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

ManagementRF E

Rules

Enforcement Feedback

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 GoalsSociety

Goals

Governance

Management

• Let’s 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

ManagementSociety

Goals

Governance

ManagementR

F E

Rules

Enforcement Feedback

• Who has the power?• Who makes the decisions?• What decisions can be made?

Society

Goals

Governance

Management

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, EnforcementSociety

Goals

Governance

Management

• Make behavior of ‘users’ consistent with society’s 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 2011.

• Indoor and outdoor water conservation investments.

• Water conservation behavior.• Attitudes, knowledge, demographics.

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives

Don't know

Greywater reuse

Water cons. DW

Water cons. WM

Flow flow toilets

Low flow shower

Tap aerators

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Indoor Investments

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives

Don't know

Other

Soil additive

Greywater yard

Pool cover

Rain capture

Timed irrig.

Moisture probe irrig.

Drought grass

Reduce water

Xeriscape

Paver/gravel

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Outdoor Investments

Moral Suasion vs Price Incentives

Laundry when full

DW when full

Flush when necc.

Turn of shower

Turn off tap

Use basin

Scrape dishes

0 100 200 300 400

Behaviors

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.