Upload
howard-harrell
View
218
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Legal natural resource governance: Innovation in response to fundamental rural challenges. Professor Paul Martin
Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law
University of New England
vv
The argument• Evidence suggests that resource
governance can be too costly, ineffective and/or unfair. Why?– 5 basic challenges– 5 rural challenges
• What should the next generation of resource governance be like?
• Proposed directions to consider– Research and investigation methods– Better frameworks for public policy– Governance instruments and systems
• Where might we go to from here?
+ IUCN/WCEL investigations of legal governance effectiveness (x2)
16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st
6B-9B
2B-6B
1B-2B
<1B
Is this the best rural governance model?
Frontier 1
Agricultural / monarchic system
The instrument explosion
Frontier 2 Industrialised/populist system
Mercantile/technocentric system
Ecolex: 2,070 treaties; 110,000 national laws and regulations 1,100 court decisions.
Ecolabels Index 458 ecolabels in 197 countries, and 25 industry sectors
Governance effectiveness: the evidence
The biophysical and social evidence plus•Political and scholarly critiques; business sector critiques•Rio+20 ‘The Future We Want’: Cl 19. •IUCN
– Natural Resource Governance Framework (NRGF) (World Commission
on Environmental Law and the Environmental Law Centre. Bonn). – Academy of Environmental Law
•UNEP’s Environmental Governance sub-programme •Memorandum of Understanding UNEP and International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI - Working Group on Environmental Auditing, WGEA)
•Organisation of American States
Society needs fundamental governance improvement
5 basic challenges
1. Ever-increasing human pressures upon the earth. 2. Governance systems that privilege harm-doing.3. Failures of public will and institutional capacity.4. Dynamic, complex and changing systems.5. Fragile governance paradigms
– We lack continuous improvement based upon objective performance analysis (e.g. system and instrument performance).
– We are misled through instrumentalism (e.g. laws, markets).
– We lack realism in design and implementation.– The evolution of methods is shackled by disciplines.
Overlaid by rural-specific characteristics
Rurality & governance: international evidence
Country People./ha.
Employ’t % Ag.
GDP% Ag.
Switzerland 2 3 1UK 2.62 1 1USA 0.35 1 1Canada 0.04 2 2France 1.2 4 2Iceland 0.03 5 6Argentina 0.16 5 9China 1.41 35 10Thailand 1.32 38 12Indonesia 1.39 39 14
Ag-independent 1 2 1Ag-Dependent 1 24 10
National accounts
Gov't revenue/p (US$1000)
GDP/ha (US$1000)
GDP/p (US$1000)
Net Public Social $ (%GDP)
Ag-independent
17 69 44 18
Ag-Dependent
5 5 16 4
Natural resources
Biodiversity Benefits
Index
Renewable water
(GL1000)
Extraction per person (L1000/y)
Ag-independent
30 1543 936
Ag-Dependent
35 860 635
Social welfare SchoolingChild Labour
(% 5-14)Health $ (%GDP)
Ag-independent
17 12
Ag-Dependent
14 7 6
Rural-specific concerns, Australia as an example
Rural Australia in context
What is feasible?
Pest animals – a rural problem
People: the issue and resource
Capacity: A critical limit
Education: shaping responses
“Vicious” rural system issues
Depth of shading is a 3 way function of1.Number of the 4 pest species present.2.Population sparsity; and3.Index of social disadvantage
Indicators of variability in capacity to address target pest species
5 rural-specific challenges ( # 1 & 2)
1. Major problems have special systemic cause/effect/solution characteristics.– Extensive, trans-boundary collective action problems.– “Autopoietic”, often coupled with adaptation.
2. Eco-social system complexities.– Farming and commodity system economics– Interwoven social, economic and ecological factors.– Social disadvantage linked to resource dependence.– Rural cultural and political distinctiveness.– Traditional owners’ eco-dependency and interests– Societies depend on private rural actions.– Private costs of providing these public benefits
3. Spatiality has complex, often hidden, governance implications.– “Space between”, social isolation, collective action and
transaction costs.– “Distance to”, cultural and political isolation, service
access.– “Extensiveness”
4. Sparcity limits which interventions are feasible and fair.– Low manpower intensity of rural spaces– Low economic intensity of rural economies – Limited human capacity of rural spaces
5 rural specific challenges (# 3 & 4)
5. Fragmentation limits effective (extensive scale) collective action.– Title fragmentation– Institutional fragmentation– Program and policy incoherence– Instrument proliferation– Land use and enterprise diversification– Emerging rural economies– Intensifying resource conflicts– Increasingly diverse rural values and interests– Strengthening non-local communities of interest
5 rural-specific challenges (# 5)
Dynamics of rural futures
Unpublished Direction and magnitude of future changes in sustainability indicators for the five agro-climatic regions of Australia from 2011 to 2100 under Representative Concentration Pathways. Brett Bryan, CSIRO.
Where to from here ??
10 directions for rural governance
1. Rural governance systems, not mere instruments.2. Precise multi-point, multi-instrument strategies.3. Science-informed behavioural focus.4. Streamline institutional architectures.5. Broaden rural regulatory evaluation.6. Use hybrid governance, with integrity
mechanisms.7. Empower ‘collective citizen action’ via institutions.8. Actively manage (citizen) transaction costs.9. Implement policy risk management.10.Apply scientific continuous improvement.
Paul Martin & Neil Gunningham Improving regulatory arrangements for sustainable agriculture: Groundwater as an illustration. Macquarie Journal for International and Comparative Environmental Law Volume 1 (1), 2014
IUCN Academy of Environmental LawInnovation in risk management arrangements for biofuel weeds
Weed pathway Whose decisions? What institutions? Risk themes ?
How could we act more strategically to change a
rural system? An example..
IUCN Academy of Environmental LawInnovation in risk management arrangements for biofuel weeds
Weed pathway Whose decisions? What institutions? Risk themes ?Science institutions
Enterprise investors
Bio-security agencies
Policy agencies
Commercial insurers
Land-use agenciesEconomic agenciesProperty investorsIndustry organisationsPrimary industry agencies
Standards CertifiersPublic media
Fuel companies
Legal system
Consumer organisations
Conservation agencies
Science institutions
Monitoring agencies
Field scientistLab scientist
Industry Entrepreneur
Risks expertCustoms Bureaucrat
Commercial PropagatorDevelopment agency staffSite investor/ownerLand-use approver
Plantation entrepreneurPlantation manager
Biofuel processorBiofuel investorBiofuel consumer
Extension officerRural NGO activistPlantation neighbour
Government weeds managerRegional environmental officerLocal weeds managerWeeds officer
Field scientists
Risk/context scientific evaluation
Closing the risk-responsibility/reward cycle
Risk-calibrated management options
Economic incentive for risk management
Informed, harm-accountable investors
Risk-control by the industry
Risk-informed consumer choices
Active harm monitoring
Compensation
Knowledge for avoidance/control/remediation
Incentives for control/remediation
Funds for control and remediation
Civil liabilityCivil liability
Scientific protocolScientific protocol
Administrative controls
Administrative controls Land use
bondsLand use
bondsInvestor codes of conduct
Investor codes of conduct Industry codes
of conductIndustry codes
of conduct“Green” branding“Green” branding
Risk insurance policies
Risk insurance policies
Performance accountabilityPerformance accountability
Creating a systemic governance strategy.
Integrity mechanismsIntegrity mechanisms
Instrument focussed
or Systemic behaviour focussed?
4 rural oversight reforms
Regulatory processes need to drive government to more effective, efficient and fair governance:1.Use more robust benefit/cost assessment, with realistic assumptions.2.Make the distributions of benefits and costs transparent and contestable.3.Evaluate the true feasibility for citizens and agencies to implement.4.Implement a discipline of policy risk management.
Martin, Bartel, Sinden, Gunningham and Hannam Developing a Good Regulatory Practice Model for Environmental Regulations Impacting on Farmers Australian Farm Institute and Land and Water Australia 2007
What is policy risk?
The risk that a policy may:1. Fail to be effectively
implemented– Through formal political
processes; or– Informal political resistance.
2. Be adopted politically but fail in practice
– Transaction costs– Implementation platform
failings3. Cause excessive harmful
‘spillovers’.
How often do governance policies fail?
They said it better than I ever could:Match the words to the mind.
He who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.