what are the critical water governance research needs?...objectives of the „transitioning to water...
TRANSCRIPT
What are the critical water governance research needs?
Urban perspectives
Ray Ison
Key framings
• The concept of water sensitive cities (WSCs) first arose in
the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water
Initiative by the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG 2004).
• In paragraph 92, water sensitive urban design (WSUD) is
put forth as a way to provide the “Innovation and Capacity
Building to Create Water Sensitive Australian Cities”
(COAG 2004, p. 20).
• In the time since 2004, the concept of WSCs has become
widely known e.g. the inclusion of the concept in
government policies, such as the Victorian Government‟s
climate change green paper (Victorian Government 2009).
Key framings
The six transition phases towards Water Sensitive Cities. Source: Brown et al (2009, p.
850).
www.monash.edu
Key framings: Governance – systemic
and adaptive
• Cybernetic i.e. responding
to feedback
– kybernetes = helmswoman
or steersman
• charting a course
(purpose)
• adaptive as in a
co-evolutionary dynamic
• a particular form of
performance for a climate-
change world
www.monash.edu
Key Framings – APS papers
www.monash.edu
‘Framing’ is a key governance issue
and ‘framing’ research, including
metaphor analysis is needed
because of pathway dependencies;
failure to frame appropriately e.g.
‘wicked situations’
Main sources
• A series of six national workshops in main capitals and Canberra in
February 2009 (IWC; National Urban Water Governance Program at
Monash);
• Follow-up research in Sydney – Sydney Met CMA & Blacktown
Council;
• Research Agenda of new Centre for Water Sensitive Cities, Monash
• NWC commissioned assessments and independent reviews
• NWC/ANZSOG Future directions for water reform: the role of
institutional arrangements
• IWA Cities of the Future Program. Spatial Planning and Institutional
Reform Conclusions from the World Water Congress, September
2010
Objectives of the „transitioning to water
sensitive cities‟ national workshop series
• disseminate leading edge findings from research
programs at Monash:– National Urban Water Governance Program (NUWGP),
– Facility for Advancing Water Biofiltration, and
– Sustainability Institute (MSI);
• enhance the capacity of water practitioners and their
organisations to transition towards a more sustainable
„water sensitive city‟
• develop a shared understanding of what a „water
sensitive city‟ might look like and the associated barriers
and opportunities for achieving this outcome
• over 500 participants nationally
Designing a process to meet these
objectives means….
• appreciating that all contexts are novel –
thus design and redesign in context are
needed
• making choices about „framing‟ situations
• an understanding of how „learning
processes‟ operate
• understanding the nature of systemic (not
systematic) transformation processes
Our „learning system‟ design for the
workshops
1. Clarify purpose2. Engage in conversation
3.Appreciate multiple perspectives
9. Monitor, evaluate
7. Design actions (personal or for policy)
6. Refine
5. Identify emergent issues and opportunities
4. Introduce new concepts, experience and evidence
Other likely outputs:changes in understandingchanged social relationschanged (new) practices
10. Redesign thesystem based on feedback
Prior experience of participants valued?
8. Monitor & adjust
What do we mean by a 'learning
system'?
• Systemic features– Comprises elements or activities
– Exhibits connectivity
– Results in transformation
– Has emergent properties
– Is bounded in some way
• Design/designer features– It is purposeful to those who participate
– It is not deterministic
– Awareness that what is valid knowledge is contested
„Framing‟ the situation in which
transition to WSC is sought
▓▓ Interdependencies
? Uncertainty
Controversy
Complexity
Issue /
Mess
Multiple
stakeholding /
perspectives
Source: SLIM 2004 after: Ackoff, 1974
– messes and difficulties; Shön (1995)
- the „real-life swamp‟; Rittel and
Webber, (1973); ASPC (2007) -
„wicked‟ and 'tame' problems.
Understanding learning requires an appreciation
of how humans communicate and know
Transforming situations?
Transformation as a linear process ?
Transformation as a learning process for adaptation?
Water Sensitive
City
Water Cycle
City
Waterway
City
Drained
City
Sewered
City
Water Supply
City
Transition
theory
Leadership
CoI/CoP
Stakeholding
Institutions
&
PoliciesKnowledge
Constraints
Facilitation
Chan
ges
in P
ract
ices
History
of the situation Changes in Understanding
ISSUE
Concerted Action for a Water
Sensitive City
Framework for Transforming Embedded Practices
(Ison and Collins, 2009)
The
place of
WSC in
the NWI
Senior management
and politicians are
engaged by the
activities of a Peak
Body for WSC
Stakeholders and
regulators working
together around a
vision of WSC
(i) A national
network/CoP
(ii) Mediating
„objects‟ e.g.
business
model for
non-financial
outcomes
A clear
governance
framework ..to
join up different
understandings
about WSC
Data generated from the
workshops
www.watersensitivefutures.org
Perth – Brisbane – Melbourne – Sydney – Adelaide - Canberra
Concluding Observations & Recommendations
• Actions required are not focused on reshuffling and restructuring organisations (institutional complexity) – they are about systemic governance reform: effecting culture, vision, understanding and incentives
• Need for a co-developed national vision for WSC that is facilitative and prioritises policies and incentives that are designed to be locally adaptable:
• Australian cities are unique and with different histories, have locally specific bio-physical and socio-political contexts
• Leadership on WSCs varies across cities – State Government, Local Government, Water Utilities, Regional Coordinating Groups,
• Urgently develop and support the facilitation of a national forum on Water Sensitive Cities:
• enabling interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral coordination and learning
• Investment in R&D to support the ongoing learning cycle – both social and physical dimensions
Sydney – lack of connectivity –future directions contested
Institutional complexity – easy to get lost
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
APPLIED RESEARCH
INDUSTRY OUTREACH
RESEARCH TO DELIVER THE SCIENCE-POLICY INNOVATION PATHWAY
2005-09 NUWGP, ARTS
2005-09 FAWB, ENG2004-09
ISWR, ENG
2007-012 International Collaboration
EU FR7, ENG & ARTS
2008-09 ARTS-IWCWSC Sem.
2010-15 Cities as Water Supply Catchments
ENG, ARTS, SCI, Bus & Eco
Cu
rren
tC
om
ple
ted
2008-11 Biofilter
Commercialisation, ENG
2010-12 Biofilter Demo
in Israel2011 Australian-Israeli Partnership for Sustainable
Urban Water Management
2009-12 NUWGP, ARTS
2010-12 Clearwater Partnership
Monash Centre for Water Sensitive Cities
NWC Initiatives
• Commissioned assessments and independent reviews on 15 themes relating to urban water e.g.
• Institutional arrangements (ii);
• Community engagement (xiv)
• Organisation & industry cooperation, culture, skills and capacity (x)
• Externalities (xv)
• Still in progress
ANZSOG and NWC workshop, Melbourne, 13 May 2010 ‘Future directions for water reform: the role of
institutional arrangements’
• In Europe, the debate on water has moved away from the notion that water is a singular problem (a commodity delivered by a natural monopoly) – the knowledge base has become much broader,
– a purely technocratic approach doesn’t work in long-term policy
making. Interdisciplinary forums are grappling with the problem
• Issues of scale and implementation capacity are important. Over the past 15 years, stormwater quality management/WSUD has progressed through largely decentralised reforms, independent of national leadership, through sharing of experiences and learnings
• Impediments to the urban water market need to be addressed.
NWC Initiatives
• Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) has progressed slowly because institutional arrangements are hindering it. For example, with respect to stormwater harvesting:
– it’s not clear who owns the source of water; therefore, if you invest, there is no security
– it’s unclear who is responsible for approvals: is it health authorities? Planners?
– there is no mechanism for taking externality benefits into account – e.g. benefits to Moreton Bay arising from harvesting of stormwater.
• As a result, WSUD has become a series of ‘cottage projects’, even though it has the potential to be a much more important
source of supply.
NWC Initiatives
• Mentioning the ‘unmentionables’ – i.e. ‘naming and shaming’ – can play a role. A list could be created of the top ten ‘basket cases’ in water reform. However, care needs to be taken to prioritise in a positive rather than a negative way, and not provoke a defensive response. Policy should not be driven by the ‘lowest common denominator’ but by what is needed to achieve best practice.
IWA Cities of the Future Program. Spatial Planning and Institutional Reform Conclusions from the World Water
Congress, September 2010
• What are the different values of water?• In a City of the Future, water will be used for more than
just drinking or transporting wastes. It will also provide a boarder range of social, economic and environmental outcomes. Decision making will be informed by better understanding of the ways in which water contributes to liveability in a city, and how the social values of water associated with this can be measured, quantified and included in triple bottom line assessments. Research in this area will utilise community values of water to redefine “least cost” provision of water services.
IWA Cities of the Future Program. Spatial Planning and Institutional Reform Conclusions from the World Water
Congress, September 2010
• What are the benefits of Sustainable Cities?
• What do customers and communities want for their cities?
• How can water management and urban planning agencies deliver more integrated outcomes?
• How can externalities of water management decisions be more fully considered in urban development planning decisions?
• Gather international examples to demonstrate how each principle and action has already been delivered
Unpacking conceptual myths?
• e.g. Head (2010)
• ‘rational expectation that improved policy analysis will flow from a better evidence base, with
consequent improvements in the service delivery and problem-solving capacities of government
agencies. This expectation is contrasted with the practical limitations on rational processes typical in the real world of political decision-making, which is
characterised by bargaining, entrenched commitments, and the interplay of diverse
stakeholder values and interests.’
What are the critical
water governance
research needs?
Conversation mapping session 2
1.30 – 2.00