Political drivers (CPWF-GD workshop, Sept 2011)

1,916 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:
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
1,916
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Political drivers (CPWF-GD workshop, Sept 2011)

  1. 1. Political Drivers By Louis Lebel
  2. 2. Scoping definitions <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Global political drivers are sets of institutions, interests, discourses and policy processes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutions are rules (laws, customs, regulations) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interests underlie positions and reflect needs, wants, fears and values </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Discourses are concepts and ideas that frame analysis, debates and perceptions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy processes include combinations of above and public policy and administrative systems </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Dynamics <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>Drivers may remain relatively constant, show long-term trends, or fluctuate widely </li></ul><ul><li>Looking ahead the behavior of some drivers may appear fairly certain whereas for others it is very uncertain </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Both types are important consider when developing scenarios </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Political drivers – an initial classification <ul><li>Interests, discourses and policy processes around each set of institutional indicators are complex and heterogeneous </li></ul>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. 5. Tensions and reconciliation <ul><li>Drivers overlap and interact </li></ul><ul><li>Trends are not forever, nor are they linear </li></ul><ul><li>Moreover it may not be either/or, but possible to reconcile opposing tensions… </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional changes are ratchet-like and evidence that drivers have had some persistent influence </li></ul>
  6. 6. Policy actors <ul><li>Multilateral organizations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>World Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, IMF </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Big NGOs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WWF, Oxfam, Human Rights groups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>International agencies and bodies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UNDP, UNEP, GWP, ASEAN </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Large consultancy firms </li></ul><ul><li>Expert/advocacy networks </li></ul><ul><li>Professional associations </li></ul>
  7. 7. What is the evidence? <ul><li>Political Drivers are pushing in directions claimed and that these are important for river basin management </li></ul><ul><li>Sources </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reviews of paradigm shifts in water management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual case studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparative studies of institutional design and performance </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Political drivers <ul><li>Can you think of examples of each of these types of drivers? </li></ul><ul><li>How do you think about political drivers? </li></ul>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. 9. Evidence: Twin2Go Project <ul><li>are diverse views on what needs to be done to make water governance regimes more effective </li></ul><ul><li>are many excellent case studies, but few comprehensive empirical analyses </li></ul><ul><li>Twin2Go project: synthesizes research on adaptive and integrated water resources management from previous EU-twinning basin projects for policy </li></ul><ul><li>Approach : systematically collect information from previously studied basins through expert workshops </li></ul>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. 10. Questionnaire
  11. 11. Analytical framework <ul><li>explored associations between properties of governance regimes and performance adjusting as appropriate for influence of context </li></ul>
  12. 12. Examples of indicators <ul><li>Regime </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legal frameworks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Formalized basin principles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Polycentric arrangements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Good governance principles in practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Climate change adaptation policies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental management systems in place </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Context </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Economic & institutional development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Water availability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extent of watershed modification </li></ul></ul>Design
  13. 13. Derived Measures <ul><li>Performance, regime & context measures were developed by aggregating scores from 2-10 individual indicators </li></ul><ul><li>Summed scores for each indicator with 1 meaning a ‘highest possible’ and 0 ‘lowest’ (i.e. equal weight) </li></ul><ul><li>divided by number of indicators so that all composite measures varied between 0 and 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness to climate change was one of the key performance measures we analyzed: </li></ul>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. 14. Indicators used for P4 <ul><li>Strategy for adaptation to climate change in water sector </li></ul><ul><li>Availability of specific knowledge enabling adaptation </li></ul><ul><li>Awareness of water managers regarding adaptation to climate change </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinated implementation process regarding adaptation to climate change (e.g. plan) </li></ul><ul><li>Operational activities </li></ul><ul><li>Ways to deal with climate variability (Floods and droughts) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Variation in regime measures
  16. 16. Variation in performance
  17. 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. 18. Findings 1 <ul><li>All regime variables were associated with adoption of good governance principles (including stakeholder engagement) </li></ul><ul><li>A subset of regimes measures were also associated with responsiveness to climate change </li></ul><ul><li>No regime variables were closely associated with environmental conditions and few with environmental management measures </li></ul>
  19. 19. Findings 2 <ul><li>Context variables helped explain a lot of additional variation in performance measures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Institutional and economic development for example was strongly associated with progress towards goals, adoption of good governance principles, and environmental management practices. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the extent of land and water modification was associated with environmental conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But adjusting for context had little impact on most associations between regime features and performance </li></ul>
  20. 20. Polycentric arrangements <ul><li>Proposition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>multi-level and –centred systems of governance that foster horizontal and vertical coordination as well as sharing of power and authority support adaptive governance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Measured: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>vertical and horizontal coordination structures and levels of decentralization </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Evidence: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Overly centralized and fragmented regimes score low </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best practice reports emphasize quality of coordination among and within levels </li></ul></ul>Policy implications > regimes
  21. 21. Opportunities and drivers of BP&T
  22. 22. Limitations <ul><li>basin-specific indicators were based on judgments of experts </li></ul><ul><li>some variables used to derive performance measures were national level rather than basin specific </li></ul><ul><li>Performance measured in terms of systems in place and not ultimate social and environmental outcomes </li></ul><ul><li>initial sample of “Twinning” basins is not ideal – all ‘developed country’ basins are in Europe </li></ul>Limitations & conclusions

×