Who is Best Placed to Make What Decisions? Multilevel Governance and Adaptation to Climate Change - Some Observations from South Australia.

Abstract

Coordination of decision making between organisations at different levels is central to Multilevel Governance (MLG). Organisations involved in adaptation to climate change generate the best outcomes if they work collaboratively, not competitively, to address this global to local issue. Multilevel Governance, a theory developed in the European Union, is increasingly being applied across the world and in a diverse range of sectors including adaptation to climate change. MLG is a contested theory or concept and unique to each context; defining MLG at the start of any application is necessary to enable explicit framing of that practice. MLG is defined here as a system of processes grounded in negotiations between multiple levels of organisations resulting in the allocation of decision-making authority based on the principle of subsidiarity. MLG thus provides a useful framework to negotiate the best people in the best positions collaborating to make the decisions that are most relevant to them. That is, making decisions they are best placed to make. Who decides what is a continuous negotiated process based on agreed values in each context. Is MLG being used in Australia and South Australian in the climate change sector? If not, what might it take to support a more rigorous application of MLG? This research explores MLG in South Australian adaptation to climate change using Regional Adaptation Planning (RAP) as a case study. Four levels of governance are active in RAPs: state government, regional landscape boards, local government, and community groups. Key informant interviews were used to explore who makes what decisions and what is required to build governance practice in the RAP process. Results indicate that there is a wide range of decision- makers throughout the process, coordination between organisations is weak and while most of the basic foundations of a MLG system are in place they need to be strengthened and built upon. This research makes contributions to resolving the tension between MLG as a descriptor, as is currently common practice, versus a theory which informs project design and implementation. The research elevates subsidiarity to a major component of MLG promoting partner interdependence and project success. It further explores the relationship between MLG and polycentric governance PCG and how this may contribute to governance praxis. Recommendations for consolidating governance praxis, developing the enabling processes, adopting long-termism, and sustaining networks and resourcing are presented. Recommendations include building a comprehensive community of practice for governance, strengthening the manifestation of enabling processes, and institutionalising and resourcing the application of MLG in designing future programmes across all levels. Ultimately, shifts in power dynamics and transitioning to a collaborative ethic are required to build robust coordination practices and to justify the attribution of the neologism MLG.