Search

Regulatory failure occurs in diverse and complex circumstances, especially in environmental regulation. The response of policy-makers and regulators to regulatory failure often follows a predictable pattern, with the imposition of increased prescriptive regulatory approaches. This phenomenon has been described as regulatory pendulum swing. If the regulatory failure causes immediate and obvious harm to people or the environment such an approach may be appropriate. However, where the community loses trust in regulatory regimes where harm is less evident, a response of this nature may do little to restore trust. This research examined a case study of coal seam gas regulation in New South Wales, Australia, using a regulatory trust typology. The typology's dimensions of expertise, stewardship and transparency provided a useful framework to understand regulatory failure and regulatory trust, and for evaluating the responses of policy-makers and regulators to public concerns over coal seam gas development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The widely held view is that effective action on climate change requires commitment by national governments to international agreements. Developed nations like Canada and Australia continue to fall short in their commitments to emissions reduction targets established under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Australia refused to ratify its Kyoto commitments until 2008 and Canada withdrew its commitment in 2011. Subnational governments in both countries have been active in developing policy responses to climate change yet remain largely excluded as serious policy partners in national mitigation and adaptation initiatives. This paper utilizes Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework to consider why subnational governments address climate change and the main factors shaping their policy choices. The experiences of the Australian state of Victoria and the Canadian province of Ontario provide examples through which to explore the factors contributing to climate policy opportunities and constraints faced by subnational governments in these countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The conservation of biodiversity is an important issue world wide and in Australia the maintenance of native biodiversity on farms makes an important contribution to overall conservation objectives. This paper seeks to explain Australian farmers'' rationale for maintaining biodiversity on their farms for personal as opposed to business reasons by developing a decision-systems theory from in-depth interviews. This difference has implications for policy development. The decision-systems theory is divided into two main sections. The first section contains five parts. (1) A hierarchy of motivation stories, (2) the concept of suitability and availability of opportunities, (3) a hierarchy of three decision-systems, (4) the concept of personal career paths, (5) the concept of Lenses. The second section contains one part, a policy classification system called ‘boxes of influence’ that suggests how policy developers can use the information in the first section to develop new biodiversity conservation policy. The paper suggests that decision-systems theory could be used to shed new light on current trends in agriculture and become an important investigative tool for policy development concerning the conservation of biodiversity on farms. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In the mid-1990s, Australia embarked on a program of reforms including the introduction of private property rights in water; the allocation of water for the environment, and increased public participation where new initiatives are proposed. Many of the water allocation and management practices adopted in the country have originated from states in the Murray-Darling Basin. This article considers the different approaches taken in NSW, Queensland and Victoria. In each of these states public participation has been an evolving process, giving rise to difficulties of a slightly different nature. The article outlines the policy and theory behind public participation, and sets out the legal provisions for its inclusion in water planning. It explores the main issues in the implementation of the legislation. The Australian experience suggests that policy makers and legislators did not initially draw upon the extensive research that was in existence on effective public participation. However, changes were made to make the processes more inclusive. Capacity building of participants, independent scientific support, and access to data were some of the most critical factors in effective public participation. Because the public had the opportunity to participate and influence decision-making in water allocation, some potential legal conflict was avoided. Of the states examined, Queensland had the best legislative template for public participation, although improvements could be made in many areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]