.!
4. Synthesise existing plans using SES principles.!5. Undertake an adaptive planning process and a review of
existing agreements (e.g. covenants).!6. Establishes trust to access additional funding.!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #37 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Option 2: Midlands Alliance!• Inspired by French
governance (charters) of Regional Natural Parks.!
• Aims for a broader alliance of stakeholders than for Option 1, and a more formal agreement.!
• Alliance organised around shared commitment to high productive capacity & strong biodiversity stewardship.!
Photo: Livradois-‐Forez RNP, Didiervberghe via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-‐SA
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #38 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Option 2: Midlands Alliance!1. Builds on and extends Option 1.!2. Increase diversity of engagement and encourage
development of an alliance.!3. Identify priority values enhancing landscape
function, explore the effect of planning and land use options, & identify relevant constraints & opportunities.!
4. Integrates a means for all parties to opt-in to a 10-year agreement, including landholders. !
5. Establishes a board and secretariat responsible for day-to-day coordination to achieve objectives.!
6. Includes a trust fund as well.!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #39 Fenner Seminar March 2014
IV. DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS!• Governance options tested at 2nd scenario
workshop!• Purpose of the research – test processes for
integrating governance more completely & identifying pathways to change!
• To what extent can the findings for each case study be generalised?!
• Development of a multi-media product that integrates and presents findings across the hub!
1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test
Slide #40 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Disclaimer The information in this presentation was generated for the purpose of consultation and collaboration with hub partners in developing tools, techniques and policy options to integrate biodiversity into regional planning as part of the National Environmental Research Program Landscapes and Policy Hub. The results should not be used or taken as final and are not for circulation outside of this audience without prior permission.
Contact Sarah Clement ! (04) 24 371 025 Postal: Murdoch University
90 South Street
Murdoch, WA 6150 [email protected] www.nerplandscapes.edu.au
For more information about this research: Contact Sarah Clement
! 08 9360 7316 (office) / 0424 371 025 (mobile)
www.nerplandscapes.edu.au
Slide #41 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Alps slides follow, in the event of questions!
Slide #42 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Competence and accountability!• ‘Narrow’ through focus on upward, financial accountability!• Cultural influence – lack of trust, risk aversion !
Narrow accountability
Culture and norms
Competence Learning
Innova>on
PRACTICE AND CAPACITY!
Slide #43 Fenner Seminar March 2014
It’s hard to say, look, we’re going to have these highly controlled, driven organisations held to
high levels of quite narrow accountability and now we want you to
operate in this landscape context. – Alps participant
It’s very much set up as a controlled environment rather than an
empowerment environment…if you’re going to try to pursue a landscape scale approach, trust, consensus, partnership, complementarity
are absolutely fundamental to that. – Alps participant
Accountability ‘myopia’!
A ‘distrust spiral’?
Slide #44 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Accountability and risk!
We only ever get slammed on accountability stuff because it’s the only thing that
they can easily measure. So we never get slammed for accountability in biodiversity
because it’s too hard to do. So they just come after the financial stuff.
– Cth participant
We have a culture, very strongly, of people who are either not rewarded for
failures or risks or don’t see risks as part of the system. I mean intellectually
they do, but all incentives are against you. – Cth participant
We have this fundamental contradiction between an institution protecting
itself and an institution protecting the environment and managing the
environment. – Cth participant
Slide #45 Fenner Seminar March 2014
• Tied resources!• Reduced flexibility &
opportunities to experiment, learn & respond!
• Responsibility often not devolved to appropriate levels!
• Insufficient institutional support for innovation!
• Even institutional entrepreneurs struggled to see new pathways!
!
Photo: Julian von Bibra, Midlands, S. Gaynor
Narrow accountability
Culture and norms
Competence Learning
Innova>on
CONSEQUENCES FOR PRACTICE AND CAPACITY!
Slide #46 Fenner Seminar March 2014
From interviews: public servants are a conduit for government direction with little
discretion
From literature: public servants are ‘street-level leaders’ who must regularly exercise discretion
Bureaucracy
Policy implementa>on Street-‐level leaders
Reference: Vinzant and Crothers 1996. Photo sources (CC BY-‐SA): 1) by Harald Groven via Flickr 2) by Jossifresco via Wikimedia Commons, 3) Christopher Chan via Flickr
POLITICS, POWER AND BUFFERING!
Slide #47 Fenner Seminar March 2014
‘Knowing your role’!
…the barrier between those roles often breaks down…you get politics entering into the public service. And therefore you get senior
public servants who can be dismissed on the spot, not being prepared to tell the government that
their policy doesn't make sense when you look at the environment. – Alps participant
…we’re servants to the politicians…so if you were to talk to any staff member in this building and asked if they were in favour
of that programme, the answer would be resoundingly no, but we’d have a job to
implement it… – Alps participant
Slide #48 Fenner Seminar March 2014
• Functional misfit – organisational buffering!• Capacity to act not devolved to appropriate levels!• Networks for learning and self-organising, but
unable to ‘scale up’!
Photos: Thowra from “The Silver Stallion” / Brumbies on the Cascade Trail, R. Magierowski
CONSEQUENCES FOR PRACTICE AND CAPACITY
!
Slide #49 Fenner Seminar March 2014
So my big picture view is that I think the AALC is a very important entity that exists. I think it's constrained in its potential…there's a need for a rethink along the
lines of 1) letting the managers manage without political intervention and 2) with
trust that they will achieve the right outcomes…– Alps participant
…there’s the networking, it’s informative, it’s engaging, it’s enjoyable, it’s not a burden. That’s what the Alps
programme does well. It’s the umbrella by which that
conversation, that sharing the knowledge can work.
– Alps participant
Internally it works quite well. In practice though, again, I'm not sure I
can see anywhere where a management decision has
been changed because of something that has come out of it.
– Alps participant
Slide #50 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Alps Scenarios:Biodiversity outcomes are getting worse!
Slide #51 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Slide #52 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Option 1: One Park, One Plan!
1. Redesign the MOU to include commitment to shared goals, objectives, monitoring and evaluation. !
2. Establish new reference groups, one focusing on strategic planning and the other on ecosystem services.!
3. Develop additional partnerships: a research centre, adjacent landholders and Traditional Owners. Builds interactive governance and open to potential for indigenous co-governance.!
4. Encourages innovation and explicitly uses multiple jurisdictions to experiment and learn.!
5. Devolves responsibility to appropriate levels and formally embeds foresighting, outcome-based accountability, and collaboration. !
6. Establish a trust to increase access to discretionary funds.!
Slide #53 Fenner Seminar March 2014
Option 2: Transboundary authority accountable to a statute!
1. Establishes transboundary authority to achieve greater landscape-level collaboration and access add’l funds.!
2. Provides ‘arms-length’ distance from politics by linking accountability to authority’s statutory objectives.!
3. Derives goals from the ‘One Park, One Plan’.!4. Retains management agencies who operate under shared
plan, but focusing on outcomes and providing discretion to managers to achieve those outcomes.!
5. Establishes a trust and research centre (like Option 1).!6. Commits authority to ongoing adaptive planning as well
as meaningful engagement with stakeholders.!