E - Government & E - Governance (The Paradigm Shift to India of online banking)
Governance shift case study biobanking
-
Upload
dianaocampo -
Category
Technology
-
view
159 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Governance shift case study biobanking
GOVERNANCE SHIFT
Service Delivery of Biobanking
September, 2011
CONTENT
1. Scope
2. A Theoretical Framework for Governance
3. Regular Approvala. Overviewb. Service Deliveryc. State and non-state actors
4. Biobankinga. Overviewb. Service Deliveryc. State and non-state actors
5. State capacity involved
6. Move from Government to Governance
7. Summary of conclusions
1. INTRODUCTION
Focusing on service delivery, and comparing regular approval for developments, which impact threaten species and biodiversity, with Bio-banking alternative launched by NSW Government, this case study shows that:
• With ‘biobanking’, NSW Government increased its capacity to govern the process of land clearance and biodiversity offsetting in private land, as a result of development.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
VARIATION
Policy sectorsPeriods of
time
Affected by
Institutional Capacity
Relational State
3. REGULAR APPROVAL
Applies to:
Overview
Major Developments: Part 3A -DoP
Other Development: Part 4 – DoP,
councils
Development Activities: Part
5 – local councils, State
agencies
National Parks and Wildlife Act- often integrated with above
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act
+
3. REGULAR APPROVAL
• Involves:
• Assessing methodology:
= +
• Requires or enables:
Overview
Impact Assessment
Threatened Species
Case by Case Costly Subjective
Public consultation
Submissions and appeals
3. REGULAR APPROVAL
Application for approval
Impact assessment
Public notification submissions
Offsetting may be required
Approval granted or refused
Service Delivery: Developer
Possibility of appeal
3. REGULAR APPROVAL
State and Non-state actors
More actor input into the approval process
• Federal level restrictions
• State & local regulatory authoritiesGovernment
• Role in impact Assessment and
• Catchement action Plans
Catchment Management
Authorities
• Applicants and holder of approvalsDevelopers
• Includes community groups & NGO's
• Consultation, appealGeneral Public
4. BIO-BANKING
Market-based offsetting scheme
Overview BIODIVERSITY
Extinction &Degradation
Maintain orimprove
Credits ImpactsCOUNTERBALANCE
LandholdersConservation
perpetuity
4. BIO-BANKING
• Types of credits:
• Assessing methodology:
= +
• Payments:
Overview
Ecosystem Species
Credit Calculator
SystemIn-site data
Built-in databases
Landholder report
Agreement Compliance
4. BIO-BANKING
• Scheme applies:
Overview
Developments Part 3A -Minister
Developments Part 4 – need
consent
Activities Part 5
Native Vegetation
Act - clearing
Environmental Planning/ Development
4. BIO-BANKING
Values assessment
Agreement / registration
Credits creation and trading (purchase)
Agreement funded: credit retirement
Management actions
Service Delivery: Site Owner
4. BIO-BANKING
Impact assessment
Statement Request
Credits purchasing
Statement Issuing
Payment: Trust Fund and Site Owner
Service Delivery: Credit Purchaser
4. BIO-BANKING
Bio-banking first experience:
Growth Centers
Biodiversity Offset
Program
Minister for the
Environment and Climate
Change / Agreement
Society of the
Missionaries
$1.7million for 607 biodiversity credits
/ 555,543 Trust Fund
Urban development
Northwest and Southwest over
next 30 to 40 years
St. Mary’s Tower: 80 hectares
Cumberland, near Douglas
Park in Sydney.
4. BIO-BANKING
Actors
Government
Developers / assessors
NGO’sLandholders
Catchment Management
Authorities
MARKETMore actor’s input into the management of the land subject to offsetting
5. STATE CAPACITY
Bio-banking enhances state capacity:
Centralized decision-making
Administrative apparatus
Fiscal resources
Less fragmented
More robust, consistent, simpler, cost-effective,
objective
More money provided by the Market
5. STATE CAPACITY
Bio-banking enhances state capacity:
Policy Instruments
Legitimacy / democratic
decision
Relationships with NGO’s and interest groups
Greater control over site management
For site management
For offsetting approval
For site management
For offsetting approval
6. GOVERNANCE SHIFT
6. GOVERNANCE SHIFT
Hierarchy
Bio-bankingRegular
Approval
Medium
• Approval and amount to offset is less discretional.
• Government retains regulation and enforcement control.
• Program is voluntary
High
• Impact assessment and approval are decided by officials.
• Communication is mainly through administrative processes.
6. GOVERNANCE SHIFT
Market
Bio-bankingRegular
Approval
Relatively High
• Key relationships are managed through contracts.
• Cost of offsetting is determined by the Market.
Low
• Market is not directly involved in the process.
• Offsetting is decided case-by-case.
• Flexibility is discretional to authority.
6. GOVERNANCE SHIFT
Networks
Bio-bankingRegular
Approval
High / Arguably
• More resources are available for networks interested in offsetting.
• Encourages positive and continue involvement, rather than a case by case reactive approach.
Medium
• Other groups can submit requirements and appeal approvals.
• Involvement in managing offset areas depends on developer
6. GOVERNANCE SHIFT
Community Engagement
Bio-bankingRegular
Approval
Medium
• Community consultation is replaced by market mechanism.
• More resources are available for setting up sites, credit purchasing and site management.
Medium
• Community consultation is strong.
• Engagement for offsetting and site management is largely not up them.
6. GOVERNANCE SHIFT
Persuasion
Bio-bankingRegular
Approval
Relatively High
• Landholders are more willing to conserve with economic incentive.
• Other actors are more willing to accept development.
Low
• Penalties are used to disincentive illegal clearing.
• Other actors less likely to get benefits.
6. GOVERNANCE SHIFT
Bio-banking
From the site/owner point of view the scheme works:
Lowndes, Vivien and Chris Skelcher (1998)
7. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Recap :
• With ‘biobanking’, NSW Government increased its capacity to govern the process of land clearance and biodiversity offsetting on private land, as a result of development.
• Biobanking involves a move on the continuum from Government towards Governance.
7. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Further conclusions and points of interest:
• Shift towards Market and Networks, with less Hierarchy, and more Persuasion.
• Delegates determining amount of offsetting to private sector.
• Strengthens the capacity of networks to participate in biodiversity conservation.
• Allows more societal autonomy.
• Is a use of Metagovernance strategy involving a different mix of governance modes.
• Still highly regulated; with high degree of state intervention.
7. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Further conclusions and points of interest
• Decreases public’s ‘democratic voice’ related to approvals.
• Favors output legitimacy, ensuring a speedy, more certain and cost effective outcome.
• Limited use, so far, indicates that practical implementation is difficult.
• May indicate a future trend towards more governance of biodiversity, with even less state intervention.
REFERENCES
• Barney, Darin (2004), The Network Society
• Lowndes, Vivien and Chris Skelcher (1998), ‘The Dynamics of
Multi-organizational Partnerships: an Analysis of Changing
Modes of Governance‟,
• Daugbjerg, C. and Fawcett, P. (2011), „Governance Theory and
Power: Lesson Drawing from the Network Governance and
Policy Network Analysis Schools‟.
• Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. (2006), ‘Governance, Government
and the State‟.
• Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W. and Zito, A. (2005), ‘The Rise of
“New” Policy Instruments in Comparative Perspective: Has
Governance Eclipsed Government?‟.
• Meulemann, Louis (2008), Public Management and the
Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The
Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style
Combinations.
• Bell, S., Hindmoor, A. and Mols, F. (2010), „Persuasion as
Governance: A State-Centric Relational Perspective‟.