Transcript
Ocean Governance Policy Transfer in Oceans Governance: Learning Lessons from Australia’s Oceans Policy Process Joanna Vince* School of Government, University of Tasmania, Australia INTRODUCTION This article examines policy transfer as an important mechanism for policy change in oceans governance. Since it entered into force in 1994, the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) has obligated signatories to demonstrate that they can effectively manage the resources within their Exclusive EconomicZones (EEZs). This article focuses primarily on the Australian response tofulfill its obligation to the LOSC through the development of Australia’sOceans Policy (AOP), and the transfer of key policy components toCanadian and New Zealand ocean initiatives. This article argues that government officials (or civil servants/bureaucrats) were essential agents of change who formed networks that contributed to successful policy transferin oceans management.The study of oceans governance is multidisciplinary, yet it is often viewed from a narrower environmental, legal or scientific perspective.Political scientists have paid little attention to oceans governance despite it being a policy focus for many nations. Over the past decade, numerouscoastal States have begun developing and implementing ‘‘oceans policies,’’often utilizing similar approaches, aims and institutional processes. Whilethese oceans policies have resulted in policy change in oceans resourcemanagement, there has been little focus on how this change has comeabout. Policy transfer is an approach that can offer great insight into policy change and the policy process on local, national and international levels.Policy transfer occurs when ‘‘knowledge about policies, administrative *The research conducted for this article was funded by the University of Tasmania’sInstitutional Research Grants Scheme. An earlier version of this article waspresented to the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference in Dunedin,New Zealand, 28–30 Sept., 2005. The author would like to thank Associate ProfessorMarcus Haward for his helpful comments on an earlier draft and the informants in Australia, Canada and New Zealand who kindly gave their time and opinions. Ocean Yearbook 22: 159–181. 159 160 Ocean Governance arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political system (past orpresent) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrange-ments, institutions and ideas in another political system.’’ 1 Levi-Faur and Vigoda-Gadot emphasize that policy transfer contributes ‘‘to a betterunderstanding of the process of policy change and governance in a globalpolity by improving cross-cultural collaboration....’’ 2 Dolowitz and Marsh’sanalysis of policy transfer has validity and can be applied to this analysis as it focuses on different elements of policy that can be transferred. 3 Theseelements include policy goals, policy content, policy instruments, policy programs, institutions, ideologies, ideas and attitudes, and negative lessons.Evans and Davies’ ‘‘transfer network’’ approach provides the explanation of how these elements are transferred. 4 Together, Dolowitz and Marsh’s‘‘who’’ and ‘‘what,’’ along with Evans and Davies’ ‘‘how,’’ provide a usefulframework to analyze oceans governance in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.Oceans governance has become an emerging focus for coastal Statesdriven particularly by the deliberations of the United Nations Conferenceson the Law of the Sea that spanned four decades (1958–1982). 5 The ThirdConference (1974–1982) resulted in the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) which establishes a universally agreed framework, described by Tommy T.B.Koh, of Singapore, President of the Third Law of the Sea Conference as a‘‘constitution for the ocean.’’ This ‘‘constitution’’ contains provisions onmaritime boundaries including the EEZ, 6 contiguous zone, 7 continentalshelves, 8 and territorial seas. 9 It also outlines the need for the protectionand preservation of various marine environments 10 and balances the rightsof States to conserve fish stocks. 11 Special regimes for the fishing of anadromous and highly migratory fish species 12 and the management and 1. D. Dolowitz and D. Marsh, ‘‘Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy Making,’’ Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 13, no. 1 (Jan. 2000): 5.2. D. Levi-Faur and E. Vigoda-Gadot, ‘‘New Public Policy, New Policy Transfers:Some Characteristics of a New Order in the Making,’’ International Journal of Public Administration 29, no. 4–6 (Apr. 2006): 260.3. Dolowitz and Marsh, see n. 1 above, p.12.4. M. Evans and J. Davies, ‘‘Understanding Policy Transfer: A Multi-Level,Multi-Disciplinary Perspective,’’ Public Administration 77, no. 2 (1999): 361–385.5. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, done in Montego Bay, Jamaica, (10 Dec. 1982), in force 16 Nov. 1994, 1833 United Nations Treaty Series 396.6. Id ., art. 33.7. Id ., arts. 55–75.8. Id ., arts. 76–85.9. Id ., arts. 2–32.10. Id ., arts. 192–237.11. Id ., arts. 116–119.12. Id ., arts. 64–67. Policy Transfer in Oceans Governance 161protection of marine mammals have also been determined by thisConvention. 13 While the LOSC provides a framework for oceans gover-nance, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 5517 (30October 2000) requires signatories to prioritize change in their domesticpolicies by adhering to the legally binding measures outlined by LOSC witha particular focus on adopting integrated approaches to the management of EEZs. 14 Although declaratory and not legally binding, the United NationsConference on the Environment and Development’s (UNCED) Agenda 21 has also acted as a catalyst for policy change in the management of EEZs. Whereas the Law of the Sea Convention establishes the extent of eachState’s maritime boundaries, Agenda 21 provides the framework forenvironmental controls dealing with maritime activities within thoseboundaries through three key principles aimed at sustainable develop-ment—‘‘integrated’, 15 ‘‘precautionary’ 16 and ‘‘anticipatory’’ actions. 17 Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 is holistic in its approach and deals with all aspectsof marine and coastal environmental management through 137 recommen-dations. The approach provides the foundation that coastal States ‘‘commit themselves to integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdic-tion.’’ 18 Australia, Canada and New Zealand have all commenced the develop-ment and implementation of integrated management frameworks that encompass the regulatory measures of various international instrumentsand domestic law and policy dealing with oceans governance. Although theCanadian government passed an Oceans Act in 1997, ‘‘the Act’s potentialshave yet to be fully realized.’’ 19 13. Id ., arts. 65 and 120.14. See, for example, L. Juda, ‘‘Changing National Approaches to OceanGovernance: The United States, Canada and Australia,’’ Ocean Development and International Law 34 (2003): 161–187.15. United Nations, ‘‘Chapter 17,’’ Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development and the UNCED Proceedings (New York: Oceana, 1992).16. United Nations, ‘‘Principle 15,’’ UNCED Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development, adopted at Rio de Janiero (14 June, 1992), International Legal Materials 874.17. D. Johnston, ‘‘UNCLOS and UNCED: A Collision of Mind-Sets?,’’ in Oceans Law and Policy in the Post-UNCED Era: Australian and Canadian Perspectives, ed. L.Kriwoken, M. Haward, D. VanderZwaag and B. Davis, (London: Kluwer Law International, 1996), p. 15.18. United Nations, see n. 15 above.19. D. Vanderzwaag, and J. Hutchings, ‘‘Canada’s Marine Species at Risk:Science and Law at the Helm, but a Sea of Uncertainties,’’ Ocean Development and International Law 36 (2005): 238. 162 Ocean Governance In 1998, the Australian Government released Australia’s Oceans Policy (AOP), a world-first policy initiative focused on providing a framework forintegrated ecosystem-based management of Australia’s vast marine do-main. 20 The oceans policy development and implementation process wasunique and therefore of interest to other coastal nations with similar oceansand marine management issues to Australia. Both New Zealand andCanadian government officials/civil servants were invited by the Australiangovernment to be involved in conferences and policy development. Thisinvitation was accepted later in this policy development process. Canada’sinterest in AOP was directed at new measures for an integrated manage-ment framework and to overcome the limitations of the Oceans Act (seesection on Canada). New Zealand, on the other hand, had no policy framework for oceans management although it had developed a compre-hensive system of integrated resource management in the 1990s and had adirect interest in learning from the Australian experience. In recent years,New Zealand has begun to develop an oceans policy; however, this processhas been slowed by land ownership disputes between the Maori and theCrown. Canada has developed and begun implementing an Oceans Strategy 21 that provides a broad, ‘‘general’’ approach to integration through LargeOcean Management Areas and smaller Coastal Management Areas. 22 While these events demonstrate cross-national cooperation in oceansgovernance and that each country has learned from each other, furtherevidence is required to determine policy transfer. Similarities in theapproaches to oceans management in the three countries indicate thepossibility of policy transfer. But how can it be determined that transferoccurred? If it has occurred, what are the roles of government officials/civilservants in transfer? Government officials are the focus of this article, ratherthan other actors involved in transfer networks. They are assumed to be part of the policy process and therefore are naturally involved in the event of transfer. However, it is government officials that can have the most impact 20. See J. Vince, ‘‘ Australia’s Oceans Policy : Five Years of Integration AcrossSectors and Jurisdictions?,’’ Maritime Studies , 133 (Nov./Dec. 2003): 1–13, hereaftercited as ‘‘Five Years of Integration’’; J. Vince, ‘‘The Development of Australia’s Oceans Policy : Institutions and the ‘Oceans Policy Community,’ ’’ (presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, Hobart, 29 Sept.–1 Oct.2003), hereafter cited as ‘‘Oceans Policy Community’’; J. Vince, The Development of Australia’s Oceans Policy: Change and Stability in a Policy Community (Ph.D. diss.,University of Tasmania 2004) hereafter cited as ‘‘The Development of Australia’sOceans Policy’’; M. Haward and J. Vince, ‘‘Australian Ocean Governance—Initia-tives, Challenges and Opportunities,’’ Australasian Political Studies Association Confer- ence , Newcastle (25–27 Sept. 2006).21. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Canada’s Oceans Strategy (Ottawa: Fisheriesand Oceans Canada, 2002).22. Vanderzwaag and Hutchings, see n. 19 above. Policy Transfer in Oceans Governance 163on policy change. Government officials have the day-to-day responsibility todevelop, administer and implement policies. They also are key decisionmakers in policy directions. While politicians have the power to accept adecision that may have international and domestic implications, it is the civilservant, the bureaucrat, and the official that must deal with the conse-quences.This article addresses the above questions by reviewing the policy transfer approach and the involvement of government officials in the policy transfer network. It also examines what new lessons, if any, can be learnedfrom policy transfer in oceans governance between Australia, Canada andNew Zealand. It then applies the framework of McAdam and Rucht whosuggest three conditions that determine transfer, focusing particularly onrelational transfer and the formal and informal cross-national communica-tion of government officials. 23 The other two conditions—a temporalsequence of events and common elements—are also applied. The articlethen examines the sequence of events that led to new oceans initiatives in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. POLICY TRANSFER—A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Policy transfer literature has become voluminous in recent years with policy analysts finding the transfer approach flexible, adaptable and useful forunderstanding policy change on the global, macro-, meso-, and micro-lev-els. 24 Policy transfer differs to approaches such as policy learning, 25 policy diffusion, 26 policy convergence 27 and lesson drawing. 28 Wolman argues that it is a deeper process of learning ‘‘about different concepts and approachesrather than specific policy designs.’’ 29 23. D. McAdam and D. Rucht, ‘‘The Cross-National Diffusion of Movement Ideas,’’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528 (1993): 56–74.24. M. Evans, Policy Transfer in Global Perspective (Aldershot, England: AshgatePublishing, 2004), p. 212; K. Jacobs and P. Barnett, ‘‘Policy Transfer and Policy Learning: A Study of the 1991 New Zealand Health Services Taskforce,’’ Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, and Institutions 13, no. 2, (Apr.2000): 187; Evans and Davies, see n. 4 above, p. 367.25. C. Bennett and M. Howlett, ‘‘The Lessons of Learning: ReconcilingTheories of Policy Learning and Policy Change,’’ Policy Sciences 25 (1992): 275–294.26. G. Majone, ‘‘Cross-National Sources of Regulatory Policy Making in Europeand the United States,’’ Journal of Public Policy 11, (1991): 79–106.27. W. Coleman, ‘‘Policy Convergence in Banking: A Comparative Study,’’ Political Studies XLII (1994): 274–92.28. R. Rose, Lesson Drawing in Public Policy (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House,1993).29. H. Wolman, ‘‘Understanding Cross National Policy Transfers: The Case of Britain and the US,’’ Governance 5, no. 1, (1992): 41; also see D. Stone, ‘‘Non-
