What are the critical water governance research needs?

Urban perspectives

Ray Ison

Key framings

• The concept of water sensitive cities (WSCs) first arose in

the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water

Initiative by the Council of Australian Governments

(COAG 2004).

• In paragraph 92, water sensitive urban design (WSUD) is

put forth as a way to provide the “Innovation and Capacity

Building to Create Water Sensitive Australian Cities”

(COAG 2004, p. 20).

• In the time since 2004, the concept of WSCs has become

widely known e.g. the inclusion of the concept in

government policies, such as the Victorian Government‟s

climate change green paper (Victorian Government 2009).

Key framings

The six transition phases towards Water Sensitive Cities. Source: Brown et al (2009, p.

850).

www.monash.edu

Key framings: Governance – systemic

and adaptive

• Cybernetic i.e. responding

to feedback

– kybernetes = helmswoman

or steersman

• charting a course

(purpose)

• adaptive as in a

co-evolutionary dynamic

• a particular form of

performance for a climate-

change world

www.monash.edu

Key Framings – APS papers

www.monash.edu

‘Framing’ is a key governance issue

and ‘framing’ research, including

metaphor analysis is needed

because of pathway dependencies;

failure to frame appropriately e.g.

‘wicked situations’

Main sources

• A series of six national workshops in main capitals and Canberra in

February 2009 (IWC; National Urban Water Governance Program at

Monash);

• Follow-up research in Sydney – Sydney Met CMA & Blacktown

Council;

• Research Agenda of new Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Monash

• NWC commissioned assessments and independent reviews

• NWC/ANZSOG Future directions for water reform: the role of

institutional arrangements

• IWA Cities of the Future Program. Spatial Planning and Institutional

Reform Conclusions from the World Water Congress, September

2010

Objectives of the „transitioning to water

sensitive cities‟ national workshop series

• disseminate leading edge findings from research

programs at Monash:– National Urban Water Governance Program (NUWGP),

– Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, and

– Sustainability Institute (MSI);

• enhance the capacity of water practitioners and their

organisations to transition towards a more sustainable

„water sensitive city‟

• develop a shared understanding of what a „water

sensitive city‟ might look like and the associated barriers

and opportunities for achieving this outcome

• over 500 participants nationally

Designing a process to meet these

objectives means….

• appreciating that all contexts are novel –

thus design and redesign in context are

needed

• making choices about „framing‟ situations

• an understanding of how „learning

processes‟ operate

• understanding the nature of systemic (not

systematic) transformation processes

Our „learning system‟ design for the

workshops

1. Clarify purpose2. Engage in conversation

3.Appreciate multiple perspectives

9. Monitor, evaluate

7. Design actions (personal or for policy)

6. Refine

5. Identify emergent issues and opportunities

4. Introduce new concepts, experience and evidence

Other likely outputs:changes in understandingchanged social relationschanged (new) practices

10. Redesign thesystem based on feedback

Prior experience of participants valued?

8. Monitor & adjust

What do we mean by a 'learning

system'?

• Systemic features– Comprises elements or activities

– Exhibits connectivity

– Results in transformation

– Has emergent properties

– Is bounded in some way

• Design/designer features– It is purposeful to those who participate

– It is not deterministic

– Awareness that what is valid knowledge is contested

„Framing‟ the situation in which

transition to WSC is sought

▓▓ Interdependencies

? Uncertainty

Controversy

Complexity

Issue /

Mess

Multiple

stakeholding /

perspectives

Source: SLIM 2004 after: Ackoff, 1974

– messes and difficulties; Shön (1995)

- the „real-life swamp‟; Rittel and

Webber, (1973); ASPC (2007) -

„wicked‟ and 'tame' problems.

Understanding learning requires an appreciation

of how humans communicate and know

Transforming situations?

Transformation as a linear process ?

Transformation as a learning process for adaptation?

Water Sensitive

City

Water Cycle

City

Waterway

City

Drained

City

Sewered

City

Water Supply

City

Transition

theory

Leadership

CoI/CoP

Stakeholding

Institutions

&

PoliciesKnowledge

Constraints

Facilitation

Chan

ges

in P

ract

ices

History

of the situation Changes in Understanding

ISSUE

Concerted Action for a Water

Sensitive City

Framework for Transforming Embedded Practices

(Ison and Collins, 2009)

The

place of

WSC in

the NWI

Senior management

and politicians are

engaged by the

activities of a Peak

Body for WSC

Stakeholders and

regulators working

together around a

vision of WSC

(i) A national

network/CoP

(ii) Mediating

„objects‟ e.g.

business

model for

non-financial

outcomes

A clear

governance

framework ..to

join up different

understandings

about WSC

Data generated from the

workshops

www.watersensitivefutures.org

Perth – Brisbane – Melbourne – Sydney – Adelaide - Canberra

Concluding Observations & Recommendations

• Actions required are not focused on reshuffling and restructuring organisations (institutional complexity) – they are about systemic governance reform: effecting culture, vision, understanding and incentives

• Need for a co-developed national vision for WSC that is facilitative and prioritises policies and incentives that are designed to be locally adaptable:

• Australian cities are unique and with different histories, have locally specific bio-physical and socio-political contexts

• Leadership on WSCs varies across cities – State Government, Local Government, Water Utilities, Regional Coordinating Groups,

• Urgently develop and support the facilitation of a national forum on Water Sensitive Cities:

• enabling interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral coordination and learning

• Investment in R&D to support the ongoing learning cycle – both social and physical dimensions

Sydney – lack of connectivity –future directions contested

Institutional complexity – easy to get lost

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH

APPLIED RESEARCH

INDUSTRY OUTREACH

RESEARCH TO DELIVER THE SCIENCE-POLICY INNOVATION PATHWAY

2005-09 NUWGP, ARTS

2005-09 FAWB, ENG2004-09

ISWR, ENG

2007-012 International Collaboration

EU FR7, ENG & ARTS

2008-09 ARTS-IWCWSC Sem.

2010-15 Cities as Water Supply Catchments

ENG, ARTS, SCI, Bus & Eco

Cu

rren

tC

om

ple

ted

2008-11 Biofilter

Commercialisation, ENG

2010-12 Biofilter Demo

in Israel2011 Australian-Israeli Partnership for Sustainable

Urban Water Management

2009-12 NUWGP, ARTS

2010-12 Clearwater Partnership

Monash Centre for Water Sensitive Cities

NWC Initiatives

• Commissioned assessments and independent reviews on 15 themes relating to urban water e.g.

• Institutional arrangements (ii);

• Community engagement (xiv)

• Organisation & industry cooperation, culture, skills and capacity (x)

• Externalities (xv)

• Still in progress

ANZSOG and NWC workshop, Melbourne, 13 May 2010 ‘Future directions for water reform: the role of

institutional arrangements’

• In Europe, the debate on water has moved away from the notion that water is a singular problem (a commodity delivered by a natural monopoly) – the knowledge base has become much broader,

– a purely technocratic approach doesn’t work in long-term policy

making. Interdisciplinary forums are grappling with the problem

• Issues of scale and implementation capacity are important. Over the past 15 years, stormwater quality management/WSUD has progressed through largely decentralised reforms, independent of national leadership, through sharing of experiences and learnings

• Impediments to the urban water market need to be addressed.

NWC Initiatives

• Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) has progressed slowly because institutional arrangements are hindering it. For example, with respect to stormwater harvesting:

– it’s not clear who owns the source of water; therefore, if you invest, there is no security

– it’s unclear who is responsible for approvals: is it health authorities? Planners?

– there is no mechanism for taking externality benefits into account – e.g. benefits to Moreton Bay arising from harvesting of stormwater.

• As a result, WSUD has become a series of ‘cottage projects’, even though it has the potential to be a much more important

source of supply.

NWC Initiatives

• Mentioning the ‘unmentionables’ – i.e. ‘naming and shaming’ – can play a role. A list could be created of the top ten ‘basket cases’ in water reform. However, care needs to be taken to prioritise in a positive rather than a negative way, and not provoke a defensive response. Policy should not be driven by the ‘lowest common denominator’ but by what is needed to achieve best practice.

IWA Cities of the Future Program. Spatial Planning and Institutional Reform Conclusions from the World Water

Congress, September 2010

• What are the different values of water?• In a City of the Future, water will be used for more than

just drinking or transporting wastes. It will also provide a boarder range of social, economic and environmental outcomes. Decision making will be informed by better understanding of the ways in which water contributes to liveability in a city, and how the social values of water associated with this can be measured, quantified and included in triple bottom line assessments. Research in this area will utilise community values of water to redefine “least cost” provision of water services.

IWA Cities of the Future Program. Spatial Planning and Institutional Reform Conclusions from the World Water

Congress, September 2010

• What are the benefits of Sustainable Cities?

• What do customers and communities want for their cities?

• How can water management and urban planning agencies deliver more integrated outcomes?

• How can externalities of water management decisions be more fully considered in urban development planning decisions?

• Gather international examples to demonstrate how each principle and action has already been delivered

Unpacking conceptual myths?

• e.g. Head (2010)

• ‘rational expectation that improved policy analysis will flow from a better evidence base, with

consequent improvements in the service delivery and problem-solving capacities of government

agencies. This expectation is contrasted with the practical limitations on rational processes typical in the real world of political decision-making, which is

characterised by bargaining, entrenched commitments, and the interplay of diverse

stakeholder values and interests.’

What are the critical

water governance

research needs?

Conversation mapping session 2

1.30 – 2.00