Political drivers (CPWF-GD workshop, Sept 2011)

Political Drivers

By Louis Lebel

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

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

Political drivers – an initial classificationDrivers 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 Interests, discourses and policy processes

around each set of institutional indicators are complex and heterogeneous

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

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

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

Political driversDrivers 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 Can you think of examples of each of these

types of drivers? How do you think about political drivers?

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

Biobio/Chile Norrström/Sweden Brahmaputra/Nepal

Catamayo/Peru Nura/Kazahstan Tisza/Hungary

Catamayo/Ecuador Okavango/Namibia Guadiana/Spain

Cauca/Colombia Thames/UK Elbe/Germany

Quaraí/Brasil Kyoga/Uganda Rhine/TheNetherlands

Cocibolca/Nicaragua Niger/Mali Amudarya/Uzbekistan

Baker/Chile BangPakong/Thailand Orange/SouthAfrica

Cuareim/Uruguay Volga/Russia RedRiver/Vietnam

Guayas/Ecuador Brahmaputra/Bhutan Olifants/SouthAfrica

Paute/Ecuador Brahmaputra/India

Coordinating Twinning partnerships towards more adaptive Governance in river basins

Questionnaire

Analytical framework

explored associations between properties of governance regimes and performance adjusting as appropriate for influence of context

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

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:

P4 Responsiveness to climate change or ‘adaptation policies’

Questions 81-86((4-q81)/3+(5-q82)/4 +(3-q83)/2+(4-q84)/3+(5-q85)/4+(3-q86)/2)/6

Design

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)

Variation in regime measures

Variation in performance

Associations adjusting for Context

Performance

Regime

P1MDG goals

P2Good

governance

P4Adaptation

Policies

P5AEnvironmental

conditions

P5BEnvironmentalm

anagement

R1 Legal frameworks - + +

R2 Basin principles +

R3 Informal-formal +

R5 Econ. instruments + +

R4 Polycentricity - + +

R8 Knowledge - + +

R9 Adaptive capacity + +

R10 IWRM + +

R12 Good governance principles in legislation

- + +

Context variables C1 C1 & C4 C1 C3 C1

Findings

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

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

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

Opportunities and drivers of BP&T

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Political

Institutional

Financial

Organizational

Informational

Social

Environmental

Infrastructural

Opportunities& Drivers

Barriers & Constraints

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