The Governance of Recovery and the

Recovery of Governance – the promise of localism in the Murray Darling Basin

Professor

Mark Evans Director,

Australia-New Zealand School of Government

Institute for Governance

Email: mark.evans@canberra.edu.au

Context: Understanding Communities under Stress

Aim: to develop a strong qualitative international evidence base on ‘Understanding Communities under Stress’ •  Systematic review of the

practice-based and academic literature

•  Development of diagnostic tools •  Identification of exemplar case

studies of better and poor practice

•  Currently working on localism recovery strategies with governments in Australia (MDBA), China and Afghanistan

The evidence base

•  Focus on communities in countries at different states of development responding to both man-made (GFC, war, environmental hazard etc.) and natural disasters (Tsunami, earthquake, fires, floods, drought etc.)

•  Qualitative measurement of adaptive capacity in relation to four factors of cohesion (“capabilities to act”) –

1.  social entrepreneurship and inclusion 2.  economic entrepreneurship and

inclusion 3.  the quality of community governance

(including spatial integration, issues of authority, legitimacy, and social leadership)

4.  household capacity

Purpose

•  To evaluate the promise of localism in the context of implementing the Murray Darling Basin Plan

•  A paper in four parts: 1), a definition of the problem; 2), a series of propositions regarding the promise of localism in dealing with the problem;

3), Identification of the obstacles to the achievement of meaningful localism in the MDB context; and, 4), an investigation of how localism could enhance the delivery of implementation tasks through governance innovation.

1. The Murray Darling as a wicked problem

•  Richey (2011, p. 2) defines these as ‘ill-defined, ambiguous and associated with strong moral, political and professional issues. Since they are strongly stakeholder dependent, there is often little consensus about what the problem is, let alone how to resolve it’

•  ‘Wicked problems won’t keep still: they are sets of complex, interacting issues evolving in a dynamic social context. Often, new forms of wicked problems emerge as a result of trying to understand and solve one of them’.

Horst Rittel (1973)

1.  Each attempt at creating a solution changes the understanding of the problem.

2.  Since you cannot define the problem, it is difficult to tell when it is resolved.

3.  There are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is resolved.

4.  There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

5.  Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences, some of which are unforeseeable or adverse.

Horst Rittel (1973) 6.  Wicked problems do not have a

well-described set of potential solutions

7.  Since every wicked problem is essentially unique, there are no classic solutions that can be applied.

8.  Every wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem.

9.  The causes of a wicked problem can be perceived in numerous, changing ways.

10. There is an unreasonable expectation that problem-solvers will find a satisfactory solution, preferably the first time.

Examples

•  Global financial crisis •  Poverty reduction •  Social inclusion •  Sustainable

development •  Climate change •  Indigenous health •  Terrorism •  Multi-level

Governance?

The Murray Darling Basin is a wicked problem because...

Sustainable development in the food bowl of Australia is a development challenge. The (long-term) problem can only be solved through co-production. Contested values – the evidence is contested (though the trajectory is not! i.e. how many years it will take to reach Doomsday). Water governance is characterized by poor alignment. The way forward is contested across and within Commonwealth agencies.

The Murray Darling Basin is a wicked problem because...

•  It requires a system perspective

•  But system navigation (governance) is very difficult

•  The wicked problem (sustainable development) begets new wicked problems (institutional sclerosis)

The problem is dynamic Water use in the Basin has increased five-fold in less than a century. The problems caused by over-allocation have been exacerbated by severe drought and the early impacts of climate change. There is insufficient water to maintain the Basin’s natural balance and ecosystems, resulting in a marked decline in its ecological health. Many species that were once common are now rare and listed nationally for protection under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. At least 35 bird species and 16 mammals that live in the Basin are endangered. Twenty mammal species have become extinct…

SEWPAC, 2011

Governance value conflicts contaminate every aspect of multi-

level governance

Managerial – top-down government

knows best •  Science epistemology •  Hard governance •  Evidence •  Visionary leadership

Community – bottom-up co-produced

solution •  Cultural epistemology •  Soft governance •  Experience •  Adaptive leadership

Four governance dilemmas

1.  Institutional layering in crowded policy space = competing policy values and unclear roles and responsibilities = institutional sclerosis

2.  Poor representation of mainstream and marginalised communities

3.  Adverse central perceptions of representative localism

Crisis of representation and responsibility

2. What are the major obstacles to localism? The Commonwealth stakeholder perspective

Behavioural Path dependency towards a technical rather than developmental problem definition Competing understanding of the local Anti-local culture (politics and capability) Culture of risk aversion

Environmental constraints Institutional layering – crowded policy space Public expectations for quick fixes Prevailing Socio-economic conditions Prevailing Environmental conditions Problems inherent in multi-level governance

Institutional resources/constraints Poor strategic alignment in water governance Clear roles and responsibilities Engagement capacity Limited skills in active risk or change management to create opportunity structures for local innovation

Institutional resources/constraints Support from politicians Short-term budgets and planning horizons Delivery pressures and administrative burdens Poor rewards and incentives to innovate

3. How can localism help?

•  The devolution of power, functions or resources away from central control and towards front-line managers, local democratic structures, local institutions and local communit ies, within an agreed framework of Commonwealth and State minimum standards.

•  By implication there are varieties of localism which reflect different models of democracy and degrees of community involvement in decision-making. These often co-exist.

What is localism?

What it isn’t •  Triage •  Local government •  Community engagement

What it is •  A mode of governance for

moving from relief to recovery to sustainable development

•  Integrating communities into a system of development governance

Constituent elements

•  Meta-governance at the local scale – a process of governing

•  A container concept for moving communities from relief to recovery to sustainable development under the auspices of Federal relations.

•  Harnessing the resources and support of formal and informal institutions of local governance in the ongoing struggle for sustainable development

Three localisms – it is the mix that matters!

Managerial   Representa.ve   Community    (Local  Governance)  

Defining  mechanism  

Condi&onal  devolu&on  of  

func&ons  based  on  achieving  agreed  

objec&ves  

Provision  of  powers  and  

responsibility  for  local  government  

elected  on  universal  suffrage  

Rights  and  support  given  to  ci&zens  in  communi&es  to  engage  in  decisions  and  

ac&on  

Delivery  mechanism  

Intergovernmental  networks  

Hierarchical  delivery  networks  

Community  network  governance  

Metrics  for  judging  success  

Targets  and  evidence  

Electoral  triumph  or  failure  

Cohesiveness  and  capacity  of  network  arrangements.  AEainment  of  network  goals  and  fairness  of  

process  

The promise of localism normative and instrumental

•  In a democracy communities have a legitimate voice in decisions which shape their destiny

•  Wicked development problems require co-produced solutions with citizens

•  Soft governance – the power to persuade – is the key instrument for winning the war of behavioural change

•  Trust systems are easier to build at the local level

•  Barriers to participation are constructed by outsiders

•  Place based programmes work well if they are flexible to the needs and lives of the participants and proceed from a philosophy of co-design with genuine choice. Participants respond well to increased choice and responsibility

•  Communities have the capacity to adapt – the key is to find and nurture those capacities

•  The majority of community members do not experience barriers to participation – they are constructed as outsiders by technical elites

The international drivers point to localism

At the level of political discourse

•  Global pattern of disaffection with government (except at the local level)

•  the merits of deep democratisation for stabilisation/social solidarity in times of crisis

•  perceptions of delivery failure have to be addressed at the local level (subsidiarity)

At the field level •  the potential for broader

ownership of policy problems to help manage rising citizen expectations

•  efficiency gains through targeting identifiable needs i.e. capacity to do more with less if you know what people want

•  greater capacity for impact assessment to avoid unintended consequences of action

•  Futures thinking can be done at a more meaningful way at the local level

4. Implementing the plan – where community localism can be

useful? •  Strategic direction refers to the

involvement of communities in the introduction of new organisational missions which impact directly on the nature of decision-making (e.g. a Community Priority Setting).

•  The second and third sites of decision-making relate to the direct involvement of communities in the design and delivery of policy.

•  The fourth site of decision-making involves the co-generation of knowledge about organisational performance or public attitudes on specific issues.

MDB Applications: strategic direction

•  The democratisation of co-regulation (alignment of MDBA-Jurisdictions – Catchment Management Authorities)

•  Charter of rights and responsibilities for MDB Communities?

•  International exemplars can be found in Afghanistan (NSP) and Indonesia (KDP)

MDB Applications: policy co-design

•  Centripetal Action Zone

experiments to integrate sustainable development activities in high, medium, and low risk communities in one action zone e.g. Griffith.

•  International exemplars in China (Sichuan post earthquake), Tanzania (post-war) and Sri Lanka (post-Tsunami)

MDB Applications: co-delivery

•  The environmental watering plan

(EWP). The EWP is a principles based watering plan that forms a mandatory element of the Basin Plan. It involves managerial localism in terms of policy design but requires community localism to embed behaviours (i.e. implementation) through priority setting processes.

•  Nudging techniques will also be used here to affect behavioural change.

MDB Applications: strategic learning

•  Reporting on the effectiveness and impact of the Basin Plan.

•  Community localism adds value to M&E and horizon scanning.

•  International exemplars in Sri Lanka (post Tsunami)., NZ (post earthquake) and the UK in response to the GFC (e.g. Participatory budgeting, Futures thinking)

Three conclusions 1.  International evidence points to

localism because sustainable development requires a co-produced outcomes with citizens.

2.  Community localism can be an effective mode of governance for moving from relief to recovery to sustainable development In which community power and resources are integrated into a system of development governance.

3.  Different localisms are required for different recovery tasks and require different governance innovations – it is the mix that matters! But community localism best fits recovery processes.