Aim of the research: • Learnings of system harmonization in Western Sydney • Requirements to succeed in trans-disciplinary engaged research • "if you were designing system harmonization again, based on the WISER experience what would you do to ensure that it worked?"

There are repeated calls to “harmonize” laws between jurisdictions, as simplicity is meant to engender compliance and therefore improved outcomes. Universality and uniformity is considered desirable due to equality concerns, and the reduction of transaction costs and bureaucratic red tape beneficial to business. Reforms may be hampered however if the heterogeneity appreciated by geography is overlooked. Rather than being forced into an idealised conformity better outcomes may be possible if local differences were respected and reflected. Equally problematic may be the absence of common purpose. Attempts at harmonization in the USA and Australia suggest that agreement is critical otherwise protection will be forestalled by conflict between commercial and conservation interests. Unless such contestation is harnessed for generative reform, and the facilitation of broader support for the environment, protection will continue to regress. Harmonization of common (and higher) purpose is critical for making what currently appears impossible - improved environmental protection - possible.

Our research in Western Sydney (Technical Report No. 08/08) identified the need for greater innovation in water use by moving from a substantially regulatory system to a more market driven system which expands the range of water related services that can achieve economic value through an environmental services market concept. The need for such a market approach reflects the current political economy of Natural Resource Management (NRM) decision making in peri-urban Australia, which results in continued resource depletion and degradation; institutional barriers to innovative solutions; and high transaction costs in affecting change. An environmental market driven system would ideally shift decision making from the political economy to a market economy and result in a lessening of transaction costs and facilitate greater innovation. For such a market to exist requires firstly the environmental goods and services (or commodities) clearly identified; and secondly the required market structure to enable trade. Martin et al. (2007) proposed an environmental business model for providing the groundwork for an environmental market structure to enable trading. What is missing to complement this market structure is a consistent methodology and classification system to identify ecosystem services as viable commodities. This technical report provides a conceptual framework for identifying and valuing ecosystem services in peri-urban Australia using South Creek sub-catchment in Western Sydney as a case study.

It is just over two years since David Cameron was elected as British Prime Minister. Since his election, Cameron has implemented a range of policy changes that are considered to have 'redefined the role of the state' and, correspondingly, the roles of the private and community sectors. These 'Big Society' changes were first articulated by Phillip Blond, director of UK think tank ResPublica in his 2010 book 'Red Tory'. Blond drew on ideas, assumptions, values and policies that have previously been associated with the 'Third Way', including a commitment to a smaller state and an expanded role for the community sector. Cameron drew on Blond's ideas in the context of major cuts to public spending, and many critics view 'Big Society' as a new way of presenting a longstanding neoliberal preference for shrinking government through budget cuts, privatisation and outsourcing. The UK's 'Big Society' changes have certainly enabled an expanded role for corporations in the provision of public services. ... This report presents a comprehensive analysis of the UK's 'Big Society' policies and programs and examines their potential impact if adopted and implemented in Australia. It is intended to contribute to an informed debate about the merits of 'small government' ideologies and policies that often receive less than critical media and political commentary here.

Technology transfer managers are a new group of specialist professionals engaged in facilitating transfer of university research discoveries and inventions to business firms and other research users. With relatively high academic qualifications and enjoying higher salaries than many other comparable university staff, technology transfer managers tend to have been recruited from outside the higher education sector, having had significant commercial and public-sector experience. On average, they spend longer hours in work activities per week than research office managers, being heavily involved in identification and marketing of intellectual property (IP), patenting and licensing IP to existing and start-up companies. Overall, they are highly critical of the management of their own universities, both generally and with regard to research commercialization, and give relatively low effectiveness ratings to the efforts of both Commonwealth and State governments to support research commercialization and innovation.

How can harmonization successfully achieve the objective of being a "rising tide that lifts all boats" rather than a race to the bottom of regulatory protection in response to industry pressures to reduce "red tape" and the threat of forum shopping? The paper briefly maps the concept, using as a focus intra-state harmonization, and the promoted benefit of strengthening compliance. We identify the primary arguments for and against harmonization in its various forms, before describing two case studies, one from the United States and one from Australia, from which recommendations are drawn to enhance the potential for best practice in the area. It appears that successful harmonization depends on significant commitment by agencies involved, not only towards harmonization as an objective, but to best practice harmonization.

Some sectors of society wishing to sec commerce adopt high standards of corporate citizenship may feel that those managers who do not enthusiastically embrace voluntary social or environmental reporting are trying to avoid their obligations to the broader community. This may be a naive and unfair judgement. The job of the corporate manager is to use other people's money to meet other people's goals. With the role comes a moral and legal responsibility. A challenge for the responsible steward is to balance the private interest of the owners against the public desire for more information about corporate social performance. In this chapter, we explore the line between a narrow perspective on a manager's legal responsibility to be frugal with corporate resources, and the growing expectation that management will spend some of these resources on corporate reporting that may in itself increase pressure on the corporation to spend further resources pursuing social ends.

The overall aim of this document is to provide a foundation for understanding the opportunities and potential risks of harmonization of environmental regulation and regulatory practice across Australia. The focus adopted was intra-national harmonisation of environmental laws. A multi-method approach was undertaken including the following: 1. Desktop research and review of relevant literature and legislation; 2. Key informant data from discussions with members of the Harmonisation of Environmental Regulation Project Team; and 3. Three case studies: US Pollution, NSW Planning and Hazardous Waste.

This report investigates the impacts of different forms of transaction costs upon the effectiveness of legal and institutional structures intended to improve urban and peri-urban water management. The report is based upon detailed investigation of the implementation of water management policy in peri-urban Sydney.

This report captures the lessons learned by a group of researchers from a variety of disciplines through a multi-year multi-disciplinary and applied research program. Its purpose is to provide evidence to support improved trans-disciplinary research practices.