From Governance to Management: Opportunities and Challenges John Janmaat University of British Columbia Okanagan Campus

Governance Governance determines who has power, who makes decisions, how other players make their voice heard and how account is rendered. Ultimately the application of good governance serves to realize … societal goals. Institute on Governance

Society Governance Goals Governance Management

Society Goals Governance Management Governance Extremes – Few making decisions affecting many. – Many making decisions affecting many. – Many making decisions affecting few. Many tools Optimal tool depends on form of relationship and context of challenge.

Societal Goals Society Goals Governance Management Lets go backwards and start with the goals. Goals (how are these ranked?): – Sustainability – Quality of Life – Community – Income – Economic Growth – ?

Society Goals Governance Management Societal Goals Example: Sustainable Use of Water. – Sub-goal: allocate water to best use – Sub-goal: encourage best use of water

Management Society Goals Governance Management Who has the power? Who makes the decisions? What decisions can be made?

Society Goals Governance Management Example: Who makes management decisions? – Residential users – in house and yard water use. – Agricultural users – irrigation, livestock, … – Industrial and institutional users. What are rules, feedback and enforcement? – What are they? – How do they work? – What are the practical alternatives?

Governance How are societies goals translated into rules, feedback and enforcement? Society Goals Governance Management

Rules, Feedback, Enforcement Society Goals Governance Management Make behavior of users consistent with societys goals. Tools: – Coercion: rules with sanctions – Financial encouragement: taxes and subsidies – Moral suasion: moral education and shaming – Habituation: influence automatic behavior Recognize interactions and conflicts

Interactions and Conflicts Tools effective in one context may be unacceptable in another. – Physical landscape incompatible. – Political landscape incompatible. – Value landscape incompatible. – Social landscape incompatible. Tools must fit with landscape and be adapted as landscape changes.

Water Markets A decentralized tool for putting a price on water and allocating water to its highest value. – Very effective in Australia. – Gaining traction in Alberta. – Essentially unacceptable in Okanagan. Why?

Water Markets Physical landscape – AU, AB: Large irrigation systems, many users. – OK: Small systems, relatively few users. Political landscape – AU, AB: Agriculture stable, dominant in agricultural areas. – OK: Agricultural voice diminishing.

Water Markets Value landscape – AU, AB: Agriculture as an industry, food a commodity, water as and input. – OK: Agriculture a lifestyle, growing food a duty, water a common good. Social landscape – AU, AB: Stable agricultural community – OK: Rapidly changing, immigration, fragmentation

Kelowna Residential Water Use Five water providers Five pricing policies. – Two volumetric. Pricing differs. – Three by connection. Pricing differs. Rules, restrictions, differ.

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives Moral Suasion – Pro-environmental values => more conservation. – Policy: change attitude towards environment. Price Incentive – Higher price => more conservation. Less conservation where marginal cost zero. – Policy: increase price to increase conservation.

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives Telephone, mail, and internet survey. – 516 households, 2009 to Indoor and outdoor water conservation investments. Water conservation behavior. Attitudes, knowledge, demographics.

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives

Attitudes – No difference in environmental attitudes. – Same perspectives and knowledge about OK water issues Except in SEKID, more concerned with availability. Behaviors – SEKID customers use other sources more. – ID customers have more quality complaints. – No difference in conservation behavior.

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives Are people with more pro-environmental values more likely to conserve? – Using NEP, no support! And awareness of Okanagan water issues? – Only for outdoor investments. And number of ways receive information about conservation? – Yes for all three types of conservation!

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives Combined and interaction effects. – Outdoor investments explained best (>10%) – Indoor investment: messages, pro-environmental values and income. – Outdoor investment: messages and income. – Actions: messages, water conservation values, weakly education. – Knowledge about Okanagan and belief Okanagan facing crisis never important!

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives Not conserving because right thing to do. – Argument not convincing? Not conserving to save money. – Price not high enough? Conserve more if told more often. – For investments, higher income helps. Conserving behaviors relate to values. – Values expressed when little cost.

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives Policy implications: – Moral suasion: make message stronger! Does not fit value landscape. – Price incentive: substantial price increase! Does not fit political landscape. – Ever more messages. Little challenge on any landscape.

Governance Governance determines who has power, who makes decisions, how other players make their voice heard and how account is rendered. Ultimately the application of good governance serves to realize … societal goals. Institute on Governance

Conclusion Water governance is good governance if social goals are achieved. If social goal is conservation, good governance implies behavior changes by individuals. Conservation not from environmental values. Conservation not from money savings. Conservation from changing habits. – Get conservation ideas firmly implanted in brain!

Conclusion Big picture: One size does not fit all.