vc course complexity policy problems in environment & sustainability steve dovers fenner school...

VC Course Complexity

Policy problems in environment & sustainability

Steve DoversFenner School of Environment &

Society21 May 2013

Complexity Dovers 2013 2

Context & coverage• Many definitions of complexity, wicked

problems … not repeating those -- you decide what’s complex or not.

• Policy problems and institutional challenges as manifest in a particular policy domain:-- history and broad nature of the domain.-- problem attributes.-- the hard edge of policy and complex problem – choosing a policy instrument.

• If time – an example and exercise.


Sources:

• Supplied (or will be…):- Dovers et al 2008 in Bammer & Smithson.- Dovers 2009 in Glob.Env Change.

• Other:- Connor, R. and Dovers, S. 2004. Institutional change for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.- Dovers, S. 2005. Environment and sustainability policy. Sydney: Federation Press.- Handmer, J. and Dovers, S. 2013. Handbook of disaster policy and institutions. 2nd edition. London: Earthscan.


Environment & resource management

sustainability & sustainable development

A summary

-- familiar to some, others not --


Beyond end-of-pipe: Increasing complexity in problem-framing and policy responses

• From: single environmental problems, point-source pollution control, nature conservation, single stock resource management.

• Through: multiple, bigger, more complex environmental and resource management problems.

• Toward: sustainability – environment and development, linked ecological, social & economic agenda.

• Still struggling with enlarging environmental agenda, while grappling with emerging sust problems.

• AND, DECISIONS REQUIRED NOW.


Examples …

• From soil conservation integrated catchment management - regional governance

• From point-source pollution regulation load-based licensing Env Management Systems, triple-bottom-line accounting managing multiple diffuse sources.

• From tree preservation land clearance controls regional vegn plans stewardship payments.

• From an EPA and a parks services environment depts strategic assessment and sustainability policy units.

• From scattered nature reserves patches and strips managing biodiversity across tenures and landscapes (connectivity conservation).


Defining sustainability (Rio +20)

• Sustainability: a system property, or a long term goal.

• Sustainable development: an evolving policy agenda.

• Brundtland (WCED 1987):

Sustainable development is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: -- the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and-- the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

• Long time scales, local-global links, interconnected phenomena, significant uncertainty, high stakes= complex, wicked problems?


Constituent issue of sustainable development: 1. Issues of resource depletion and degradation, over

many centuries, esp C19-20th: -- loss of biological diversity; land and water resources; forests; energy; minerals; amenity.

2. Issues of pollution and wastes, from 17th century, but big from the 1960s:-- atmospheric, marine and water pollution;

3. Issues of ecological life support services, from 1980s:-- ecosystem integrity; nutrient cycles; climate change; integrity of evolutionary processes.

4. Issues of society and human condition, esp 1960-70s:-- population; development/poverty; food security; shelter; health; urbanization; human rights; education; trade; security.

• Sustainability = 1 & 2, plus 3 & 4 – 1987/92 – 2012 @ Rio.

The global discourse…

• 1966: Boulding’s “Spaceship Earth” essay – modern idea of sustainability.

• 1972: Stockholm conference on human environment, and Limits to Growth.

• 1970-80s: Brandt and Palme UN commissions on development/poverty and human security/peace.

• 1980: World Conservation Strategy.• 1983-87: Our Common Future – WCED/Brundtland

– environment and development, security.• 1992 in Rio: UNCED – 2002 Rio+10 – 2012

Rio+20…• Sust development – the biggest agenda ever…



Rise and fall of sustainable development: resisting complexity?• Too vague, messy, inherent tensions, not suited

to specialised approaches, too far off (are we there yet…?)

• Higher-order social goal – akin to democracy, justice, rule of law – a generational task for research, policy and institutional change.

• Fragmented knowledge, institutional settings and policy responses caused the problems, and no other candidate for an integrative framework.

• EG: Australia 1992 ESD Strategy (for Rio), versus Australia 2002 (at J’burg) focus on selected issues.

• Huge agenda re-affirmed at Rio +20.


Resisting complexity: other examples

• Land degradation 1980s (aka desertification) = multiple forms of soil erosion, irrigation and dryland salinity, rangeland vegetation decline, soil structural decline, soil acidification…-- almost total focus on dryland salinity in 1990s.

• Instream water use (1980s) = ecological, geomorphic integrity, aesthetic, cultural, recreational..-- to strictly environmental (ecological) flows in 1990s.

• Carbon pricing (2009-13) = a “great big new tax”.

More focused, or resisting complexity? Can we only twiddle one knob at a time?


If these problems are complex…

… ie need to understand and manage many, interconnecting factors and

processes)…

… then the research and policy challenge is by definition different in kind, if not in degree, than many other domains?

… but, why?


Attributes of policy problems in sustainability

1: extended spatial and temporal scales.2: possible ecological limits to human activities.

3: irreversible and/or cumulative impacts.4: cross-problem connectivity.

5: pervasive risk and uncertainty.7: poor information base.

6: important assets not traded and thus not valued.8: new ethical dimensions (other species, future).

9: systemic problem causes.10: poorly developed theory, methods, techniques.

11: poorly defined policy and property rights.12: non-existent or ill-fitting institutional settings.

13: demands for integration of knowledge silos.14: novelty as a policy and institutional domain.

Attributes = complexity?


Sustainability problems: different in kind and degree?

• Such attributes confronted more often, and more often in combination, with major sustainability problems, than in most other policy sectors.

• … problems different in kind, and some would argue different in degree as well.

• Traditional policy-oriented disciplines, and policy processes, unlikely to have purchase.

So…

• Human behaviours and use of environments and resources are unsustainable.

• How to change this?


“Oughtism”

• Someone oughta do something about…-- over allocated water resources-- climate change-- degraded environments = degraded livelihoods-- decline of oceanic fisheries-- biodiversity conservation-- energy dependency and car reliance-- etc, etc…

• That’s policy instrument choice – “don’t tell me the problem, tell me how to fix it with a policy response”.

an exercise on this later.



The politics of instrument choice

• A policy initiative involves specific tools to achieve its goals.

• Policy interventions use policy instruments to drive behaviour change, of individuals, households, firms, communities, sectors, govts.

social engineering?• Policy instrument choice = convenience,

disciplinary bias, ease, swiftness, or familiarity

• ‘Policy fashions’ evident -- past experience, political preferences, dominant ideologies.

• Often from a limited menu – sometimes inevitably, sometimes regrettably.


Beyond simplistic debates:

• Three commonly advocated approaches:- sticks – regulate with law- sermons – educate the public- carrots – create a market or price.

• Often, policy debates focus on arguing which is ‘best’, in a general sense.


… and limited choices

• 3 problems with such arguments…

• Almost always use a combination of instruments, hopefully coordinated.

• There are more than just regulatory, educative and market mechanisms

• Within such general classes, there are options.

how to create a menu, and how to choose?


Instrument classes (from 3 15)• R&D, monitoring• Communication &

information flow• Education &

training• Consultation,

mediation• Agreements,

conventions• Statute law• Common law

• Covenants on property

• Assessment (eg. EIA)• Self-regulation• Community

involvement• Market mechanisms• Institutional change• Change other

policies• Inaction (with cause)


But wait, there’s more…

• This menu is richer and more realistic, but still too simple - each class contains a variety of specific instruments.

• Not always possible to consider all, but important to recognise the range.

• Some examples of more detail …


Instrument menu, level 2

• Education and training:• Public education (“moral suasion”) • Targeted education (subset of popn)• Formal education (schools, tertiary)• Training (skills development)• Education about ‘the environment’,

education about other instruments.


… level 2, continued

• Statute law (legislation) - new law or regulations under existing statute, to:

• Create institutions and organisations• Set out statutory objects and agency roles• Define decision making processes• Allow public participation• Set aside land; plan and control the use of land• Enforce standards, prohibit practices• Require product labeling• Enable other instruments.


... level 2, continued

• Market mechanisms (price instruments):

• Input or output taxes or charges• Use charges• Subsidies, rebates• Tradable pollution permits, resource

rights• Performance assurance bonds• Deposit-refund systems.

… general classes = different options


Selection criteria: how to choose?• Effectiveness

criteria:• Information

requirements• Dependability• Timing• Corrective effect• Flexibility• Cost, efficiency• Cross-sectoral

impacts.

• Implementation criteria:

• Equity impacts• Political feasibility• Legal feasibility• Institutional feasibility• Monitoring

requirements• Compliance• Communicability.


EXAMPLE EXERCISE: Paddock trees• Scattered or paddock trees – icons of Australian

art, landscape and identity, covering vast areas.• Much more significant than thought – stock

shelter, water infiltration, pest control (predators), wildlife.

• Previous focus on patches and strips for vegetation protection and restoration – another increase in scale/complexity of the biodiversity policy problem.

• Demographic collapse – relicts of pre-clearing and grazing, low or nil recruitment – treeless in 50 years?

• Across whole grazing landscape…• Complex as (i) a research problem, and (ii) a

target for policy interventions? Variables – site variation, grazing regime, different species, financial viability of farm, owner demographic, information availability…


Familiar…?

As a policy problem…

• A big problem (biodiversity loss over millions of hectares, long term), requiring a policy response to increase appropriate management practices over 1000s of different, individual properties and owners:

policy choice for a complex problem.



As a research problem: Fenner CERF project

Go to…

• Sustainable Farms research project website, with details, publications, and cool 100 year landscape visualisation scenario download…

• http://fennerschool-research.anu.edu.au/sustfarms/

• (Finalist, 2011 Eureka Science Prizes). Complexity Dovers 2013 30

http://fennerschool-research.anu.edu.au/sustfarms/




Further sources

• Fischer, J. et al. 2009. Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 (25): 10386-10391.

• Schirmer, J., Dovers, S. and Clayton, H. 2012. Informing conservation policy through an examination of landholder preferences: a case study of scattered tree conservation in Australia. Biological Conservation. 153: 51-63.



Findings…

• Re-affirmed value of scattered trees (prodn, birds, bats..).• Recruitment under low fertiliser, fast-rotation grazing

regimes, if seed stock available, but other strategies also needed.

• Majority of landholders value scattered trees, but do not currently manage for recruitment or retention.

• Demographics – superannuation farming, low succession.• Land use change – increased cropping (=removal of

obstacles to tillage and irrigation).• Need to deal with varied biophysical situations, different

financial situations, range of management regimes, attitudes to management, etc – farmer aren’t farmers.

• Variable receptivity to policy instruments.


As a target for policy intervention

• What are the policy options to change behaviours (management) of landholders?

with scarce resources, fragmented responsibilities, information overload, diverse audiences, existing programs and focus – what priority ‘investments’, in what combination?

Exercise:

• Four groups – policy instrument choice:

1. Landholders/farmers (who value trees but need to survive financially).2. Cwlth govt (design and fund policy).3. State/CMA (advise and implement).4. Conservation NGO (priority = biodiversity).

• 5-10min, then a proposal from each group.


vc course complexity policy problems in environment & sustainability steve dovers fenner school...

Documents

complexity dovers

sustainability policy

sustainability environment

policy instrument

policy responses

dovers et

particular policy domain

evolving policy agenda