Opportunities for localism in the Murray-Darling Basin: a critical reflection MARK EVANS & LAIN DARE

Transcription

1 Opportunities for localism in the Murray-Darling Basin: a critical reflection MARK EVANS & LAIN DARE Australia New Zealand School of Government Institute For Governance (ANZSIG) at The University Of Canberra

2 ANZSIG-CCGG (University of Southampton) Action-learning partnership on Understanding Communities under Stress Aim: to develop a strong qualitative international evidence base on Understanding Communities under Stress Systematic review of the grey and academic literatures Development of diagnostic tools Identification of exemplar case studies of better and poor practice Currently working on localism recovery strategies in Afghanistan, Australia (MDBA), Brazil (OP), China, the UK ( Big Society ) and South Africa

3 Purpose: How do we move from crisis management to recovery to sustainable development in a contested policy environment? Organised around six key questions: 1. What is localism? 2. Where does it have promise? 3. How is it best constituted? 4. What are the obstacles to its achievement in recovery contexts? 5. How do you translate better practice into local context? 6. What are the ideal conditions for citizen participation through localism?

4 The evidence base Focus on communities in countries at different states of development responding to both manmade (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 in network behaviour ( capabilities to act ): 1. social entrepreneurship and inclusion 2. economic entrepreneurship and inclusion 3. crisis specific preparedness 4. the quality of community governance (including spatial integration, issues of authority, legitimacy, and social leadership). From which we build a preparedness index

5 Key researchers Mark Evans (Director ANZSOG Institute for Governance) Leonie Pearson (Senior Research Fellow, MDB Futures) Lain Dare (Research Fellow, MDB Futures, ANZSIG) Katherine Daniell (Senior Research Fellow, ANU) Paul Porteous (Director Leadership Development, ANZSIG) David Marsh (Professor, ANZSIG) Lawrence Pratchett (Dean Faculty of Business and Government) Anthony Hogan (Professor, ANZSIG)

6 The Project Seeks to evaluate whether localism (and by implication local networks of formal in and informal institutions) can play a key role in the governance of recovery in the Murray Darling Basin. Tests the key assumption underpinning action in international development that local institutions are critical to sustainable development. Assesses the potential role for localism in the implementation of the Plan with real world examples of where it is already working and where it could work.

7 1. Understanding localism The devolution of power, or functions and/or resources away from central control and towards front-line managers, local democratic structures, local institutions and local communities, within an agreed framework of Commonwealth and State minimum standards. By implication there are varieties of localism at play.

8 Models of Localism Managerial Representative Community Models of Localism

9 Three localisms it is the mix that matters! Defining mechanism Managerial Representative Community (Local Governance) Conditional Provision of Rights and support given to devolution of powers and citizens in communities to functions based on responsibility for engage in decisions and achieving agreed local government action objectives elected on universal suffrage Delivery mechanism Metrics for judging success Intergovernmental networks Targets and evidence Hierarchical delivery networks Electoral triumph or failure Community network governance Cohesiveness and capacity of network arrangements. Attainment of network goals and fairness of process

10 Why localism? Normative and instrumental assumptions to be tested 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

11 Localism and networked governance Three working assumptions: 1. Policy-making is the outcome of the interaction between networks, hierarchies (i.e. governmental entities) and markets. 2. This constitutes a system of governance. 3. Networks tend to be constituted in the shadow of hierarchy (i.e. they are driven by governmental entities)

12 Definitions 1. We use J.K. Benson s (1982, p.148) seminal definition of policy networks as a,...cluster or complex of organisations connected to each other by resource dependencies and distinguished from other clusters or complexes by breaks in the structure of resource dependencies. 2. The concept of a policy network is employed as a generic term. Within the general categorisation there are different types of policy network. These can be situated along a continuum with policy communities at one end of the spectrum and issue networks at the other.

13 Type of Network Policy Community/Territorial Community Professional Network Inter-Governmental Network Producer Network Issue Network Model of Policy Networks (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992) Characteristics Restricted membership Stable relationships Vertical interdependence Shared service delivery Shared functional interests Dominated by professional interests Shared interests Vertical interdependence Limited numbers due to professional skills Stable relationships Insulated from other networks Representative of local authority organisations Limited vertical interdependence Horizontal interdependence Ability to become involved in a number of networks Dominated by producers, normally economic interests Fluctuating interests Dependence on industrial organisations Limited interdependence Large number of participants Unstable relationships Limited vertical interdependence

14 Aspect Network Morphology Features Network goals Policy domain, science/technology values, ideology, definition of objectives, policy instruments, mission Network structure Network rules Environmental linkages Social roles The basis of participation (resources) Relations with other networks, NGOs and individuals Network Change (the war of ideas) Impact of external structures (economics, politics, environmental); impact of new local actors = space for contradiction/conflict = space for change

15 What we are testing Should help us to map the key local actors and institutions and their resources and dependencies (who governs, how do they govern and in whose interest they govern?) in relation to a particular range of goods and services. Do networks constrain or facilitate social and economic development? Can networks be a vehicle for social participation or are they an imprisoned zone of elite decision-making What are the policy implications?

16 Methods and Cases Mixed methods approach 8 basin communities (Griffith, Leeton, Hay, Robinvale, Renmark, St George, Canberra & Horsham) Interviews (n=120+) (questions on community governance, leadership, networks) Focus groups (n=7+, 65+ participants) (questions on visions of progress, challenges and mitigation strategies) Regional Wellbeing Survey Secondary data sources (Census, ABS, ABARES, departmental statistics)

17 Case Studies Economic development Community development Health Education Culture, sport and recreation Structural adjustment Environment

18 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Griffith Irrigation settlement Leeton Irrigation settlement Hay Pastoral settlement Goal Expansionist Project: Purpose built rail/freight logistics hub (X); Health ( ) and education ( ) hubs, Bottling Plant ( ) Processing Plant ( ) Consolidation Project: Processing Plant ( ) Education (x) Expansionist Project: Tourism e.g. driving tour ( ), museums ), train station ( ), and PoW camp ( ), New Industries Dairy (/), solar(/), mining (/) Actors Note: Commonwealth as thresholder/ Indigenous groups as outsiders Resources that inform power relations Formal & informal external linkages Network type Local regime: poorly perceived local government/large familyowned businesses with structural power Economic (agri) power Funding power Familial networks (NI) Strict social strata Political capital Economic institutions RDA; Riverina Group; Local to global (Amitil Coca Cola) Territorial policy community (Innovator) Local regime: local government/small family-owned businesses with structural power Economic (agri) Funding power Familial networks (SI) Social strata Political capital Economic institutions RDA; Riverina Group Territorial policy community (Pragmatic complier) Preparedness High Medium High Local regime: local government/small familyowned businesses with structural power Economic (agri) Funding power Familial networks (SI) Social strata Political capital Economic institutions RDA; Riverina Group Territorial policy community (Innovator)

19 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Robinvale Irrigation settlement Renmark Irrigation settlement Goal Actors Note: Commonwealth as thresholder/indigenous groups as outsiders Resources that inform power relations Expansionist Project: Attract processing (back) to community (x) Local government, business chamber, large horticultural businesses Values Economic (agri) power Funding power Familial networks Strict social strata Political capital Economic institutions Expansionist Project: Develop tourism (1/2) Attract new industries ( ) Airport development (x) Local regime: respected local government/large familyowned businesses with structural power Values Economic (agri) power Funding power Familial networks Strict social strata Political capital Economic institutions Formal & informal external linkages Network type State, large horticultural industry bodies Territorial policy community (Innovator) Preparedness Low High RDA (though Antiregionalisation ) Territorial policy community (Innovator)

20 Economic narratives We need to go it alone; anything we get from them should be viewed as icing on the cake. (Councillor) Governments (Commonwealth/State) come and go but we stay. We are survivors; we always find a way through. (Wine grower) They (Local Government) don t represent us; we need to represent ourselves (Ist generation migrant) I guess the rich will get richer and we will get poorer. They have a responsibility to give us locals jobs and not the gangs (2nd generation migrant)

21 Goal COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Actors Note: Commonwealth as thresholder Resources that inform power relations Formal & informal external linkages Challenges Griffith Irrigation settlement To create a cohesive and resilient community Local government, education agencies, health agencies, RDA, community services, Indigenous (outsiders) Common values Knowledge Economic power State, Commonwealth, NGOs, RDA, interagency networks Focus on economic development Competitive resourcing Complacency Leeton Irrigation settlement To maintain community services and enhance and wellbeing Local government, education agencies, health agencies, RDA, community services, Indigenous (outsiders) Common values Knowledge Economic power State, Commonwealth, NGOs, RDA, interagency networks Griffith shadow Complacency Hay Pastoral settlement To attract new residents and provide services for enhanced wellbeing Local government, education agencies, RDA, community services, Indigenous (insiders) Common values Knowledge Economic power State, Commonwealth, NGOs, RDA, interagency networks Griffith shadow Sharing resources Changing demographics Network type Professional network Professional network Issue network Preparedness High Medium Low

22 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Robinvale Irrigation settlement Renmark Irrigation settlement Goal Actors Note: Commonwealth as thresholder/indigenous groups as outsiders Resources that inform power relations To create a dynamic, balanced, cohesive and resilient community Local government, education agencies, health agencies, community services, Indigenous Common values Knowledge Economic power To create a dynamic, balanced, cohesive and resilient community Local government, education agencies, health agencies, RDA, community services Common values Knowledge Economic power Formal & informal external linkages State, Commonwealth, NGOs, interagency networks State, Commonwealth, NGOs, RDA, interagency networks Challenges Leadership tensions Limited resources Changing demographics Anti-regionalism sentiments Changing demographics Complacency including multi-culturalism Network type Professional network Professional network Preparedness Low-Medium Medium

23 Community narratives There is often blurred lines between the services with some individuals working across the services. (Griffith community member) New migrants are not involved in decision-making, it is not in their culture/mind set at this stage and it is very difficult to involved them. (RV Community member) People don t realise we have this element of poverty within Robinvale. Not growing amongst people in town but with those moving to town. (RV Community member)

24 LOCAL WATER GOVERNANCE Goal - to improve local water governance (e.g. program delivery) Griffith Irrigation settlement Leeton Irrigation settlement Prudential Prudential Prudential Hay Pastoral settlement Actors Note: Commonwealth as thresholder/indigenous groups as outsiders Resources that inform power relations Formal & informal external linkages MI, NIC, Murrumbidgee Stakeholder Group, large ag/hort companies, State Common values Political status Knowledge Economic power Dominant social strata State, Commonwealth, Industry associations MI, NIC, Murrumbidgee Stakeholder Group, large ag/hort companies, State Common values Political status Knowledge Economic power Dominant social strata State, Commonwealth, Industry associations Corporate farms, private water consortiums (coordinated or legal/loose collaboration), State Common values Knowledge Economic power State, Commonwealth Network type Territorial community Territorial community Producer network Preparedness High High Low

25 LOCAL WATER GOVERNANCE Robinvale Irrigation settlement Renmark Irrigation settlement Goal - to improve local water governance (e.g. program delivery) Transitional Transitional Actors Note: Commonwealth as thresholder/indigenous groups as outsiders Resources that inform power relations Lower Murray Water, CMA (logistics-private consortiums, funds for enviro watering), State Common values Knowledge Economic power RIT, CIT, NIC, SARC, State Common values Political status Knowledge Economic power Dominant social strata Formal & informal external linkages State, Commonwealth, Industry associations State, Commonwealth, Industry associations Network type Issue network Professional network Preparedness Medium High

26 Water governance narratives The MDBP process was beneficial for our capacity, we have come out of this low point smarter now, more capable. (SARC member)

27 Comparing networks Preliminary findings 1.Each community/policy arena functions differently and hence requires a different blend of network governance to affect adaptive change (e.g. various roles of local government). 2.Social leadership (upwards and outwards) is core to effective community governance, adaptive capacity and innovation. 3.Water is not the driving issue despite all current communities being highly irrigation dependant (e.g. social development concerns).

28 Comparing networks Preliminary findings 4. Local networks possess the capacity to act when measured on any preparedness scale. 5. The potential for effective engagement with these communities remains high as long as it is based on parity of esteem, uses accepted cultural spaces, has a clear purpose and outcome and works with the grain of how the community best engages. Intermediaries are required at this state of development. 6. Equally, the potential for existing institutions to act as a conduit for affecting democratic innovations is high.

29 Comparing networks Preliminary findings 7. Distinctive forms of social stratification/exclusion are emerging in consequence of the post drought rural economy. 8. The MDB Plan has created a headless chicken syndrome in community governance by not clearly articulating the rights and responsibilities of local citizens, community based organisation and local government. 9. A similar syndrome has been created in the system of water governance. In consequence roles and responsibilities remain opaque and navigation of the system impenetrable to both organised groups and the ordinary citizen. This is a problem of governance sclerosis that requires concerted action.

30 Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Leonie Pearson, Paul Porteous, Anthony Hogan, Katherine Daniell and Dave Marsh for their significant contributions to this project. This Murray-Darling Basin futures research is supported through the Australian Government s s (CRN) Program