Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Political drivers (CPWF-GD workshop, Sept 2011)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Political drivers (CPWF-GD workshop, Sept 2011)

887
views

Published on

By Louis Lebel. As part of a CPWF September 2011 workshop in Thailand regarding global drivers. We have divided driver types into five categories: …

By Louis Lebel. As part of a CPWF September 2011 workshop in Thailand regarding global drivers. We have divided driver types into five categories:
1. Demographic/Social,
2. Economic,
3. Political/Institutional/Legal,
4. Environmental/Climate change,
5. Technological/ Innovations

Published in: Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
887
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Political Drivers By Louis Lebel
  • 2. Scoping definitions
    • A global driver is a set of related structures and processes which act at distances well beyond individual river basin boundaries and are widely shared
    • Global political drivers are sets of institutions, interests, discourses and policy processes
      • Institutions are rules (laws, customs, regulations)
      • Interests underlie positions and reflect needs, wants, fears and values
      • Discourses are concepts and ideas that frame analysis, debates and perceptions
      • Policy processes include combinations of above and public policy and administrative systems
  • 3. Dynamics
    • Global political drivers influence many different types of drivers at the within-basin level not just political drivers, and in turn, are influenced by many other types of drivers
    • Drivers may remain relatively constant, show long-term trends, or fluctuate widely
    • Looking ahead the behavior of some drivers may appear fairly certain whereas for others it is very uncertain
      • Both types are important consider when developing scenarios
  • 4. Political drivers – an initial classification
    • Interests, discourses and policy processes around each set of institutional indicators are complex and heterogeneous
    Drivers Institutional indicators Regionalization International agreements Standardization Private Voluntary Standards Democratization Laws and policy commitments to transparency, accountability and participation Integration IWRM principles adopted in legislation Decentralization Re-allocation of authority, responsibilities and budgets Globalization or ‘norm’alization Sharing of political norms and principles through discourses Adaptation Policy monitoring and review
  • 5. Tensions and reconciliation
    • Drivers overlap and interact
    • Trends are not forever, nor are they linear
    • Moreover it may not be either/or, but possible to reconcile opposing tensions…
    • Institutional changes are ratchet-like and evidence that drivers have had some persistent influence
  • 6. Policy actors
    • Multilateral organizations
      • World Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IMF
    • Big NGOs
      • WWF, Oxfam, Human Rights groups
    • International agencies and bodies
      • UNDP, UNEP, GWP, ASEAN
    • Large consultancy firms
    • Expert/advocacy networks
    • Professional associations
  • 7. What is the evidence?
    • Political Drivers are pushing in directions claimed and that these are important for river basin management
    • Sources
      • Reviews of paradigm shifts in water management
      • Individual case studies
      • Comparative studies of institutional design and performance
  • 8. Political drivers
    • Can you think of examples of each of these types of drivers?
    • How do you think about political drivers?
    Drivers Institutional indicators Regionalization International agreements Standardization Private Voluntary Standards Democratization Laws and policy commitments to transparency, accountability and participation Integration IWRM principles adopted in legislation Decentralization Re-allocation of authority, responsibilities and budgets Globalization Sharing of political norms and principles through discourses Adaptation Policy monitoring and review
  • 9. Evidence: Twin2Go Project
    • are diverse views on what needs to be done to make water governance regimes more effective
    • are many excellent case studies, but few comprehensive empirical analyses
    • Twin2Go project: synthesizes research on adaptive and integrated water resources management from previous EU-twinning basin projects for policy
    • Approach : systematically collect information from previously studied basins through expert workshops
    Coordinating Twin ning partnerships to wards more adaptive Go vernance in river basins Brahmaputra/India Paute/Ecuador Olifants/SouthAfrica Brahmaputra/Bhutan Guayas/Ecuador RedRiver/Vietnam Volga/Russia Cuareim/Uruguay Orange/SouthAfrica BangPakong/Thailand Baker/Chile Amudarya/Uzbekistan Niger/Mali Cocibolca/Nicaragua Rhine/TheNetherlands Kyoga/Uganda Quaraí/Brasil Elbe/Germany Thames/UK Cauca/Colombia Guadiana/Spain Okavango/Namibia Catamayo/Ecuador Tisza/Hungary Nura/Kazahstan Catamayo/Peru Brahmaputra/Nepal Norrström/Sweden Biobio/Chile
  • 10. Questionnaire
  • 11. Analytical framework
    • explored associations between properties of governance regimes and performance adjusting as appropriate for influence of context
  • 12. Examples of indicators
    • Regime
      • Legal frameworks
      • Formalized basin principles
      • Polycentric arrangements
    • Performance
      • Good governance principles in practice
      • Climate change adaptation policies
      • Environmental management systems in place
    • Context
      • Economic & institutional development
      • Water availability
      • Extent of watershed modification
    Design
  • 13. Derived Measures
    • Performance, regime & context measures were developed by aggregating scores from 2-10 individual indicators
    • Summed scores for each indicator with 1 meaning a ‘highest possible’ and 0 ‘lowest’ (i.e. equal weight)
    • divided by number of indicators so that all composite measures varied between 0 and 1
    • Responsiveness to climate change was one of the key performance measures we analyzed:
    Design Questions 81-86 ((4-q81)/3+(5-q82)/4 +(3-q83)/2+(4-q84)/3+(5-q85)/4+(3-q86)/2)/6 Responsiveness to climate change or ‘adaptation policies’ P4
  • 14. Indicators used for P4
    • Strategy for adaptation to climate change in water sector
    • Availability of specific knowledge enabling adaptation
    • Awareness of water managers regarding adaptation to climate change
    • Coordinated implementation process regarding adaptation to climate change (e.g. plan)
    • Operational activities
    • Ways to deal with climate variability (Floods and droughts)
  • 15. Variation in regime measures
  • 16. Variation in performance
  • 17. Associations adjusting for Context Findings + + R9 Adaptive capacity + + R10 IWRM + + - R8 Knowledge + + - R12 Good governance principles in legislation C1 C3 C1 C1 & C4 C1 Context variables + + - R4 Polycentricity + + R5 Econ. instruments + R3 Informal-formal + R2 Basin principles + + - R1 Legal frameworks P5B Environmentalmanagement P5A Environmental conditions P4 Adaptation Policies P2 Good governance P1 MDG goals Performance Regime
  • 18. Findings 1
    • All regime variables were associated with adoption of good governance principles (including stakeholder engagement)
    • A subset of regimes measures were also associated with responsiveness to climate change
    • No regime variables were closely associated with environmental conditions and few with environmental management measures
  • 19. Findings 2
    • Context variables helped explain a lot of additional variation in performance measures
      • Institutional and economic development for example was strongly associated with progress towards goals, adoption of good governance principles, and environmental management practices.
      • the extent of land and water modification was associated with environmental conditions
    • But adjusting for context had little impact on most associations between regime features and performance
  • 20. Polycentric arrangements
    • Proposition:
      • multi-level and –centred systems of governance that foster horizontal and vertical coordination as well as sharing of power and authority support adaptive governance
    • Measured:
      • vertical and horizontal coordination structures and levels of decentralization
    • Evidence:
      • Overly centralized and fragmented regimes score low
      • Best practice reports emphasize quality of coordination among and within levels
    Policy implications > regimes
  • 21. Opportunities and drivers of BP&T
  • 22. Limitations
    • basin-specific indicators were based on judgments of experts
    • some variables used to derive performance measures were national level rather than basin specific
    • Performance measured in terms of systems in place and not ultimate social and environmental outcomes
    • initial sample of “Twinning” basins is not ideal – all ‘developed country’ basins are in Europe
    Limitations & conclusions