New environmental governance

This thesis empirically examines a bold and profoundly new way of governing environmental problems. This so called “new environmental governance” (NEG) is palpable around the globe and aims to overcome the limitations of the interventionist state and its market alternative to offer more effective and legitimate solutions to today’s most pressing environmental problems. To counter the pathologies of these traditional approaches, NEG emphasises a host of novel characteristics including participation, collaboration, decentralisation, deliberation, flexibility, learning and adaptation and “new” forms of accountability. While these unique features have generated significant praise and excitement from scholars, there has in fact been very few systematic evaluations of NEG programs in practice, and it is still unclear whether this unique approach will in fact “work”, and if so, when and how. Responding to these issues, this study seeks to contribute to closing the gap between theory and practice by examining the conditions under which we can achieve “good” NEG. Focusing its inquiry around some of the most central, controversial and/or under researched characteristics of NEG, the thesis provides insights into the conditions under which we can best achieve successful collaboration, effective learning and adaptation, meaningful participatory and deliberative governance and effective forms of accountability. To derive its insights the thesis examines three Australian experiments in NEG that cover point source pollution, diffuse urban pollution and natural resource management. Comparing across these diverse cases ensures the study goes beyond the limited existing research by capturing a wide diversity of conditions and offering unique comparative insights into the operation of NEG in different policy areas. The findings that emerge suggest that NEG can work, but it may not be as straightforward or as effective as many may hope. This conclusion leads the thesis to identify seven key conditions or pillars of “good” NEG that are central to its success and can provide useful guidance for practitioners and scholars. The thesis also reveals four additional key insights for NEG theory. First, the findings suggested that NEG in practice supports claims by both critics and proponents of NEG’s novel approach to governance. This leads the thesis to counsel both sides to put the boxing gloves to one side and better respond to the world as it is rather than as they would like it to be. Second the thesis’ research confirms the hybridity hypothesis regarding the interaction between law and new governance. Thirdly, it provides some key insights into the role of the State, suggesting that it remains strong and active, but pointing to the need for normative theories to better address the thesis’ findings regarding the risks of State authority. Finally it draws on empirical insights to highlight the divergent types of non government actors involved in NEG, and details the different consequences each pose for NEG's participatory aspirations