Water issues everywhere

From the good - the Stockholm Water Prize - where the judges say: 

"Today's water problems cannot be solved by science or technology alone. They are human problems of governance, policy, leadership, and social resilience. "Rajendra Singh's life work has been in building social capacity to solve local water problems through participatory action, empowerment of women, linking indigenous know-how with modern scientific and technical approaches and upending traditional patterns of development and resource use."

This award is heartening for those of us who have worked in this field for many years.

To the momentously challenging - where California Governor Brown orders California's first mandatory water restrictions: 'It's a different world'.

In California the profound systemic consequences of human induced climate change are becoming more obvious by the day - with growing evidence of how traditional livelihoods will be threatened.

Concern about DEFRA's policy effectiveness

A recent posting highlights concerns about the effectiveness of DEFRA, a small ministry by UK standards, in effecting policy internally as well as externally, especially in Europe.

"MPs are concerned that the hollowing out of Defra has left the core Department less effective in persuading decision-makers in other government departments and Brussels to follow its agenda. Firm Ministerial leadership and sufficient in-house expertise is needed at the heart of Defra to ensure it can deliver its priorities effectively."

Some new publications

The following papers have recently appeared or been accepted for publication.

Armitage, D., de Loë, R., Edwards, T., Gerlak, A., Hall, R., Huitema, D., Ison, R., Livingstone, D., MacDonald, G., Mirumachi, N., Morris, M., Plummer, R.,  B. Wolfe (2015) Science-policy processes fortransboundary water governance Ambio (in press).

ABSTRACT: In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science-policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science-policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings. 

Wallis, P., Iaquinto, B., Ison, R.L., Wrigley, R. (2014) Governing irrigation renewal in rural Australia, International Journal of Water Governance 4, 19-36.  

See: http://www.internationalwatergovernance.com/contents-ijwg-04-2014/190-doi-10756414-ijwg41.html  

Ison, R.L., Allan, C., Collins, K.B. (2015) Reframing water governance praxis: does reflection on metaphors have a role? Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy (in press)

See: http://www.envplan.com/contents.cgi?journal=C&volume=forthcoming  

Ison, R.L., Collins, K.B.,  Wallis, P. (2014) Institutionalising social learning: Towards systemic and adaptive governance, Environmental Science and Policy DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.11.002 

See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901114002093 

ABSTRACT This paper critically examines how public policy makers limit policy and other institutional design choices by a failure to appreciate (i) how situations may be characterised or framed; (ii) how practices that generate neologisms (invented terms or concepts) or reify (make into a thing) abstract concepts can displace understandings, and (iii) the epistemological bases of governance mechanism choices. An inquiry into the coining of the neologisms ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems is reported and the implications for research and policy practice explored. As practices, neologising, reifying, categorising and typologising have unintended consequences – they remove us from the primary experiences and underlying emotions that provided the motivation for formulating these concepts in the first place. The failure to institutionalise the understandings and experiences that sit behind the invention of the terms ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems (or similar framing choices such as ‘problematique’, ‘messes’, ‘lowland real-life swamps’, ‘resource dilemmas’ or ‘complex adaptive systems’) present systemic constraints to institutionalising social learning as an alternative yet complementary governance mechanism within an overall systemic and adaptive governance framework. Ultimately situations usefully framed as ‘wicked’,’ such as water managing and climate change are problems of relationship – of human beings with the biosphere. Re-framings, such as institutions as social technologies and other research and praxis traditions concerned with the breakdown of relationships may offer ways forward in the purposeful designing and crafting of more effective institutions.

Resurgence in Systems-related events

Courtesy of Systems Thinking World:

If you have an event you think should be listed here let me know at systemswiki@gmail.com.

And yes, these evens are all listed in the new Systems Thinking World Resources.
* Climate Leader Systems Thinking Training, Online, http://bit.ly/stw-213
* Strategic Thinking & Leanding, Free Online, Apr 4, http://bit.ly/stw-234
* SCiO Open Event & AGM, Manchester, Apr 20, http://goo.gl/xE9UjQ
* Assoc for Strategic Planning (ASP) Conf, Washington DC, May 6-8, http://bit.ly/stw-228
* DynamiQueST, Worcester, MA, May 29, http://clexchange.org/
* ISIS Summit, Vienna, Jun 3-7, http://bit.ly/stw-210
* Socio-Techical Perspectives in IS Workshop, Stockholm, Jun 9, http://bit.ly/stw-214
* In2:InThinking Network 2015Forum, Los Angeles, CA, June 10-14, http://bit.ly/stw-230
* SCiO Open Event w/ Barry Oshry, London, Jun 15, http://goo.gl/3Cea7J
* Research Committe on Sociocybernetics, Zargoza, Spain, Jun 29, http://bit.ly/stw-227
* SDS Conference, Reinventing Life on a Shrinking Earth, Boston, Jul 19-23, http://bit.ly/stw-187
* ISSS Conference, Governing the Anthropocene, Berlin, Aug 2-7, http://bit.ly/stw-186
* Relating Systems Thinking & Design, Alberta, CA, Sep 1-3, http://bit.ly/stw-235
* Conference on Complex Systems, Tempe, AZ, Sep 28 - Oct 2, http://www.ccs2015.org/
* Systems Thinking in Action Conference, Washington DC, Oct 20-25, http://bit.ly/stw-211

There is also a Master Class in Change for Sustainability May 6-8 in Stockhom - see  http://sustainabilitytransformation.com/mcmay2015/

The ASC will have a one day event embedded in the ISSS conference on Wednesday 5th August, Berlin.

Announcement - PhD Course Systems Thinking and Practice in PhD Research:

 Announcement - PhD Course

Systems Thinking and Practice in PhD Research:

Cybersystemic Possibilities for Governing the Anthropocene

30 July – 7 August 2015, Germany

Comprising

• Two days of participation in a Systemic Inquiry in Hannover (Herrenhausen) on “Governing the Anthropocene: Cybersystemic Possibilities?
• Two days of dedicated ‘workshops’ introducing different systems approaches, methods and research traditions at Humboldt University in Berlin
• Five days of participation in the 2015 ISSS Conference in Berlin, including a group generated presentation on the final day
• 5 ECTS - points

Objectives

Working strategically to negotiate boundaries for research in a meaningful way in the areas of contemporary concern e.g. sustainability; development; health; farming, food, rural areas and environment/biodiversity, to name but a few, requires particular skills and abilities: It is necessary to be able to make relevant connections and to contextualize research activities without becoming overwhelmed by potential complexity and uncertainty. The context of the increasingly multifaceted complexity of issues of sustainability and climate change in relation to most contemporary issues is particularly challenging for PhD research. It is a context that is however a core part of the ISSS community’s experience. The purpose of this course is to help you, the PhD student, develop your skills in contextualizing your research, to make connections among issues using systems, cybernetic and complexity thinking and to so improve your ability to work both strategically and purposefully. The course is also designed to help you build on what other researchers have done.

Through joining this course you can expect to:

• gain an overview of the intellectual traditions of Cyber-systemic Thinking Approaches,
• make links to the history of ISSS and other organized bodies concerned with cybersystemic research and scholarship,
• strengthen your research through developing understanding of cybersystemic theories and methodologies
• have an opportunity to reflect on strengths and weaknesses of different systems approaches and methodologies in relation to your own PhD research
• get added value from your participation in the Herrenhausen Systemic Inquiry and the Berlin ISSS Conference by also becoming part of a parallel critical learning systems community that has a PhD research focus
• critically review potential contributions of your research to help meet global challenges
• develop appreciation of multiple perspectives on contemporary issues
• work across multiple disciplines, build networks and establish new relationships supportive of your research and scholarship

Process

The course will be held in connection to the 2015 ISSS Conference in Berlin and the Herrenhausen ”Governing the Anthropocene” systemic inquiry (sponsored by the Volkswagen (VW) Foundation at the Herrenhausen Palace in Hannover – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrenhausen ) and draw on the gathering of specialists and researchers within this field. The design draws on tried and tested ways of experiential learning and the expertise of academics who have been designing learning experiences for mature age learners for many years. The course will be grounded in a project of your own choice, preferably based on your PhD work. In your time in the program, if accepted, you will participate in an inquiry with three main parts - before, during and after the conference. It will also involve some preparation and submission of a final reflection.

1. Before the course, you will be asked to complete an assignment in which you describe and reflect on either (i) your understanding and use of systems/cybernetic theories in your project; or (ii) the rationale you have followed, or would follow, in making a choice to include, or not, systems/cybernetic theories in your PhD research; this will require an on-line submission prior to your arrival.

2. The course will start with participation in a purposefully designed ‘systemic inquiry’ exploring the question: Governing the Anthropocene: cybersystemic possibilities” taking place on 30 - 31 July at Herrenhausen Hannover hosted by the VW Foundation. You will be engaged in active table-based inquiry with 150 invited participants keynote presenters and panels who will provide ‘evidence’ for your inquiry. As part of your participation you will be expected to help with report preparation from your inquiry group.

3. The second part of the course is a weekend workshop held on the campus of Humboldt University Berlin followed by the ISSS conference held at the Scandic Hotel, Berlin. This phase will start by exploring your own research context and needs and beginning a process of self-designing a ‘critical learning system’. You will be supported in the process by facilitators and other specialists who will provide inputs and resources and prepare you for the final phase of the course including mentorship that helps you plan your attendance at the most relevant sessions for you at the ISSS conference. It will also provide an opportunity for joint reflection and feedback as the conference progresses. The endpoint of this phase will be a presentation developed by the whole PhD group for the ISSS conference attendees during the final session.

4. After the conference (afternoon of 7 August), you and the other students will gather for half a day to recapitulate and work in groups, and complete the assignment that has been agreed, on possible improvements of your own PhD study design, or future research trajectory, linking it to cybersystemic thinking and practice. 

 Background and resources

This PhD course will benefit strongly from the fact that many outstanding researchers within the systems, cybernetics and complexity science approaches will be gathered at the ISSS Conference. Contributions specifically to this course will come from experienced researchers who have been a part of the ISSS and related community for many years. They will include lectures and/or workshops that

• introduce systems and cybernetic (hence cybersystemic) theories;
• consider different cybersystemic approaches and methodologies suitable for researching issues of contemporary concern grounded in the participant’s own research interests:
• bridge the different cybersystemic approaches – soft, hard, critical, viable, first-order, second-order etc.
• explore how to deal with handling of complexity and the role that modeling can play
• critically review focuses on action, learning and reflexivity
• explicate social learning and learning systems approaches
• explore the relationship between cybersystemic approaches and transdisciplinary research

THINK PROCESS: apply and submit verification to Humboldt; WAIT for confirmation, then REGISTER for ISSS STUDENT registration as per diagram below.

Key literature

Blackmore, Chris (Ed.) (2010) Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Springer: London. For online extracts see: http://www.springer.com/computer/information+systems+and+applications/book/978-1-84996-132-5

Ison, Ray (2010) Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World. Springer: London. For online extracts see: http://www.springer.com/computer/information+systems+and+applications/book/978-1-84996-124-0

Ramage, Manus and Shipp, Karen (2009) Systems Thinkers. Springer: London.
For online extracts see:
http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/behavioural/book/978-1-84882-524-6

Reynolds, Martin and Holwell, Sue. Systems Approaches to Managing Change. Springer: London. For online extracts see: http://www.springer.com/computer/information+systems+and+applications/book/978-1-84882-808-7

 Course Assessment

To obtain the course certificate you will be required to:

• complete the assignments as outlined above
• participate in the lectures and group discussion.
• participate in one of the relevant working groups of the ISSS conference .
• after the conference, discuss improvements to your own PhD study, or future research trajectory design linking it to cybersystemic thinking and practice.

 Nomination process

Nominations are open to any current PhD students studying anywhere in the world. A maximum of 30 places exists. When nominating students must:

·         provide details of their current PhD enrolment

·         explain in no more than a paragraph why they would benefit from the course

·         affirm that they have the financial resources to participate and have, or can obtain a relevant visa

Once acceptance has been notified by Humboldt, then students must register using the student registration box on the ISSS conference website to complete the process of acceptance on this programme.

Nominees will be advised by the end of April 2015.

Please be assured that acceptance onto the programme will allow registration until May 15 at the stated early registration rate on the conference website – see https://www.regonline.com/Register/Checkin.aspx?EventID=1659296 .

Fees

The only direct fee is the student registration fee for the ISSS conference (EUR 375 before April 30 and EUR 450 after). For those accepted all expenses at Herrenhausen (Hannover), including European travel, will be paid by the organisers. All other travel, accommodation and living expenses will be the responsibility of the student.

Application for the Course

Wiebke Hampel WINS Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Phone: +49-(0)30-2093-46382 Email : w.hampel@staff.hu-berlin.de

Course Team

Coordinators

Dr. Thomas Aenis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

Prof. Dr. Nadarajah Sriskandarajah, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Konrad Hagedorn, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany 

Guest lecturers

Prof. Dr. Ray Ison, The Open University Applied Systems Thinking in Practice Group, UK and Monash University, Australia (current President of the International Society for Systems Sciences)

Dr Chris Blackmore, The Open University Applied Systems Thinking in Practice Group, UK.

Governance failure - patterns that connect

Vastely different contexts but essentially the same issue and need - governance failure and a need for systemic governance reform.

The first an article by Thomas Friedman looks to the Middle East and the litany of policy failures, particularly by the US and its allies. He says:

"Ever since the Arab awakening in late 2010, America has lurched from one policy response to another. We tried decapitation without invasion in Libya; it failed. We tried abdication in Syria; it failed. We tried democratisation in Egypt, endorsing the election of the Muslim Brotherhood; it failed. We tried invasion, occupation, abdication and now re-intervention in Iraq and, although the jury is still out, only a fool would be optimistic.

Maybe the beginning of wisdom is admitting that we don't know what we're doing out here and, more important, we don't have the will to invest overwhelming force for the time it would take to reshape any of these places – and, even if we did, it is not clear it would work.

So if the Middle East is a region we can neither fix nor ignore, what's left? I'm for "containment" and "amplification"."

So what is amplification and containment? Friedman goes on to explain what he means:

"How so? Where there is disorder – Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya – collaborate with regional forces to contain it, which is basically what we're doing today. I just hope we don't get in more deeply. Where there is imposed order – Egypt, Algeria – work quietly with the government to try to make that order more decent, just, inclusive and legitimate. Where there is already order and decency – Morocco, Jordan, Lebanon, Kurdistan and the United Arab Emirates – do everything to amplify it, so it becomes more consensual and sustainable. And where there is order, decency and democracy – Tunisia – give  them as much money as they ask for (which we haven't done).

But never forget: We can only amplify what they do. When we start change or it depends on our staying power, it is not self-sustaining – the most important value in international relations. When it starts with them, it can be self-sustaining."

Friedman's claim that 'when it starts with them, it can be self sustaining' could well be understood as a rallying call for governance reform as much in the USA, or in fact any nation, as in the Middle East. The USA and Israel fostered systemic failure of democratic emergence when they failed to appreciate what Hamas had to do to become, and would have had to do to stay as, the elected government of Gaza.  The same could be said of  Egypt.  Equally the case of the Federal seat of Indi, in Victoria, Australia, won through a grass roots campaign that threw out the local sitting member, speaks to Friedman's adage of ...when it starts with them.....!

Friedman's claims extend beyond political governance to that of how we govern our relations with the biophysical world and with other species.  The second case I want to highlight is  a new report which concerns the runaway over exploitation of our forests:

“Throughout the tropics, staggering amounts of land have been designated for natural resource extraction—as much as 40 percent of Peru, 30 percent of Indonesia and 35 percent of Liberia. However, much of this land is already in use; it is being inhabited by local communities and indigenous peoples. And while it is possible to live on and extract resources from the same land, when local communities are not consulted in this exchange, conflict may erupt.”

This is systemic failure of governance of the most perverse kind because the circumstances for determining their futures are denied to local and indigenous communities.  It is the same issue with the Tanzanian government's attempts to exclude the Masai from their traditional lands. 


These pressing challenges directly confront the relevance of contemporary research practice - particularly in the social domain.  Victor Galaz recently wrote that:

"Having spent years and years in academia writing papers, and attending scientific conferences, workshops and meetings I’ve come to realize that social science scholars, including myself, are failing. The social sciences clearly have a lot of important things to say about global risks. But knowledge is becoming so specialized and fragmented, that I sincerely fear it is loosing touch with the risks posed by the interacting environmental and socio-technological unfolding around us..........This fragmentation is not only troubling but also downright dangerous. The next generation of decision-makers and social scientists not only need to disrupt disciplinary barriers, but also base their work from the observation that tomorrow’s global environmental risks are dynamic. When the G20 this weekend gathers to discuss proposals to reform global institutions, the emphasis should not only be placed on the international community’s ability to prevent and respond to global risks. It should also explore alternative models of governance able to help break paralyzing political “gridlocks”; navigate the potential transgression of devastating ecological and biophysical thresholds; and promote innovation that span beyond quick techno-fixes. And last but not least: promote international institutional reforms that are perceived by the general public as transparent, and legitimate."

It is not only research practice but the design of public policy.  Take for example the situation with the locally-based Landcare model in Australia.  As outlined recently:

Among the environmental fallout of the federal budget, Australia’s Landcare program has taken a hit, losing A$484 million. In return, the government’s environmental centrepiece, the Green Army, receives A$525 million.   But switching money from Landcare to the Green Army is trading down for a less effective conservation model. It also repeats a pattern of reduced funding and weakened delivery started under former Prime Minister John Howard, and confuses improved agricultural productivity with improved environmental management.

This is yet another example of command and control approaches to policy development which undermine institutions that enable governance that is self-sustaining because it begins with them!

Failing governance - an emerging conversation

A recent survey has found that Australian voters are unhappy with their elected representatives and want the political system reformed.

At least a conversation of sorts is starting around this important issue.  The Victorian election on Saturday can only add more evidence for the need for reform whether it is the way the upper house seats are now being determined by complex preference deals that game 'the system' to the fact that with over 11% of the primary vote the Greens only have one lower house candidate elected (although they look like having five in the upper house).

Of course representative politics is but one aspect of the need for governance reform.

The economic case for fossil fuel divestment

"Leaving aside the ethics of divestment and pursuing a purely rational economic analysis, the cold hard numbers of putting money into fossil fuels don’t look good.

Unless universities are willing to bet on the destruction of the planet they have committed themselves to understanding and preserving, divestment from fossil fuels is the only choice they can make. Forward-thinking investors of all kinds would be wise to follow suit."

Writes John Quiggin in The Conversation.

Transformative thinking and practice

The after dinner speaker at a recent Peter Cullen Trust meeting was John Hewson, former leader of the Australian Liberal party who is now a strident critic of much that is being done (and not done) by the incumbent Federal Liberal/National Party government. It was for me a very inspiring talk. Why? Because I experienced it as authentic, well reasoned, and evidenced a person who was prepared to 'walk his talk'.

I was particularly impressed by the work that John and colleagues are doing under the aegis of "The Asset Owners Disclosure Project" (AODP). This is "an independent not-for-profit global organisation whose objective is to protect members' retirement savings from the risks posed by climate change by improving the level of disclosure and industry best practice." It is worth looking at the interview with John at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney, Australia, located on the project website where he discusses "how your pension is destroying the planet." I sincerely hope his work contributes to accelerated growth of the divestment movement.

The AODP has created an index "following information requests to the world’s 1000 largest asset owners including over 800 pension funds, 80 insurance companies, 50 sovereign wealth funds and 30 foundations/endowments. Together, they manage more than US$70 trillion". The index supports the aim of AODP to "help funds to redress the huge imbalance in their investments between high-carbon assets (50-60% of a portfolio) and low-carbon assets (typically less than 2%) and realign the investment chain to adopt long-term investment practices".

What is particularly impressive is that John has understood the science of climate change for a long time and has been a consistent advocate for innovation and change that moves us collectively towards a post-carbon society.  Of course this is yet another commitment that places him out of sympathy with the current Australian government, who have clearly been shown at the recent G20 meeting to be out of step with the rest of the world.

Since becoming aware of the AODP project I have wondered if those involved in the project and those who support its aims are also aware of some broader systemic issues that also warrant transformation? For example, Simon Caulkin, a former management editor of the Observer (UK), has been one of the most consistent critics of the distortions in management understandings and practices that now seem to be taken for granted. In a recent article he explains how these insights emerged for him: 

“….management didn’t do what it said on the tin, and now, knitting together what I had sensed before, I thought I could see why, although I struggled to express it.

But although I had most of the pieces, the final epiphany only came later. It arrived in three parts. One was at a conference in Brussels last February, put on by an enterprising Czech-based NGO, the Frank Bold Society, on The Purpose of the Corporation. The briefing included a memo which set out the legal position in black and white: across jurisdictions, as a matter of law, shareholders don’t own the corporation, and directors’ fiduciary duty is to the company with which they have a contract. So in brief, shareholder capitalism, and the whole theory of corporate governance that has evolved to sustain it, including the assumptions about human nature and behaviour that it is supposed to control, is based on a myth.

The second ‘aha’ moment was at a Vanguard conference on health, some of the profound findings of which I wrote about here. One of them was that the thinking that would make the difference between a manageable and unmanageable NHS was not inherently difficult: it was just different. So different, in fact, that the existing management worldview couldn’t be modified to incorporate it – change could only come if that worldview was replaced. That helped to explain why initial resistance to the ideas was so strong.

The third element was an invitation to a workshop put on by the alumni of the Open University’s Systems Thinking in Practice course. The aim of the event was to give support and sustenance to systems thinkers who, for the reasons outlined above, could easily find themselves isolated and discouraged at work. I had expected to be interested and stimulated by the occasion, but it turned out to be rather more than that. Slightly unwillingly I found myself participating in an exercise designed to draw the lessons from a situation where systems thinking had helped in the past and consider how to apply them again in the future.

Bingo! Suddenly, reflecting on my trajectory, I could see what had been staring me in the face all along. It’s a system, stupid. The management apparatus that has been developed in business school and university economics and finance departments to further shareholder value and control is all of a piece, from governance, through the measures and techniques used, right down to performance management on the shop or call-centre floor. If the organising principle of shareholder primacy can’t be justified, it’s not an accident that so much of management designed around it is ‘wrong’ – the surprise would be if any of it were right.”

Simon is not a lone voice in making these claims. Eric Beinhocker, in article called 'A truer form of capitalism', says: 

“Starting in the 1980s, elite business schools began teaching future managers and investors that the only metric that matters is shareholder value. This was a dramatic change, as throughout most of its history American capitalism had operated on a stakeholder model in which managers sought to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders, including investors, customers, employees, and local communities. The shareholder-value revolution created a short-term quarterly earnings culture, a bias toward sweating assets versus building them, a view that employees are a cost to be managed rather than human capital to be invested in, and a love of debt. It also made CEOs and their top managers immensely rich by showering them with stock options. While CEO compensation shot upwards, corporate debt levels climbed, R&D spending dropped, and employee churn and temporary work rose.”

John Menadue, and a series  of posting by Ian McAuley explore some of these broader systemic issues that raise serious concerns about the status and institutions of contemporary capitalism.