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‟.