better biodiversity governance in transforming landscapes...

Slide #1 Fenner Seminar March 2014

Better biodiversity governance in transforming landscapes: !

a research analysis!!

Sarah Clement1, Prof Susan Moore1, Dr Michael Lockwood2, Dr Michael Mitchell2!

!

1: Murdoch University!2: University of Tasmania!

!!

!!

Clement, S., Moore, S.A., Lockwood, M. and Mitchell, M. (2014) Better biodiversity governance in transforming landscapes: a research analysis. In: ANU Fenner School Public Seminar Series, 28 March, Canberra, ACT, Australia


Content of Presentation!I.  Overview of LaP Hub and Case Studies!II.  Snapshot of social & institutional research!III.  Midlands results & governance options!IV.  Next steps, discussion & feedback!

Photo: L. Porfirio


Developing tools, techniques and policy options to integrate biodiversity conservation into regional planning.!

LANDSCAPES & POLICY HUB!


•  Hawke review!•  Changes required beyond

EPBC Act and at multiple levels!

•  Problem of fit!•  Institutions are resistant

to change and challenging to ‘design’!

•  Interest in applying resilience thinking!

!

Photo: Square peg into a round hole, rosipaw via Flickr CC BY-‐SA

BROADER CONTEXT!


TASMANIAN MIDLANDS!•  Mainly privately owned agricultural land!•  Most grasslands on 12 properties!•  Listed & unlisted grasslands, other biodiversity attributes - patchwork!!•  Biophysical drivers include:!-  irrigation development!-  climate change!-  land use mix and land capability!!

• Social & governance drivers include:!-  Farmer profitability!-  Social and human capital!-  Effectiveness of engagement

processes!

Map: L. Porfirio. Photo: S. Gaynor


AUSTRALIAN ALPS!

•  Protected area – only alpine zone on the mainland!

•  Biophysical drivers include:!-  Altered fire regimes!-  Climate change!-  Invasive processes!!

• Social & governance drivers include:!-  Supportive political will!-  Level of collaborative governance!-  Priority setting and resources!

Map: L. Porfirio. Photo: S. Clement


RESEARCH QUESTIONS!In this Presentation:!•  How do current

institutional arrangements enable (or constrain) l-s biodiversity conservation?!

•  What alternative arrangements might lead to better biodiversity outcomes?!

!

Visual representa;on of a landscape. Modified from Liu and Taylor, 2002, p. 5

II. Snapshot of social and institutional research!


1. Develop social- ecological systems

model

2a. Diagnose institutional arrangements

3. Develop alternative governance options

4. Test governance options

2b. Generate scenarios

Same process for both study areas!!


OVERVIEW OF METHODS!•  Conceptual framework,

diagnostic approach !•  Interviews & doc analysis!•  Alternative options

(results + literature + focus groups)!

!•  Model development!•  Scenario planning

workshops!

Photos: The Main range (top) and Stewarton in Tasmanian Midlands (boJom), S. Clement


III. Midlands case study!

•  Develop systems model (literature, experts, key informants, masters student)!–  Historical

narrative of the region!

•  Governance & mgmt influences!

1. Model 2a. Diagnose 2b. Scenarios 3. Options 4. Test

Timeline & Figure prepared by Michael Mitchell


SES MODEL & WORKSHOP!

•  Initial model presented & revised through workshop!

•  Model used to develop scenarios (discussed later)!



FINAL SYSTEMS MODEL!

Extent ofGrasslandEcosystem

IncreasedVariability of

Rainfall

Landholder Engagement inConservation Practices

Level ofCollaborativeGovernance

Quality and Adequacyof Information, and its

Deployment

Leadership,Vision andStrategy

CoordinatedGovernance and

Management

Open andInnovative

OrganisationalCulture

Effectiveness ofEngagementProcesses

Extent ofLandholderNetworks

Organisation Abilityfor Adaptive

ManagementSocial Driver

Biophysical Driver

BiodiversityFeature

Invasive Species

Condition ofGrasslandEcosystem

Increased AverageTemperature and

Temperature Extremes

Populations ofDependent MNESStrength of

RegulatoryProtection

SupportivePolitical Will

Governance andManagement

Influences

Level ofFinancialIncentive

Land Use Mix

EnterpriseProfitability

WaterAvailability

IrrigationDevelopments

Level of EcoloigcalBurning

LandholderValues and

Attitudes

CommunityValues and

Attitudes

GovernanceDesign for

ConservationProgram

LandholderEntrepeneurshipand Innovation

LandholderEconomicMotivation

LandholderSense of Place

LandholderLifestyle

Motivation

Conservation ProgramCompatiblity with

Current Management

LandholderInformation

Seeking

Level of InvasiveSpecies Management

Landholder Ability forAdaptive Management

IrrigationInfrastucture

Level of TrustBetween Key Actors

GrazingManagement

Practices

Landholders'Terms of Trade Land

Capability

Longevity ofPrograms

Time Constraintsand Prioritisation

TechnologicalInnovation



Conceptual Framework!•  Development of

diagnostic framework!

•  Adaptive governance and resilience!

•  Institutional, political, and organisational theory!

•  94 interviews total!•  Parallel processes!

CONTEXT

DYNAMICS POWER

FRAMING CULTURE

PRACTICES COMPETENCE

CAPACITY SELF-‐

ORGANISATION INSTITUTIONAL BUFFERING

LEADERSHIP & ENTREPRENEURSHIP

POLITICS

COOPERATION

LEARNING

INTERPLAY

DIAGNOSE CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS!





Rainfall




Deployment



Management

Open andInnovative






Biophysical Driver

BiodiversityFeature

Invasive Species








Influences


Land Use Mix


WaterAvailability




Attitudes

CommunityValues and

Attitudes


ConservationProgram




LandholderLifestyle

Motivation


Current Management


Seeking





GrazingManagement

Practices


Capability








Management

Open andInnovative

Organisational Culture


OrganisationAbility forAdaptive

Management




CommunityValues andAttitudes


LandholderLifestyle

Motivation

ConservationProgram

Compatiblity withCurrent

Management


Seeking

Landholders'Terms of

Trade


LEADERSHIP, VISION, STRATEGY!

•  CAP provides a vision for the NGOs, SA deals with single driver (irrigation)!

•  Need for ‘honest broker’ to lead development of shared vision!

[Landholders] see Bush Heritage and TLC as only fulfilling a part of their vision for their properties. They've got a

much broader vision of sustainability. It goes right down to soil conservation and paddock maintenance, not just how well they look after the bits that are still left of native vegetation.

– Midlands participant



COORDINATION & COLLABORATION!

•  Midlands major focus of investment!•  Ad hoc and often political!•  Crowded organisational space!•  Need for coordinator/facilitator?!

Here, people get more territorial than less…I know all the players by name and we get on quite well. But it creates a need to keep their own organisation separate…because they are competing for their

space in the structure. And if they are too collaborative, perhaps they are not needed…it's not in my best interest to have so much collaboration

without…having that as a recognised role. – Midlands participant

TLC

NRM

Land care

BHA GA

DPIPWE

Cth

TI

TFGA


Framing and Vision!


landscapeconservation

scaleareasbiodiversity

connectivityspecies

different

land

midlandswhole

contextspatial data

function

people

values

broaderapproach

catchment

farm

focal

level

across

ecological

environment

hotspot

move

protect

way

based

best

beyondcountry

depending flexible

good

identify

issue

regional

sense

time

use

whats

years

area

bigger

concept

focus

large

planning

systems

tasmania

terms

theyreaway

bioregion

bush

else

first

focused

make

modelling

natural

necessarily next

process

propertyright

social stuff

talk

talking

threatened

using

want

adaptation

agriculture

already amountaustralia

back

bigcasecatchments

change

come

coming

communities

components

ecosystem

example

fragmented

government

grasslands

habitat

high

individual

last

live local

moment

north

part

partsperson

plan

policy

programme

side

south

state thought

try

understand

unit

water




Rainfall




Deployment



Management

Open andInnovative






Biophysical Driver

BiodiversityFeature

Invasive Species








Influences


Land Use Mix


WaterAvailability




Attitudes

CommunityValues and

Attitudes


ConservationProgram




LandholderLifestyle

Motivation


Current Management


Seeking





GrazingManagement

Practices


Capability









Strength ofRegulatoryProtection



Influences



LandholderValues andAttitudes




LandholderLifestyle

Motivation

ConservationProgram


Management


Seeking


Landholders'Terms of

Trade

TimeConstraints and

Prioritisation


Values, motivation, trust & financial incentives!


LANDHOLDER VALUES, ENGAGEMENT AND DUTY OF CARE !

Principle (e.g. Cth)

Age

nt (e

.g.

land

holder) I We

I A. Strategic behaviour

B. Crowding out

We C. Crowding in D. Reciprocity/obliga>on

•  Declining terms of trade & implications for grasslands!•  Societal expectations & duty of care !•  Trust & norm-based governance!•  Policy signals (e.g. listing, tender processes) sends signals –

‘logic of calculation’!

Figure source: Vatn, 2005, p. 213.


I think that farmers have the role of providing the opportunity of land to accommodate biodiversity, but with the proviso that they are paid appropriately for that service. Otherwise I don’t think they have a role. There is

absolutely no requirement for them to do it and we’ve been relying on the goodwill of farmers to do that up until now, but I know that we have reached that ceiling in

regard to relying on continued goodwill to do it. – Midlands participant

Payment for conservation!





Rainfall




Deployment



Management

Open andInnovative






Biophysical Driver

BiodiversityFeature

Invasive Species








Influences


Land Use Mix


WaterAvailability




Attitudes

CommunityValues and

Attitudes


ConservationProgram




LandholderLifestyle

Motivation


Current Management


Seeking





GrazingManagement

Practices


Capability









Management

Land Use Mix


ConservationProgram

ConservationProgram


Management

Level of InvasiveSpecies

Management

Landholder Ability forAdaptive

ManagementLevel of TrustBetween Key Actors


Engagement, effectiveness & design !


CONSERVATION IN A ‘WORKING LANDSCAPE’!

•  Long term investment in PAPL program !•  Prescriptive nature of agreements & compatibility

with working farms!•  Strong engagement of core group of landholders

(‘usual suspects’)!•  Need for new approaches!


If you want to achieve landscape-scale conservation, you really need to

spend it, I believe, in a few localised spots. And a lot of

money to a few people. And socially that’s not something we like to do.


[A recent project has] got the same old properties on it …Irrigation should be seen as the opportunity of

getting into those potential areas that have always been missed. That’s a bit sad about the Midlands: it’s always the

same old….It makes it an exclusive club. – Midlands participant

10-12 landholders

35 landholders

200 landholders


We’ve been lucky because people like Louise Gilfedder have bothered to try and get inside the heads of farmers.

They have sat with us, they’ve talked to us… they’ve seen what it’s like to follow droughts to their end conclusion. They have

seen seasons come and go; they’ve seen succession within families. They’ve seen how time passes in our landscape and I

think that has enabled them to have a greater understanding of what we have to juggle.


Trust & landholder engagement!



EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMS!

There’s been an extensive extension effort in the Midlands for the last 20 years and, in real terms, it’s been

ineffective because the community’s critically endangered, it’s still declining and we haven’t actually achieved the outcome of securing that particular set of

biodiversity values. – Midlands participant

•  Self-organising by landholders to pursue new approaches!

•  Attempts to address landholder needs and short-term, ad hoc gov’t programs!-  Midlandscapes & Midlands Conservation Fund!




Rainfall




Deployment



Management

Open andInnovative






Biophysical Driver

BiodiversityFeature

Invasive Species








Influences


Land Use Mix


WaterAvailability




Attitudes

CommunityValues and

Attitudes


ConservationProgram




LandholderLifestyle

Motivation


Current Management


Seeking





GrazingManagement

Practices


Capability








Management

Strength ofRegulatoryProtection




ConservationProgram


ConservationProgram


Management


Strength, flexibility and uncertainty!


REGULATION AS A BLUNT INSTRUMENT!

I personally don’t think regulation will protect the grasslands… It’s actually about appropriate

management that implements biodiversity conservation into those systems. With trust and goodwill,

working with the landowners. – Midlands participant

It's very easy for a landowner to change what fits the strict criteria of the threatened

grassland to something which is lower grade and not threatened like that, with just grazing. Quite legally too…They're still legally allowed to put, crazily, fertilisers on some of those areas too.... -

Midlands participant


AUTHORITY AND REGULATION!

•  Strategic Assessment - discretionary section of Act!•  Acceptance & clarity of roles & responsibilities!•  Challenge of attribution and strength of enforcement!•  Strong enough to enforce, but flexible enough to

change!•  Single industry &

MNES focus - landscape-scale conservation?!

Photo: Midlands property, S. Gaynor



Strategic Assessment!

[They] felt they were only one impacter in a broader landscape and

they didn’t want to be held accountable for the actions of

others within that area…So the state took on the responsibility of a large

number of components of that landscape scale monitoring…


One of the institutional barriers for us is…has anyone actually got the teeth

when it comes to the crunch where we have to say, actually we’re moving too fast, and we

can’t shift and adapt fast enough? – Midlands participant

The only thing the [SA] programme caters for are those things that are covered by the EPBC…it’s not a

legislative stick, it’s more like a piece of string. It doesn’t stand up to anything. It’s really ineffective.



Midlands Scenarios!


Exploring plausible futures!


Likely system trajectories and transformation!



Transformation requires re-framing the problem!

It’s not just about the grassland… the Midlands is that classic die back

ecosystem dysfunction. It’s not about possums; it’s not about salinity; it’s about ecosystem dysfunction where we need the shrubs back in the landscape.”


So I think the question for me has changed a little bit away from the traditional conserve, protect,

language to functional thresholds in terms of biodiversity’s contribution to the broader space. It’s to look after our species … but also just what makes a healthy functional landscape that other things can operate in, like agriculture.



GOVERNANCE OPTIONS!

•  Can our options change system trajectories?!

•  Diagnostic used to identify gaps, misfits & opportunities !

•  Governance options developed by researchers (literature + analyses)!

•  Focus groups assessed practicality of these options!



Community Government

Market

Op>on 2: Midlands Alliance

Op>on 1: Landholder-‐

Driven Regional Program of Ac>on

Another op>on: Midlands protected landscape

(based on statute)

Current arrangements: Majority of grasslands

privately managed on private lands

Selec4on of governance possibili4es -‐ Midlands


Option 1:

Landholder-driven regional program of action!•  Guided by principle that Midlands

landholders have primary responsibility for managing the landscape, including biodiversity!

•  Gives landholders discretion forhow they meet Australia’s biodiversity obligations on their land!

•  Regional action program aims to enable collaboration among landholders at landscape scale!


Photo: S. Gaynor


Option 1: Landholder-driven regional program of action!

1.  Enable a regional program of action to be established by a landholders’ working group who also enable landholder self-organising and input into the action program.!

2.  Negotiate with government and NGOs to help deliver the program and identify instruments.!

3.  Identifies opportunities to use existing tools (e.g. Strategic Assessment) in new ways to devolve authority.!

4.  Synthesise existing plans using SES principles.!5.  Undertake an adaptive planning process and a review of

existing agreements (e.g. covenants).!6.  Establishes trust to access additional funding.!



Option 2: Midlands Alliance!•  Inspired by French

governance (charters) of Regional Natural Parks.!

•  Aims for a broader alliance of stakeholders than for Option 1, and a more formal agreement.!

•  Alliance organised around shared commitment to high productive capacity & strong biodiversity stewardship.!

Photo: Livradois-‐Forez RNP, Didiervberghe via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-‐SA



Option 2: Midlands Alliance!1.  Builds on and extends Option 1.!2.  Increase diversity of engagement and encourage

development of an alliance.!3.  Identify priority values enhancing landscape

function, explore the effect of planning and land use options, & identify relevant constraints & opportunities.!

4.  Integrates a means for all parties to opt-in to a 10-year agreement, including landholders. !

5.  Establishes a board and secretariat responsible for day-to-day coordination to achieve objectives.!

6.  Includes a trust fund as well.!



IV. DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS!•  Governance options tested at 2nd scenario

workshop!•  Purpose of the research – test processes for

integrating governance more completely & identifying pathways to change!

•  To what extent can the findings for each case study be generalised?!

•  Development of a multi-media product that integrates and presents findings across the hub!



Disclaimer The information in this presentation was generated for the purpose of consultation and collaboration with hub partners in developing tools, techniques and policy options to integrate biodiversity into regional planning as part of the National Environmental Research Program Landscapes and Policy Hub. The results should not be used or taken as final and are not for circulation outside of this audience without prior permission.

Contact Sarah Clement ! (04) 24 371 025 Postal: Murdoch University

90 South Street

Murdoch, WA 6150 [email protected] www.nerplandscapes.edu.au

For more information about this research: Contact Sarah Clement

[email protected]

! 08 9360 7316 (office) / 0424 371 025 (mobile)

www.nerplandscapes.edu.au


Alps slides follow, in the event of questions!


Competence and accountability!•  ‘Narrow’ through focus on upward, financial accountability!•  Cultural influence – lack of trust, risk aversion !

Narrow accountability

Culture and norms

Competence Learning

Innova>on

PRACTICE AND CAPACITY!


It’s hard to say, look, we’re going to have these highly controlled, driven organisations held to

high levels of quite narrow accountability and now we want you to

operate in this landscape context. – Alps participant

It’s very much set up as a controlled environment rather than an

empowerment environment…if you’re going to try to pursue a landscape scale approach, trust, consensus, partnership, complementarity

are absolutely fundamental to that. – Alps participant

Accountability ‘myopia’!

A ‘distrust spiral’?


Accountability and risk!

We only ever get slammed on accountability stuff because it’s the only thing that

they can easily measure. So we never get slammed for accountability in biodiversity

because it’s too hard to do. So they just come after the financial stuff.

– Cth participant

We have a culture, very strongly, of people who are either not rewarded for

failures or risks or don’t see risks as part of the system. I mean intellectually

they do, but all incentives are against you. – Cth participant

We have this fundamental contradiction between an institution protecting

itself and an institution protecting the environment and managing the

environment. – Cth participant


•  Tied resources!•  Reduced flexibility &

opportunities to experiment, learn & respond!

•  Responsibility often not devolved to appropriate levels!

•  Insufficient institutional support for innovation!

•  Even institutional entrepreneurs struggled to see new pathways!

!

Photo: Julian von Bibra, Midlands, S. Gaynor

Narrow accountability

Culture and norms

Competence Learning

Innova>on

CONSEQUENCES FOR PRACTICE AND CAPACITY!


From interviews: public servants are a conduit for government direction with little

discretion

From literature: public servants are ‘street-level leaders’ who must regularly exercise discretion

Bureaucracy

Policy implementa>on Street-‐level leaders

Reference: Vinzant and Crothers 1996. Photo sources (CC BY-‐SA): 1) by Harald Groven via Flickr 2) by Jossifresco via Wikimedia Commons, 3) Christopher Chan via Flickr

POLITICS, POWER AND BUFFERING!


‘Knowing your role’!

…the barrier between those roles often breaks down…you get politics entering into the public service. And therefore you get senior

public servants who can be dismissed on the spot, not being prepared to tell the government that

their policy doesn't make sense when you look at the environment. – Alps participant

…we’re servants to the politicians…so if you were to talk to any staff member in this building and asked if they were in favour

of that programme, the answer would be resoundingly no, but we’d have a job to

implement it… – Alps participant


•  Functional misfit – organisational buffering!•  Capacity to act not devolved to appropriate levels!•  Networks for learning and self-organising, but

unable to ‘scale up’!

Photos: Thowra from “The Silver Stallion” / Brumbies on the Cascade Trail, R. Magierowski

CONSEQUENCES FOR PRACTICE AND CAPACITY

!


So my big picture view is that I think the AALC is a very important entity that exists. I think it's constrained in its potential…there's a need for a rethink along the

lines of 1) letting the managers manage without political intervention and 2) with

trust that they will achieve the right outcomes…– Alps participant

…there’s the networking, it’s informative, it’s engaging, it’s enjoyable, it’s not a burden. That’s what the Alps

programme does well. It’s the umbrella by which that

conversation, that sharing the knowledge can work.

– Alps participant

Internally it works quite well. In practice though, again, I'm not sure I

can see anywhere where a management decision has

been changed because of something that has come out of it.

– Alps participant


Alps Scenarios:Biodiversity outcomes are getting worse!


Option 1: One Park, One Plan!

1.   Redesign the MOU to include commitment to shared goals, objectives, monitoring and evaluation. !

2.  Establish new reference groups, one focusing on strategic planning and the other on ecosystem services.!

3.  Develop additional partnerships: a research centre, adjacent landholders and Traditional Owners. Builds interactive governance and open to potential for indigenous co-governance.!

4.  Encourages innovation and explicitly uses multiple jurisdictions to experiment and learn.!

5.   Devolves responsibility to appropriate levels and formally embeds foresighting, outcome-based accountability, and collaboration. !

6.  Establish a trust to increase access to discretionary funds.!


Option 2: Transboundary authority accountable to a statute!

1.  Establishes transboundary authority to achieve greater landscape-level collaboration and access add’l funds.!

2.  Provides ‘arms-length’ distance from politics by linking accountability to authority’s statutory objectives.!

3.  Derives goals from the ‘One Park, One Plan’.!4.  Retains management agencies who operate under shared

plan, but focusing on outcomes and providing discretion to managers to achieve those outcomes.!

5.  Establishes a trust and research centre (like Option 1).!6.  Commits authority to ongoing adaptive planning as well

as meaningful engagement with stakeholders.!

better biodiversity governance in transforming landscapes...

Documents