Abstract
Policy cycle is the idea that policy proceeds in distinct stages from policy formulation to implementation and it can be used to understand and structure policy development. In this essay, it uses policy cycle model to analyse the case-"The parrot, the wind farm and the Minister". Then, it finds that when
Introduction
Policy cycle is the idea that policy proceeds in distinct stages from policy formulation to implementation. Generally, Policy cycle with a range of strengths:
-The policy cycle approach stresses that government is a process, and not just a collection of venerable institutions.
- It disaggregates complex phenomena into manageable steps, allowing us to focus on the different issues and needs of each phase in the cycle.
- A policy cycle allows some synthesis of existing knowledge about public policy.
-It serves as a description of policy making, to assist in making sense of policy development, past and present.
-It is normative, suggesting a particular sequence as an appropriate way to approach the policy task (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P23).
Also, a good policy should include the basic elements of the policy cycle. More explicitly, a policy process that does not include everything from problem identification to implementation to evaluation has less chance of success. In the rest of this essay, it will use policy cycle model to analyze the case-"The parrot, the wind farm and the Minister", and find out whether the policy makers follow all the steps of policy cycle model (Figure 1) in that case. Then a conclusion about whether the policy cycle can explain the process of making public policy will be given. Besides that, a similar case from
(Figure 1,
While policy making can be represented in many ways, Australian experience suggests a policy cycle is likely to begin with issue identification, and then proceed through policy analysis, policy instruments, consultation, coordination, decision, implementation and evaluation (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P26).
Identify issues
Much policy begins with identifying issues. A new problem emerges in private discussions with interest groups, or in the media, with demands for government action. Sometimes an existing policy proves to be no longer effective and requires an overhaul- there is never a shortage of people telling government what it should be doing (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P26).
In the Parrot case, the key issue is about whether Australia Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell approves the development of wind farm or not. In the earlier of the year 2004, the development of wind farm had been approved by the Victorian Government but many local environment and community groups were strongly opposed to the farm. The problem is that the wind farms on the grounds that it would push an endangered species – the Orange-bellied Parrot and affect the people live there. This kind of parrot is an endangered bird species native to southern
Policy analysis
Once an issue has caught the eye of government, policy analysis becomes important, for without information it will difficult to frame options. It is designed to provide decision makers with sufficient information about the policy problem to make an informed judgment (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P27).
In this case, governments outsourced their analysis and the evidence is from Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants and Biosis Pty Ltd. Both of them find that although the area in question did not support abundant birdlife or significant numbers of threatened species, the wind farm only presented a very minor additional risk to the species.
Particularly, in Biosis's report they used risk modelling to determine the impact of wind farms on a number of species. Biosis found that, "the additional mortality predicted for the cumulative effects of turbine collisions for wind farms within the range of the Orange-bellied Parrot is likely to result in the additional death of less than one bird per annum." (Figure 2) However, as it is difficult to track the movements of such a small population with great certainty, Biosis's results based on the assumption of OBPs would make 15 passages through the farm each year, despite the fact that no sightings had been recorded there. Thus, in my opinion the evidence was not sufficient. And even though this information was reliable, the Minster didn't take the recommendation from the report. Hence, I think this policy lacked of analysis.
| (Figure 2) Cumulative survivorship values for the Orange-bellied Parrot population from potential collision risk posed by 17 wind farms in south-eastern |
| ||||||
| | Survivorship Survivorship Survivorship | | |||||
| rate at 95% | rate at 98% | rate at 99% | |||||
| avoidance rate | avoidance rate | avoidance rate | |||||
| 0.9910 | 0.9933 | 0.9944 | |||||
| | | |
| ||||
Policy analysis leads to identification of appropriate policy instruments. Some problems require legislation, others adjustment of the internal operations of government agencies.
In this case, the problem required legislation.
-Minister Campbell invoked a rarely used power under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to block the State Government approved Bald Hills wind farm. Under the Act the Environment Minister is responsible for listing threatened species and ecological communities that may trigger Commonwealth intervention. If the Minister believes a development proposal will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species he can block the development, regardless of State Government views. (Stringer, Rivers, 2006) Thus, Campbell cited a need for further research to better determine the impact of the wind farm on the OBP before he could make a judgement.
-In March 2005, the company lost patience with the Minister. Using the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, Bald Hills Wind Farm launched Federal Court action to compel Campbell to make a decision.
-In response to Campbell's decision, the wind farm launched further Federal Court proceedings against the Minister in May 2006. The company applied to have the decision reconsidered under Section 5 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.
-In relation to the case, Bald Hills asserted that the Minister had failed to take several relevant considerations into account whilst assessing the application against the EPBC Act. The decision was also contested on the grounds of "unreasonableness". During a Federal Court directions hearing before Justice Mark Weinberg, the DEH advice to approve the wind farm became public.
-After the directions hearing, Campbell claimed that the wind farm had approached him in order to "get the matter out of court. 21 In August 2006, the company and the Commonwealth agreed on consent orders, which were then given by the court.
Consultation
One important method to test the strength of the analysis, and the feasibility of the proposed response, is consultation. The architecture of government tends to duplication ad overlap, since many problems draw in a wide range of players (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P25). In this case, the consultation was about the opinion from some stakeholders.
- Opponents（wind lobby）
▪ Report of Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants
They said that the impacts on bird population appear likely to be negligible and more sophisticated modelling would seem inappropriate and unlikely to yield meaningful predictions.
▪ Report of Biosis Pty Ltd:
Biosis found that, although almost any negative impact on the species could be
sufficient to tip the balance against the bird's continued existence, the prevented of turbine collisions will have extremely limited beneficial value to conservation of the parrot without addressing very much greater adverse effects that are currently operating against it.
▪ DEH first assistant secretary
In March 2005, Gerard Early recommended that he approve the wind farm. He reportedly wrote that the impact on the parrot would probably be "negligible and there is no threat of serious or irreversible damage" to the bird:
1. No OBP has been recorded there.
2. There appears to be no suitable habitat on the site and it is not considered to be a major migration passage.
▪ Wind power as clean, green energy vs coal etc
They argue that the wind energy has the following benefits:
1. Wind energy is friendly to the surrounding environment, as no fossil fuels are burnt to generate electricity from wind energy.
2. Wind turbines take up less space than the average power station.
3. Newer technologies are making the extraction of wind energy much more efficient. The wind is free, and we are able to cash in on this free source of energy.
4. Wind turbines are a great resource to generate energy in remote locations, such as mountain communities and remote countryside. (Clean energy ideas, 2007)
▪ Evidence is not strong for species effects：
Victorian Government report, based on the same information, found the impact of the wind farms on the orange-bellied parrot to be one death every 1,000 years. The report indicated that there have been no recorded sightings of the parrot on the site, and indeed that it hasn't be seen within 50km. Hence，the opponents think the Minster's evidence is not strong. (Stringer, Rivers, 2006)
- Supporters（Against wind）
▪ The NIMBY ('not in my backyard') approach: They send letter to the minster and told him the wind turbine will really affect their life.
1. It is a visually intrusive development that would have a negative impact on tourism and the turbine made too much noise.
3. The value of their property will devalue because of its close proximity to the wind farm (Yarram, 2006).
▪ People who do not like change: The influx of people, money and development proposals lead the regional councils to pay more attention on preserving local character and heritage values. Thus, both long-term and new residents were often don't like large-scale projects and the change it brought to them.
▪ The decision maker Campbell:
1. During 2004-2006, he was very focus on the wind farm's impact of the bird.
2. He compared the population's dangerously low levels to the Giant Panda and Siberian Tiger, and said it was consequently unable to sustain any additional deaths from wind farms. Campbell also cited the recent death of a rare eagle in Woolnorth wind farm in Tasmania as a "wake-up call" as to the damage wind farms can "regularly" cause to "threatened and endangered species."
3. He also argues the Howard Government has created a massive problem by approving too many (almost 600) wind farms over the past decade without adequately examining their environmental impact. (Stringer, Rivers, 2006)
Coordination
Once a policy proposal is ready for consideration by the government, issues of coordination arise. This typically requires discussions with treasury about available funding for a policy, and with other central agencies over the relation between a new proposal and over the relation between a new proposal and overall government direction (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P27).
In the parrot case, there is no coordination shown. The decision was made solely by the Campbell from Department of Environment and Heritage. But potentially, it did need some coordination between different departments. For example, the parrot's activities are between Victoria and Tasmania, if some policies were about this parrot, it needs the coordination between these two state's departments. Another side, the wind farm was related to the power supply area. So potentially, it needs power supplier department coordinate with the environment department.
Decision
As the cycle proceeds, a policy issue is identified, analysed, matched with appropriate instruments, discussed with relevant interests, and tested against central policy and financial considerations. The time for a decision has arrived. In the Australian setting, this means consideration by cabinet (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P28).
In April 2006, Australian Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell vetoed a proposed Victorian wind farm on the grounds that it would push an endangered species – the Orange-bellied Parrot – closer to extinction.
Implementation
The cycle does not conclude with a cabinet decision. Implementation must follow, in which the policy is given expression through legislation or a program, in pursuit of the goals agreed by ministers (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P28).
In parrot case，the decision was made despite the existence of two reports which concluded that the farm only presented a very minor additional risk to the species. It also went against the recommendation by his Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) to approve the farm. Campbell's verdict prompted the developer (Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd) to take legal action to compel him to reconsider. In August 2006, the company and the Commonwealth agreed on consent orders, which ordered the matter to be reconsidered by the Minister according to law.
Evaluation
Evaluation is essential so government can gauge the effects of a policy and adjust or rethink policy design as appropriate. Such evaluation, of course, stats the cycle afresh, with a new look at the problem, and a reconsideration of the recommended instruments (Bridgman and Davis, 2004, P25).
Many people cannot understand Ian Campbell's decision and he was suffered from a lot of pressure. Finally, on December 21 2006 he changed his mind with subject to a number of conditions which included：
-Ensuring that no turbines be built within 2 kilometres of the coast
-Turbines or related infrastructure cannot be built within 300m of the boundary of a local wetland reserve
-The company must submit an avifauna management plan, including the identification of a qualified independent observer to undertake monitoring on site of listed species as well as any bird strike.
-Any death of threatened or migratory species must be reported to the Government within 48 hours. A second death would result in the temporary shutting down of the project while the developer provided a further management plan.
However, Campbell's troubles were not yet over. The developer claimed that the delay had added $30 million to development costs and were looking at legal action to recoup the extra funds.
Fortunately (do you need to express this judgement??), five years after Campbell caved in and belatedly approved the project. And the proposed cost of the project has blown out to $300million, with the wind farm now scheduled to operate from 2011, Japanese company Mitsui has acquired 100 per cent of the shares of Bald Hills Wind Farm Pty Ltd, a special-purpose company that held the development rights for the planned 52-turbine project near the southern Victorian town of Wonthaggi.
It also expected to manage the facility once it was built by the end of 2011 and Mitsui are looking forward to building it to enable the Government to meet its renewable energy targets (Hannan, 2008).
Economic vs. Environment
In the parrot case, it finds out that it did not follow the steps of the Australian policy cycle well, and it was considered as not a good public policy. But on the other hand, Campbell made that decision was because he concerned the environment. He wanted the wind farm to minimise effect on the parrot and people who live there. Maybe he did not realise that wind farm was also good for the environment. In the real world, when there is a conflict between economic and environment, people always hard to decide. Although Campbell's decision was not good, his thought should be admired. He did not just consider the economic, but also the environment. Human being is not the only creature living on the earth, people should respect other creatures. And if people want to live on the earth longer, we do need respect environment too. And now, because of the improper activities, the environment has been destroyed, such as greenhouse effect, El Nino and the hole in ozone layer. These negative effects are all due to the people's activities. So, to a certain extent, Campbell's thought should be also praised.
Compared with Campbell, sometimes the Chinese local governments put the economic issue in the first place. In 2007, on March 22's Xiao Xiang Morning Post, Lian Yue, an active blogger and a freelance writer, published a column on a dangerous chemical project in South-Eastern China's Xiamen City, Fujian Province.
In the article, Lian Yue said the one million people in Xiamen, if they are keeping an eye on the local media, should be very familiar with the city's P-Xylene (a harmful chemical) project, which allegedly is going to yield an annual output worth 80 billion RMB after completion. The project was put in the Fujian governor's government report. On the official website of the Xiamen government, there is also an article about it dated on Jan. 14, 2007. The article, named "Reporting to the Secretary General", said that on Nov. 17, 2006, the biggest industry project in Xiamen's history, the 800 thousand-ton PX project, kicked off. The report said that this means a world-level petrochemical giant (Xiamen) is emerging. At the just-concluded two conferences, Zhao Yufen, a member of the CPPCC (Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference), led a proposal on terminating Xiamen's PX project, because it poses a major hidden danger to public safety. The proposal was co-signed by 105 CPPCC members, and was named the top proposal at this year's CPPCC meeting.
China Business, a weekly newspaper, reported on Mar. 19 that PX is a dangerous chemical and carcinogen. Its production should be placed 100 kilometres away from cities to ensure safety. But in Xiamen, the centre of the PX project is only seven kilometres away from downtown and from the national scenic area Guliangyu. Haichang district, which is within a five-kilometre radius of the project, has a population of 100,000. The project's port is located in Xiamen National Nature Reserve of Rare Marine Species. But the top proposal never appears in Xiamen's media. To Xiamen's citizens, the proposal is non-existent. Lian Yue said at the end of the article that in the eyes of government officials, "there is only the short-term GDP income. Public safety and long-term benefit can both be sacrificed. It's not hard to imagine that within the whole country, there are many dangerous projects being launched without a whisper of opposition. We all live in a public space without public safety." The next day, Lian, who lives in Xiamen, published another column story on Southern Metropolitan News. In the column, "The Environmental Officials Who Can't Protect the Environment," Lian quoted China Business and said that Zhu Xingxiang, Chief of the Environmental Evaluation Section of the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA), expressed his inability to stop the project. "A fundamental problem is the project is approved by the State Development and Reform Commission. SEPA has no say on the relocation of the project," reported China Business. (Lian, 2007) On June 1st and 2nd 2007, there were parades on Xiamen city, the people live in Xiamen wanted to the local government stops the PX project. And these parades have some effectives. First, local government relocated the PX project. Second, the local government block the passage of message.[1]
A little summary about this Chinese story, the local government wanted the GDP, and ignored the Central Government's decision. Then it tried to lie to the citizen. But, truth will come to light sooner or later, people finally realised the truth and fight for their rights. Obviously, what Xiamen government decided was really a bad public policy. Government should pursue the Green- GDP, but not the Toxic- GDP.
To sum up, when the policy makers face dilemma between economic and environment, they should consider both of them. From this aspect, what Campbell did was worth for Chinese government.
It finds that when Campbell first time made the public policy about the parrot and wind farm, he did not follow the Australian Policy Cycle very well; he did not get sufficient information at the policy analysis stage and did not take the recommendation of the consultants and his Department of Environment and Heritage. Consequently, some people cannot understand this public policy. From this point of view, the policy about parrot and wind farm is not a good policy, and the Australia policy cycle can only partly explain public policy in this case. But compared with a case from Xiamen China, what Campbell did was concerned about the parrot and people who live near the Bald Hills; he was trying to protect the environment. Thus, in the other hand, although his decision may not convince the other people, the Chinese government should learn from his point of view
Bridgman, P. and Davis, G., (2004) Australian policy handbook, 3rd edn, Allen & Unwin, Sydney
Clean energy ideas, (2007), Advantages & Disadvantages of Wind Energy, http://www.clean-energy-ideas.com/articles/advantages_ and_disadvantages_of
_wind_energy.html
Hannan, E., (2008), Japanese firm buys up wind project
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/japanese-firm-buys-up-wind-project/story-e6frg6xf-1111116578052
John, P (2000) Analysing public policy, York House Typographic,
Stringer, S. and Rivers, N., (2006), Wind Power gets a Federal blow-off, www.edowa.org.au/newsletters/200606Newsletter.pdf
YARRAM, (2006), PROPOSED WINDFARM -COMMUNITY CONCERNS http://yarrampa.customer.netspace.net.au/windfarm-community.html
Lian,Y. (2007), The Biggest Chemical Project Puts Xiamen in Danger
http://www.xwhb.com/gb/13/2007-6/1/076109100443986_268.html
[1] Now, people cannot access this news from main Chinese website. And some big website mediums reported this news, but after the parade, they deleted the news, only said the local government deferred the PX project. Some websites reported the whole story, such as Wikipedia, but these websites cannot access in the Mainland China. There were a lot of photos about the parade on Flickr, but after parade, Chinese people cannot access Flickr too.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment