Water Policy in a Time of Climate Change: Coping with Complexity

• Author: Rob M. Skinner
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12669
• Published date: 01 January 2017
• Date: 01 January 2017

Water Policy in a Time of Climate Change: Coping with Complexity 13

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 77, Iss. 1, pp. 13–16. © 2016 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12669.

Rob M. Skinner has extensive executive

experience in the Australian water industry.

He is currently professorial fellow and

director of Monash Water for Liveability

at Monash University, Australia, and

in recent years served on a number of

government advisory panels. He is also chair

of WaterAid International. Previously, he

was managing director of the Melbourne

Water Corporation for six years during

the “millennium drought” crisis and, prior

to that, chief executive officer of a large

municipal council in Melbourne.

E-mail: robskinner11@me.com

Evidence in Public

Administration

Abstract: The unpredictable impacts of climate change, combined with significant social and economic changes, mean

that policy analysis is becoming inordinately more complex. Coping with this increasing complexity while engaging

with a full range of stakeholders and the community requires a new approach to leadership and governance. Water

planners (and others involved in the planning processes) need new skills in active listening and constructive cultural

behavior, and all agencies need to recognize that thinking and acting only in the interests of their own silo of responsi-

bilities will inevitably produce suboptimal outcomes. Leadership focused on constructive behavior that recognizes and

rewards generosity of spirit across disciplines and between organizations is the foundation of this new approach.

W hen I studied engineering and economics

some 40 years ago and then commenced

a career in public policy and strategic

management, the “best-practice” approach to assessing

the worth of water policy and water projects followed

a linear process, generally along these lines:

1. Specify the water supply challenges to be resolved

in a particular situation.

2. Identify the options for solving the challenges—

generally in terms of physical assets (dams, pipes,

treatment plants, etc.), new policies, legislation,

or governance arrangements.

3. Assess the benefits and costs associated with

each of the options—within the framework

of a “triple bottom line” assessment, using the

best science available to quantify such impacts

wherever possible.

4. Subject the preferred option to environmental

and social impact assessments involving

community and stakeholder consultation.

The underlying planning premises of this process were

as follows:

• Past trends or patterns of biophysical factors

(population growth, rainfall patterns, ecological

conditions) would provide a reasonable basis for

developing future projections.

• Technologies that had been used to solve

problems in the past were a starting point for

solutions in the future (in the case of Melbourne,

Australia, for example, if more water was needed,

the first option to be considered was to build

another dam).

• Water systems could be developed and enhanced

to follow population growth (“plumbed-in”

when needed).

• The community would accept the judgment and

expertise of respected institutions and public

servants in these matters.

However, in recent times, these premises have been

fundamentally challenged by a range of disruptive

factors at both a global and a local level. The most

significant factors are as follows:

• Climate change—we can no longer use the

biophysical patterns of the past to plan for the

future.

• Rapid urbanization—particularly in developing

countries.

• Livability—the combined effects of climate

change impacts and rapid urbanization are

undermining the ability of cities to provide for

the full range of human needs.

• Scale—associated with the opportunities

opened up by new technologies, a realization

that smaller-scale, fit-for-purpose, locally based

solutions can sometimes provide for greater

resilience within integrated systems.

• Citizen expectations—all around the world,

citizens are demanding greater involvement in

policy decisions that affect their lives.

• Time constraints—as the complexity of decision

making has increased, so has the time necessary to

undertake meaningful engagement, and yet climate

change and urbanization pressures can lead to

crises that require solutions sooner rather than later.

Every proposal has an optimum gestation period.

Kimberley R . Isett , Brian W . Head , and Gary VanLandingham , Editors

Rob M. Skinner

Monash University , Australia

Water Policy in a Time of Climate Change:

Coping with Complexity