The policy toolkit

Ultimately, whether or not we have successfully matched problems and institutions, achieved adequate scientific understanding, and developed appropriate representation and decision processes, we still must ensure that the policy tools available are adequate.Decisions over which tools should be in the toolkit can be contentious in themselves. Examples include from the United States “clear unwillingness to even consider market instruments” at the state level due to concern about voter reactions (Rothenburg 2003, p4).[49] This is where up-front agreement on the overall ‘vision’, as discussed above, can be crucial. Once the problem is recognised and the need for action accepted, the argument to use a full range of tools is easier. Blaming market failure for inappropriate resource use can be an easy response, but does not in itself identify why markets have not worked or how they can be fixed or created. Market mechanisms can work highly effectively to maximise value or minimise costs within a regulatory framework.

Table 4– factors faced in adopting environmental best practice

Barriers to adoption	Positives for adoption
Labour constraints and financial costs Missing markets for externalities Lack of data or scepticism of science Lack of clear targets or options to achieve them Internal or external resistance to particular options	Sound practical scientific and local knowledge User and community awareness of environmental issues Effective regulatory framework and institutional capacity Willingness to comply Practical and economically viable options Ability to monitor and measure environmental impacts Shared vision of the future

Sources: (MAF policy 2006)

Early exclusion may be very costly at a later stage if an inadequate toolkit forces undesirable compromises between goals or prevents consensus on how to address specific goals. “The chance of being able to successfully design environmental policy programmes around one particular tool or approach is very low” (MAF policy 2006). Conversely, the wider the range of tools is, the more likely that a solution can be found to deal with a range of social and ecological circumstances (see Table 4).

A balance is also required between consistency and tailored solutions; e.g. between catchment based water planning, and farm-specific management techniques for efficient water use and runoff control.

Where rights or obligations are established, their design should be fully considered. Failure to do so can cause long-term problems; e.g. seniority based systems (where first users in time have priority but only as long as they continue their use) can seriously constrain flexibility of use. Also communities may use planning powers to restrict transfers of water outside their region or to activities that generate fewer local jobs or don’t use (and help pay for) shared infrastructure, even if transfers are of national benefit (Shaw 2005).[50]

Non-regulatory tools should also not be overlooked, on their own or in tandem with regulatory solutions. Success of such measures will be more likely where strong social networks exist, environmental impacts are obvious, options are not complex, information is accessible, and change can be easily measured (MAF policy 2006).

Finally it is important to build in monitoring and review arrangements (Guerin 2003a). Good monitoring can facilitate diffusion and adaptation of successful models and correction of unsuccessful ones.

4.3  Summary

The discussion on goals and frameworks and delivering them illustrates the overall complexity of sustainable development. It also illustrates the potential for successful delivery of practical outcomes from a staged process within an overall vision, as opposed to a ‘big bang’ policy process that may take years to develop and be extremely difficult to keep on track. Once a vision is in place, individual challenges can be addressed through flexible policies and institutions.

A balance is important between addressing immediate crises in a manner consistent with the overall vision, and ensuring that no particular area is left too far behind. It may be found that “a parallel-track approach to water reform is likely to prove faster and more effective”, developing and adjusting laws, standards, rights, plans and consent formats in a mutually reinforcing manner (Bruns 2005, p296). Issues of governance, tenure and transferability would also be addressed comprehensively rather than in sequence. Such parallelism is complex but reduces the risk of a long and costly policy process that cannot then be implemented.Adaptive management depends crucially, however, on the coherence and resilience of the vision and on patience. “The relevant time scale for reform may be better measured not in a few months or a few years, but in decades” while ‘attempting to avoid this debate will, at a minimum, reduce the effectiveness of reforms, and may generate opposition that stalls the entire process” (Bruns 2005, p294).