Session 6: Further application of the Collaborative Governance framework to understand the case of Rural Revitalisation in Lai Chi Wo, Hong Kong

In essence, this framework provides a systematic and comprehensive mechanism to understanding collaboration in rural revitalisation.  As suggested by Emerson and colleagues (2011), collaborative governance and its ultimate creation of collaborative governance regimes (“CGRs”) are unfolded within a multi-layered system. Therefore, an integrative framework is required to synthesise the existing research findings and knowledge into a larger conceptual map.  In practice, one may not be entirely sure about where to start when examining a collaboration process. Here, the framework offers a generalized starting point that is easy to follow.

The framework points us to investigate the general system context where the revival of LCW occurs against the backdrop of heated policy debates in Hong Kong society. The Small House Policy (1972) stipulates that a male indigenous villager is entitled to a right to construct a house on his land at a concessionary premium when he turns 18 years old. The issue was further complicated by the enactment of the Country Park Ordinance in 1995.  With such an understanding of the dynamic in the political environment, one may comprehend the underlying cause for the mistrust and conflicts among actors, which hinder the collaboration process.  Apart from the dynamic in the political environment, one may also readily find the other two components of the general system context (institutional environment and sector failure) mentioned in the framework useful and relevant to realise how the CGR is unfolded.

Moreover, with the help of the framework, one may examine the challenges of developing and maintaining a CGR using the case study of the LCW Project. Two of these challenges will be explained below as well as some ways to address them.

 

Different Goals and Beliefs among Stakeholders

The alignment of goals plays a pivotal role in ensuring that various interests and policy objectives are directed towards shared motivation (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015).  Such a task is, however, challenging in the LCW Project when major stakeholder groups held diverging policy beliefs.  On the one hand, green groups are lobbying the government for absolute protection of country parks, including restriction of village activities and expansion (Town Planning Board [TPB], 2014). On the other hand, some villagers strongly uphold their right to develop, asserting that the government should respect their entitled rights and more land should be designated to meet their future demand of small houses (TPB, 2014).

In light of such controversies, HKU provided leadership in establishing communication channels across stakeholder groups. Through better understanding various interests and concerns, HKU proposed a way forward which capture and integrate the objectives of different stakeholders so as to enable collaboration in the first place. This was achieved by strategically reframing certain issues and including both environmental management and community rebuilding in the project.  For instance, farming activities was re-introduced to the village but in a sustainable manner to address the needs and concerns of villagers and conservationists.

 
Mistrust and Misunderstanding

Mistrust and misunderstanding tend to be particularly prominent when there is no facilitator between the various stakeholders to foster communication in a collaboration process (Huxham et al., 2000).  As such, HKU organised forums and regular network meetings to create venues for constructive dialogue among interested parties.  This helped gather the wider community endorsement in the meantime.  Other than regular communication channels created between collaborating parties, the leading organisation must also recognise the need to create platforms for discussion when new issues arise or become salient.

Take the management of the village stream in LCW for instance.  While the government intended to protect the rich biodiversity in the stream, villagers considered it necessary to continue their traditional management practices.  Considering such a conflict may hinder the revitalisation process at LCW, HKU invited ecological specialists and experts to join the discussion and convince the government that the use of stream would not substantially threaten its ecological value.  This instance sheds light on the indispensable role of HKU in promoting rational discussions among actors to build trust and avoid misunderstanding, contributing to the success of the CGR and LCW Project.

Learn more on “How neglected Lai Chi Wo village became culturally vibrant, Unesco-award-winning farming settlement”:
Source: https://www.scmp.com/presented/lifestyle/topics/towards-sustainable-world/article/3161239/lai-chi-wo

References: 

Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science, 357(6352).

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1), 1-29.

Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.

Huxham, C., Vangen, S., Huxham, C., & Eden, C. (2000). The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management an International Journal of Research and Theory, 2(3), 337-358.

Law, W. W. Y., Yiu, S. I. S., & Chick, H. L. (2018). Vivifying Lai Chi Wo: Sustainable Lai Chi Wo Programme Four Year Review and Outlook. Policy for Sustainability Lab.

Town Planning Board of HKSAR. (2013). Minutes of 1047th Meeting of the Town Planning Board held on 6.12.2013. The Government of Hong Kong SAR.

Town Planning Board of HKSAR. (2014). Draft Lai Chi Wo, Siu Tan and Sam A Tsuen Outline Zoning Plan No. S/NE-LCW/C Preliminary Consideration of a New Plan. The Government of Hong Kong SAR.

 

Continue to “Session 7: Concluding Remarks”