Date post: | 04-Jul-2015 |
Category: |
Environment |
Upload: | anucrawfordphd |
View: | 194 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Giving rights to nature
A new institutional approach for overcoming social dilemmas?
Julia Talbot-‐Jones PhD Candidate
The Australian National University -‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
julia.talbot-‐[email protected]
Time for little data!!!
Time for little data!!!
But why?
Outline of presentation
Outline of presentation
Background: Social dilemma institutions
– Introduce common institutional arrangements for transcending social dilemmas
– A new approach?
Outline of presentation
Background: Social dilemma institutions
Legalising nature
Case study: Whanganui River, NZ
– Introduce common institutional arrangements for transcending social dilemmas
– A new approach?
– Background – Legal Framework – Analysis of old and new
governance arrangement using IAD Framewor
Outline of presentation
Background: Social dilemma institutions
Legalising nature
Case study: Whanganui River, NZ
Conclusion: Outcomes
– Introduce common institutional arrangements for transcending social dilemmas
– A new approach?
– Background – Legal Framework – Analysis of old and new
governance arrangement using IAD Framewor
– Identify changes resulting from the new arrangement
Social di lemma institutions
• Centralised governance; privatisation; community governance; co-‐management – Differentiate through ownership of property rights (property rights are considered a bundle of
rights)
• Use Schlager and Ostrom’s (1992) five characteristics of property rights-‐in-‐use: 1) Entry – the right to enter a resource; 2) Withdrawl – the right to harvest and take some resource units out of the resource system; 3) Management – the right to change the physical structures in a resource system or develop a variety of
physical infrastructures for any particular resource; 4) Exclusion – the right to determine who else could use the resource and what their specific rights would
be; and 5) Alienation – the right to sell one or more of the first four rights permanently or for a given time period
Comparison
Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation Centralised governance
Government Government Government Government Government
Privatisation Individual Individual Government (Individual)
Individual Individual
Community governance
Community Community Community Community Community
Co-management
Government Government Community Government Government
!
Comparison
Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation Centralised governance
Government Government Government Government Government
Privatisation Individual Individual Government (Individual)
Individual Individual
Community governance
Community Community Community Community Community
Co-management
Government Government Community Government Government
!Definitions Government: the collection of elected public officials designated to make decisions at the executive and legislative levels of a Government system Community: a group of people who interact directly, frequently, and in multi-‐faceted ways Individual: just one person or organisation
Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation
Centralised governance
Government Government Government Government Government
Privatisation Individual Individual Government (Individual)
Individual Individual
Community governance
Community Community Community Community Community
Co-management
Government Government Community Government Government
!
Comparison
Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation Centralised governance
Government Government Government Government Government
Privatisation Individual Individual Government (Individual)
Individual Individual
Community governance
Community Community Community Community Community
Co-management
Government Government Community Government Government
!Definitions Government: the collection of elected public officials designated to make decisions at the executive and legislative levels of a Government system Community: a group of people who interact directly, frequently, and in multi-‐faceted ways Individual: just one person or organisation
Entry Withdrawl Management Exclusion Alienation
Centralised governance
Government Government Government Government Government
Privatisation Individual Individual Government (Individual)
Individual Individual
Community governance
Community Community Community Community Community
Co-management
Government Government Community Government Government
!
Also, can’t forget the importance of social capital, transaction costs, and leadership influencing the success (or failure) of institutional arrangements
A new approach?
“I am quite seriously proposing that we give legal rights to forests, oceans, rivers, and other so-‐called “natural objects” in the environment – indeed to the natural environment as a whole.”
-‐ Stone C. 1972. Should trees have standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450.
Case Study: The Whanganui River, NZ
Case Study: The Whanganui River, NZ
Case Study: The Whanganui River, NZ
Ecological perspective: The river is ecologically unhealthy (Sunde, 2003)
Tikanga perspective: “Physical pollution of the Whanganui River affects its soul, its wairua; its supernatural and divine power, its mana; and, through the sacred affinity of this sacred place to our people, affects us, mentally, physically, and spiritually. No chemical combatants will reduce or eliminate this effect, nor will it alter the breach of tapu.” (Hikaia Amohia, 1988)
Case Study: The Whanganui River, NZ
Ecological perspective: The river is ecologically unhealthy (Sunde, 2003)
Tikanga perspective: “Physical pollution of the Whanganui River affects its soul, its wairua; its supernatural and divine power, its mana; and, through the sacred affinity of this sacred place to our people, affects us, mentally, physically, and spiritually. No chemical combatants will reduce or eliminate this effect, nor will it alter the breach of tapu.” (Hikaia Amohia, 1988)
à Social dilemma – “river health and wellbeing” is not being provided for -‐ how can we address these issues?
Let ’s make the river own itself!
Let ’s make the river own itself!
But how?!
Let ’s make the river own itself!
But how?!
1. “Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements.” [s2.1]
Let ’s make the river own itself!
But how?!
1. “Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements.” [s2.1]
2. “Te Awa Tupua is a legal person” [s2.2] with “…the same rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” [s2.3]
Let ’s make the river own itself!
But how?!
1. “Te Awa Tupua is an indivisible and living whole comprising the Whanganui River from the mountains to the sea, incorporating its tributaries and all its physical and metaphysical elements.” [s2.1]
2. “Te Awa Tupua is a legal person” [s2.2] with “…the same rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” [s2.3]
3. Title of the river bed will be vested away from the Crown and placed in the name of Te Awa Tupua itself. [s6.1]
New legal framework
New legal frameworkRuruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
New legal frameworkRuruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
New legal framework
Te Awa Tupua
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
New legal framework
Te Awa Tupua Represented by: Te Pou Tupua
Two guardians acting as one - one nominated by the Crown - one nominated by Iwi
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
New legal framework
Te Awa Tupua Represented by: Te Pou Tupua
Two guardians acting as one - one nominated by the Crown - one nominated by Iwi
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Advised by: Te Karawao One person each from: - Nga Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui - iwi with other interests in the River - local authories
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
New legal framework
Te Awa Tupua Represented by: Te Pou Tupua
Two guardians acting as one - one nominated by the Crown - one nominated by Iwi
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Advised by: Te Karawao One person each from: - Nga Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui - iwi with other interests in the River - local authories
Strategy group: Te Kopuka na Te Awa Tupua 17 representatives of local community groups
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
New legal framework
Te Awa Tupua Represented by: Te Pou Tupua
Two guardians acting as one - one nominated by the Crown - one nominated by Iwi
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Advised by: Te Karawao One person each from: - Nga Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui - iwi with other interests in the River - local authories
Strategy group: Te Kopuka na Te Awa Tupua 17 representatives of local community groups
Strategy document: Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
New legal framework
Te Awa Tupua Represented by: Te Pou Tupua
Two guardians acting as one - one nominated by the Crown - one nominated by Iwi
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Advised by: Te Karawao One person each from: - Nga Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui - iwi with other interests in the River - local authories
Strategy group: Te Kopuka na Te Awa Tupua 17 representatives of local community groups
Strategy document: Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
New legal framework
Guided by Tupua te Kawa (four intrinsic values): 1. Ko te Awa te mātāpuna o te ora - the River is the source of spiritual and physical sustenance 2. E rere kau mai te Awa nui mai te Kahui Maunga ki Tangaroa – the great River flows from the mountains to the sea 3. Ko au te Awa ko te Awa ko au – I am the River and the River is me 4. Ngā manga iti, ngā manga nui e honohono kau ana, ka tupu hei Awa Tupua – the small and the large streams that flow
into one another and form one River
Te Awa Tupua Represented by: Te Pou Tupua
Two guardians acting as one - one nominated by the Crown - one nominated by Iwi
Ruruku Whakatupua Te Mana o te Iwi o Whanganui - The Deed of Settlement
Advised by: Te Karawao One person each from: - Nga Tangata Tiaki o Whanganui - iwi with other interests in the River - local authories
Strategy group: Te Kopuka na Te Awa Tupua 17 representatives of local community groups
Strategy document: Te Heke Ngahuru ki Te Awa Tupua
Te Ruruku Whakatupua – Legal Framework
How might this new institutional arrangement affect the governance structure of the Whanganui River/Te Awa Tupua?
The nested nature of rules and incentives using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Source: Adapted from McGinnis, 1999
Meta-‐constitutional choice
Governance of the WR + Actors
National statutes
Monitoring + Sanctioning
Management of the WR + Actors
District and Regional Plans
Working rules-‐in-‐use
Monitoring + Sanctioning
Bio-‐physical conditions
Community attributes
Rules-‐in-‐use
Use of the WR + Actors
‘Mana’ of Iwi damaged; poor river health
Constitutional choice level
Collective choice level
Operational choice level
Anthropocentric worldview Tikanga worldview
The nested nature of rules and incentives influencing governance of the the Whanganui River/Te Awa Tupua analysed using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Source: Adapted from McGinnis, 1999
The Whanganui R iver/Te Awa Tupua governance st ructure
Meta-‐constitutional choice level
Governance of the WR + Actors
National statutes
Monitoring + Sanctioning
Management of the WR + Actors
District and Regional Plans
Working rules-‐in-‐use
Monitoring + Sanctioning
Bio-‐physical conditions
Community attributes
Rules-‐in-‐use
Use of the WR + Actors
‘Mana’ of Iwi damaged; poor river health
Constitutional choice level
Collective choice level
Operational choice level
Anthropocentric worldview Tikanga worldview
The nested nature of rules and incentives influencing governance of the the Whanganui River/Te Awa Tupua analysed using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework Source: Adapted from McGinnis, 1999
The Whanganui R iver/Te Awa Tupua governance st ructure
Te Ruruku Whakatupua
Meta-‐constitutional choice level
Outcome: Three major changes
Outcome: Three major changes
1. Introduces a new actor – “Te Awa Tupua” represented by “Te Pou Tupua”
Outcome: Three major changes
1. Introduces a new actor – “Te Awa Tupua” represented by “Te Pou Tupua”
2. Changes the property rights structure
Entry Withdrawal Management Exclusion Alienation
Legalising nature Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Community)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Outcome: Three major changes
1. Introduces a new actor – “Te Awa Tupua” represented by “Te Pou Tupua”
2. Changes the property rights structure
3. Formalises “informal” Maori worldview
Entry Withdrawal Management Exclusion Alienation
Legalising nature Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Community)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Anthropocentric worldview Tikanga worldview
Constitutional choice
Collective choice
Operational choice
Outcome: Three major changes
1. Introduces a new actor – “Te Awa Tupua” represented by “Te Pou Tupua”
2. Changes the property rights structure
3. Formalises “informal” Maori worldview
Entry Withdrawal Management Exclusion Alienation
Legalising nature Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Community)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Te Awa Tupua (Judiciary)
Anthropocentric worldview Tikanga worldview
Constitutional choice
Collective choice
Operational choice
Conclusion
• New property rights arrangement only worthwhile if benefits > costs
• Will take several years to determine the effectiveness of this change
• Already being replicated for the governance of Te Urewera National Park, New Zealand
Conclusion
• New property rights arrangement only worthwhile if benefits > costs
• Will take several years to determine the effectiveness of this change
• Already being replicated for the governance of Te Urewera National Park, New Zealand
Thank you.Questions and comments welcome.
Conclusion
• New property rights arrangement only worthwhile if benefits > costs
• Will take several years to determine the effectiveness of this change
• Already being replicated for the governance of Te Urewera National Park, New Zealand
Thank you.Questions and comments welcome.
julia.talbot-‐[email protected]