Exploring the usefulness of structural-functional...

Exploring the usefulness of structural-functional approaches to systematically assess the functionality of

governance arrangements for natural resource management planning in two Australian case studies

Ruth Margaret Potts (n9222952)

Bachelor of Urban and Environmental Planning (Honours 1A)

Supervisors: Dr. Karen Vella1, Professor Doug Baker1, Professor Neil Sipe2, and Professor Allan Dale3

1 Queensland University of Technology 2 University of Queensland

3 James Cook University

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctorate of Philosophy

Civil Engineering, and the Built Environment, Property and Planning

Science and Engineering Faculty

Urban and Regional Planning Discipline

Queensland University of Technology

26th March 2015

2

Abstract

Natural resources worldwide continue to be degraded despite significant

investments in management and conservation activities. The governance

arrangements between institutions involved in natural resource management

(NRM) are a determinant of the success of NRM activities. While a limited

number of theoretically robust evaluative frameworks exist to support analysis

and reform of governance arrangements for NRM to improve outcomes, none are

currently used to inform or reform Australia’s NRM governance system. Rather,

evaluative measures used to analyse NRM in Australia tend to focus on inputs,

and outputs, rather than the structures, functions and their interactions to

deliver outcomes of governance.

The thesis explores structural-functional approaches as a lens for evaluation of

complex planning governance systems, and develops the Governance Systems

Analysis (GSA) framework. The GSA framework is a theoretically robust, and

practice oriented evaluative framework based on structural-functional

approaches, planning and policy theories.

Using a layered case study approach, this thesis examines the relationship

between governance system structures, functions, and NRM planning outcomes,

through the lens of structural-functionalism. The multiscale governance

arrangements for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics are

described based on iterative desktop analyses, observations of key actors within

the two regions, numerous unstructured conversations, and 15 semi-structured

interviews. Thematic analysis was employed to synthesise and determine

meaning from the data, while the Delphi technique was applied to validate the

conclusions of the analysis and accuracy of the assessment.

The three key findings of this research were as follows. Firstly, the thesis

demonstrates that through the GSA framework, structural-functional approaches

can be used to analyse complex and multiscalar governance systems in a NRM

planning context. Secondly, the health of the relationship between structures and

functions in governance systems can significantly support or impede the system

3

from delivering is desired outcomes. A comparison of the NRM governance

systems in Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics demonstrates that where

NRM planning structures and functions are mature and their relationships

relatively strong, then the system is more capable of delivering its desired

decision-making outcomes than a younger governance system, with weaker

relationships between structures and functions. Finally, three lessons for

governance system evaluation more broadly emerged, emphasising the

importance of taking a collaborative and participatory approach, building

relationships between the researcher and participants, and engaging with a

diverse array of participants to ensure assessment accuracy.

4

Statement of originality

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To

the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Date 26/3/15

QUT Verified Signature

5

Table of Contents

Abstract .............................................................................................................. 2

Statement of originality .................................................................................... 4

Table of Contents ............................................................................................... 5

Personal acknowledgments .............................................................................. 9

Funding acknowledgements ........................................................................... 10

List of published works ................................................................................... 11

List of figures .................................................................................................... 12

List of tables ..................................................................................................... 12

List of abbreviations ........................................................................................ 15

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................... 17

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 17

1.2 Statement of problem .................................................................................................................. 17

1.3 Research questions and thesis overview ............................................................................. 22

1.4 Significance of the research ....................................................................................................... 26

1.4.1 Theoretical significance ................................................................................................................. 26

1.4.2 Practical significance ...................................................................................................................... 26

1.4.3 Empirical significance ..................................................................................................................... 27

1.5 Thesis structure .............................................................................................................................. 27

Chapter 2: Research methods ......................................................................... 30

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 30

2.2 Research Approach ....................................................................................................................... 30

2.3 Research design .............................................................................................................................. 31

2.4 Case study approach and selection ........................................................................................ 34

2.5 Developing the Governance Systems Analysis Framework ......................................... 36

2.6 Applying the Governance Systems Analysis Framework .............................................. 36

2.6.1 Step One: context ............................................................................................................................... 36

2.6.2 Step Two: desired system outcomes ......................................................................................... 38

2.6.3 Step Three: describing the system’s key structural and functional aspects ........... 39

2.6.4 Step Four: identifying priorities for governance reform................................................. 45

2.7 Research limitations ..................................................................................................................... 46

6

2.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Chapter 3: Literature review – understanding the complexities of natural

resource management and its evaluation ..................................................... 48

3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 48

3.2 What are natural resources and natural resource management? ............................. 48

3.3 Why is natural resource management complex? .............................................................. 50

3.3.1 Interacting multidimensional and complex systems ........................................................ 50

3.3.2 Devolved governance arrangements ....................................................................................... 51

3.3.3 Diversity of stakeholders and how to engage them .......................................................... 53

3.4 Understanding governance........................................................................................................ 56

3.4.1 Conceptualisation of natural resource management governance in this thesis.. 59

3.5 Evaluative frameworks ............................................................................................................... 63

3.6 Use of best practice principles of governance in evaluation ........................................ 68

3.7 Evaluation frameworks currently used to assess Australian natural resource

management .................................................................................................................................................... 70

3.7.1 State of Environment reporting mechanism ........................................................................ 70

3.7.2 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and Improvement framework ........................... 71

3.7.3 Natural Resource Management Excellence Framework................................................. 71

3.8 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 4: Exploring structural-functional principles to analyse complex

natural resource management planning governance systems .................... 74

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 74

4.2 Conceptualising planning ........................................................................................................... 75

4.3 Structural-functionalism ............................................................................................................. 78

4.3.1 Development of structural-functionalism .............................................................................. 78

4.3.2 Key concepts of structural-functionalism .............................................................................. 80

4.3.3 Criticisms of structural-functionalism .................................................................................... 83

4.3.4 Structural-functionalism in planning ...................................................................................... 85

4.4 Why is structural-functionalism relevant to planners? ................................................. 94

4.5 Applying structural-functionalism in a complex planning system: natural

resource management planning .............................................................................................................. 96

4.5.1 Structures in planning systems ................................................................................................... 97

4.5.2 Functions in planning systems .................................................................................................... 99

4.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 103

7

Chapter 5: Contextualising natural resource management governance

arrangements in Australia ............................................................................. 104

5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 104

5.2 Natural resource management governance in Australia ............................................. 104

5.2.1 Natural resource management rhetoric pre-Landcare ............................................... 105

5.2.2 Australian Government natural resource management arrangements .............. 107

5.2.3 State Government natural resource management arrangements .......................... 118

5.3 Overview of case study regions ............................................................................................. 121

5.3.1 Cape York Peninsula ..................................................................................................................... 121

5.3.2 Wet Tropics ....................................................................................................................................... 131

5.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 140

Chapter 6: Case study one – Assessment of natural resource management

planning governance in Cape York Peninsula .............................................. 141

6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 141

6.2 Description of the governance system ................................................................................ 141

6.2.1 Vision and objective setting ....................................................................................................... 141

6.2.2 Research and assessment ........................................................................................................... 148

6.2.3 Strategy development .................................................................................................................. 151

6.2.4 Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 156

6.2.5 Monitoring, evaluation and review ........................................................................................ 160

6.3 Summary of results ..................................................................................................................... 162

6.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 163

Chapter 7: Case study two – Assessment of natural resource management

planning governance in the Wet Tropics ...................................................... 165

7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 165

7.2 Description of the governance system ................................................................................ 165

7.2.1 Vision and objective setting ....................................................................................................... 165

7.2.2 Research and assessment ........................................................................................................... 170

7.2.3 Strategy development .................................................................................................................. 175

7.2.4 Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 180

7.2.5 Monitoring, evaluation and review ........................................................................................ 188

7.3 Summary of results ..................................................................................................................... 191

7.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 192

Chapter 8: Discussion of results .................................................................... 194

8

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 194

8.2 Discussion of similarities and differences between case studies ............................ 194

8.2.1 Influence of systemic maturity and context ....................................................................... 195

8.2.2 Institutional fragmentation: issues of participation, collaboration, and power

dynamics ............................................................................................................................................................. 198

8.3 Priorities for governance reform .......................................................................................... 201

8.3.1 Cape York Peninsula ..................................................................................................................... 201

8.3.2 Wet Tropics ....................................................................................................................................... 205

8.4 Discussion of the Governance Systems Analysis Framework ................................... 208

8.4.1 Analysing complex governance systems using a structural-functional approach

208

8.4.2 Applying the Governance Systems Analysis framework ............................................... 210

8.4.3 Lessons for governance evaluation more broadly .......................................................... 214

8.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 216

Chapter 9: Conclusions ................................................................................... 218

9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 218

9.2 Summary of research problem ............................................................................................... 218

9.3 Summary of research aims and objectives ........................................................................ 219

9.4 Key research conclusions ......................................................................................................... 219

9.4.1 What is the relationship between governance system structure and function, and

NRM planning outcomes? ........................................................................................................................... 219

9.4.2 Why use structural-functionalism to evaluate complex, multi-scalar governance

systems? ............................................................................................................................................................... 220

9.4.3 How can structural-functional approaches be applied to evaluate complex,

multiscalar governance systems? ............................................................................................................ 221

9.4.4 What lessons emerge from the assessment in Australian natural resource

management governance systems for governance systems more broadly? ........................ 222

9.5 Future research directions....................................................................................................... 223

9.6 Research Limitations .................................................................................................................. 224

References ....................................................................................................... 225

Chapter 10: Appendices ................................................................................. 294

9

Personal acknowledgments

I am very appreciative to the various organisations and individuals in the case

study regions who invited me to observe their events and meetings. I am

particularly grateful to regional participants who willingly donated their time

and knowledge to my research and participated in some cases in multiple

interviews over the two and a half year period.

I’d like to extend my gratitude to my supervisors for their input, wisdom, time,

and support. My co-primary supervisors Senior Lecturer Karen Vella,

Professor Neil Sipe, and Professor Doug Baker encouraged me to develop new

skills, think critically, and grow professionally and personally. I’d especially like

to thank my associate supervisor, Professor Allan Dale who offered a wealth of

knowledge regarding the case study regions and advice regarding the theoretical

concepts underpinning my thesis.

I offer a huge thank you to my parents Claire and Bill Potts for their ongoing

support, encouragement, regularly feeding me, and for listening to my

explanations of planning theory despite not being highly interested!

I’d like to thank my wonderful boyfriend John Gibson for supporting me, being a

sounding board for ideas, proof-reading each of my thesis chapters several times,

and encouraging me to pursue my passion for research.

My deepest thanks to my fellow PhD students and post-doctoral researchers at

Griffith University and QUT for their ongoing support throughout the ups and

downs of the PhD process. Thank you to Sara Alidoust, Elnaz Torabi,

Christoph Ruprecht, Rukuh Setiadi, Kate Raynor, Hannah Stanley, Lachlan

McClure, Rachel Eberhard, Ghazal Amirinejad, and Tony Matthews.

Thank you to Jenni McHugh for providing me with desk space and technical

support at James Cook University Smithfield Campus during my fieldtrips to the

Wet Tropics.

I’d like to thank Merrill Bowers at Griffith University and the administration

staff at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) for helping me to

10

navigate the bureaucratic mine fields of university travel approvals and PhD

paperwork.

Thanks to Dr. Rod Griffiths and Sandy Robinson for their support as part of the

Transformation for Resilient Landscapes and Communities in FNQ project. I

particularly appreciate the stimulating theoretical discussions, invitations to

various events, lessons on rock music originating from Cape York Peninsula

(Solid Rock), and assistance travelling to remote areas such as Seisia.

Funding acknowledgements

This thesis was funded by a scholarship provided through a partnership between

QUT and the Australian Government’s Rural Industries Research and

Development Corporation and is aligned with the Transformation for Resilient

Landscapes and Communities in FNQ project. A large proportion of the fieldwork

for this research was also funded by Griffith University prior to my transfer to

QUT.

11

List of published works

The following works were published during the candidature period of this thesis

and are relevant to its content:

Potts, R., Vella, K., Dale, A., & Sipe, N. (2015). A Study of Governance

Arrangements for Land Use and Natural Resource Management Planning

in Cape York Peninsula. Australian Geographer, X(x), x-x.

Potts, R., Vella, K., Dale, A., and Sipe, N. (2014). Exploring the usefulness of

structural-functional approaches to practically analyse governance in

planning systems. Planning Theory, X(X), x-x.

Dale, A., Vella, K., & Potts, R. (2014). Emerging Planning Frameworks for Climate

Adaptation Adaptation Pathways and Opportunities for the Wet Tropics

NRM Cluster Region: Infrastructure, Industry, Indigenous Peoples, Social

Adaptation, Emerging Planning Frameworks, Evolving Methodologies and

Climate Adaptation Planning in Practice (Vol. 2, pp. 179-201). Cairns.

Dale, A., Vella, K., and Potts, R. (2013). Governance Systems Analysis (GSA): A

Framework for Reforming Governance Systems. Journal of Public

Administration and Governance, 3 (3), 162-187.

Dale, A., Vella, K., Pressey, R., Brodie, J., Yorkston, H., and Potts, R. (2013). A

method for risk analysis across governance systems: a Great Barrier Reef

case study. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 1-16.

Dale, A., McKee, J., Vella, K. and Potts, R. (2013) Carbon, Biodiversity and

Regional Natural Resource Planning: Towards High Impact Next

Generation Plans. Australian Planner. 50(4), 328-339.

12

List of figures

Figure 4.1: A conceptual framework of structural-functional governance system

and its wider context ......................................................................................................... 98

Figure 4.2: A simplified example of the interactions between structures and

functions in a governance system ................................................................................. 99

Figure 4.3: Types of capital defined ..................................................................................... 102

Figure 5.1: Australian natural resource management regions developed in NHT2

.................................................................................................................................................. 111

Figure 5.2: Location of Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, Australia ................. 122

Figure 5.3: Wet Tropics NRM region and bioregion boundaries ............................. 133

List of tables

Table 2.1: Summary of methods used in this research .................................................. 33

Table 2.2: Governance Systems Analysis Framework scoring system .................... 40

Table 2.3: Assessment of the appropriateness of data collection methods for this

research ................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 2.4: Summary of regional participants interviewed ........................................... 42

Table 3.2: Overview of evaluative frameworks for analysing complex governance

systems .................................................................................................................................... 65

Table 3.3: Synthesised evaluative principles for natural resource management

governance ............................................................................................................................. 68

Table 3.4: Comparison of principles of good governance ............................................. 69

Table 4.1: Typical descriptors of key structural characteristics of planning

governance systems ........................................................................................................... 88

13

Table 4.2: Typical descriptors of key functional characteristics of structures in

planning governance systems ........................................................................................ 89

Table 4.3: Governance Systems Analysis Framework ................................................... 92

Table 5.1: Land Sector Package programs under the Clean Energy Futures Plan

.................................................................................................................................................. 116

Table 5.2: An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in

Cape York Peninsula 1989-2014 ................................................................................. 125

Table 5.3: Summary of key natural resource management planning stakeholders

in Cape York Peninsula.................................................................................................... 127

Table 5.4: Types of land tenure in Cape York Peninsula ............................................. 130

Table 5.5: An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in

the Wet Tropics 1994-2014 .......................................................................................... 136

Table 5.6: Summary of key natural resource management stakeholders in the

Wet Tropics ......................................................................................................................... 138

Table 6.1: Summary of conclusions regarding vision and objective setting

structures in Cape York Peninsula.............................................................................. 142

Table 6.2: Summary of conclusions regarding research and assessment

structures in Cape York Peninsula.............................................................................. 148

Table 6.3: Summary of conclusions regarding strategy development structures in

Cape York Peninsula......................................................................................................... 152

Table 6.4: Summary of conclusions regarding implementation structures in Cape

York Peninsula .................................................................................................................... 156

Table 6.5: Summary of conclusions regarding implementation structures in Cape

York Peninsula .................................................................................................................... 160

Table 6.6: Summary of structural and functional scores for natural resource

management planning governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula

.................................................................................................................................................. 163

14

Table 7.1: Summary of conclusions regarding vision and objective setting

structures in the Wet Tropics ....................................................................................... 166

Table 7.2: Summary of conclusions regarding research and assessment


Table 7.3: Summary of conclusions regarding strategy development structures in

the Wet Tropics .................................................................................................................. 176

Table 7.4: Summary of conclusions regarding implementation structures in the

Wet Tropics ......................................................................................................................... 180

Table 7.5: Summary of conclusions regarding monitoring, evaluation and review


Table 7.6: Summary of structural and functional scores for natural resource

management planning governance in the Wet Tropics ...................................... 192

15

List of abbreviations

ANAO Australian National Audit Office

CAFNEC Cairns and Far North Environmental Centre

CDU Charles Darwin University

CEF Clean Energy Futures Plan

CfoC Caring for our Country

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

CYPLUS Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy

CYSF Cape York Sustainable Futures

DSDIP Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and

Planning

FNQROC Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils

GBR Great Barrier Reef

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GEMBC Governance and Ecosystem Management for the Conservation of

Biodiversity Framework

GSA Governance Systems Analysis Framework

GU Griffith University

IAD Institutional Analysis and Development Framework

IRG Indigenous reference group

ICM integrated catchment management

JCU James Cook University

MERI Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and Improvement framework

16

MOU memorandum of understanding

NAP National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Program

NERP National Environmental Research Program

NGO non-government organisation

NHT1 Natural Heritage Trust Phase One

NHT2 Natural Heritage Trust Phase Two

NRM natural resource management

NT Northern Territory

Qld Queensland

QUT Queensland University of Technology

RDA FNQTS Regional Development Australia – Far North Queensland and

Torres Strait

RRRC Reef and Rainforest Research Centre

SOE State of the Environment

UQ University of Queensland

Vic Victoria

WA Western Australia

WTMA Wet Tropics Management Authority

17

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

Governance continues to be a challenge in the management of natural resources

worldwide. Natural resource management (NRM) is operationalised through a

complex web of interdependencies and interactions between a multitude of

institutions (Dovers, 2001). The interactions between institutions can

significantly impact on the decision making processes, and environmental and

governance outcomes for NRM (Dale et al., 2013c). Despite this, few of the

existing evaluative frameworks are used in practice to analyse such governance

systems as a whole. Rather, there is a tendency for theorists and governments to

apply frameworks that analyse individual components of the system, such as the

efficacy of an individual program to address weed management. In order to

address this, this thesis identifies and discusses perspectives on NRM,

governance, and evaluative frameworks for analysing complex governance

systems.

1.2 Statement of problem

Humans depend on natural resources, such as rivers, fertile soils, and

biodiversity, for basic needs, personal wellbeing, and economic security (jobs

based on tourism, agriculture, and climate)(UN, 1992a, 1992b). However,

humans have changed the natural environment considerably since the industrial

revolution and emergence of the capitalist agenda and subsequent

commodification of natural resources (Hundloe, 2008). Global environmental

degradation has continued (UNESCO, 2013), despite recognition of the need for

more sustainable approaches to resource use and management by the United

Nations and its constituents since the 1970s (Brundtland, 1987; UN, 1972,

1992b).

Ongoing and emerging natural resource degradation problems include issues of

salinisation, declining water quality, erosion, and subsequent losses of

biodiversity. These natural resource problems are significantly reducing the

social and economic resilience, and adaptive capacity of communities worldwide

(Mimura, 1999; Mucke et al., 2012; Ronneberg, 2008). This is increasing

18

worldwide vulnerability to natural disasters and climatic changes (McGranahan

et al., 2007; Mucke et al., 2012). An example of this is coral reefs, which provide a

buffer to coastal flora, fauna and communities from cyclonic or storm related

oceanic surges (Mucke et al., 2012). However, as reef health declines due to

erosion run off, pollution, and increased ocean acidity, proximate areas are likely

to become more vulnerable (Ronneberg, 2008). For example, 127 million people

live in low-lying areas proximate to reefs in South East Asia, which are currently

in a particularly degraded state (Mucke et al., 2012). If degradation continues,

they are likely to be more vulnerable to inundation events, water supply

contamination, and increased soil salinity (Asian Development Bank, 2013;

Mimura, 1999; Mucke et al., 2012; Ronneberg, 2008).

Natural resources in Australia are in a similar position and are continuing to

degrade, despite management and intervention activities. The 2011 Australian

State of the Environment Report states that the conditions of the country’s

natural resources have changed drastically since European settlement (SEWPaC,

2011a). Degradation has been the result of ongoing pressures such as

encroaching urban development, past land mismanagement, invasive species,

major drought and other climatic events (SEWPaC, 2011a). Currently, many of

Australia’s native species populations are declining and many of the inland water

bodies such as the Murray Darling Basin are in degraded condition (SEWPaC,

2011a). Soil acidification affects roughly half of Australia’s productive

agricultural soils, and erosion issues are widespread (SEWPaC, 2011a). While

marine biodiversity is currently in good condition, the marine environments on

the east and south west coasts have been significantly degraded and coastal

ecosystems in these areas are all currently in poor health (SEWPaC, 2011a).

Natural resource problems, such as those described above, are challenging to

address. They often have multiple causes, numerous interdependencies, are

dynamic and non-linear and involve discontinuous behaviour in natural and

human systems (Holling, 1973, 1995; Rittel & Webber, 1973). Natural resource

management (NRM) is a form of land stewardship that seeks to manage natural

resources and the interactions between people and the environment in a way

19

that supports social, economic and environmental sustainability (DAFF &

SEWPaC, 2011a; Davidson et al., 2006; Hajkowicz, 2009).

NRM is complex, political and contentious. NRM involves a diverse array of

institutions, stakeholders, and interests interacting across temporal and spatial

scales (Gruber, 2010; Ostrom, 1990, 2000, 2009a). The formal and informal

governance arrangements that exist between institutions are one determinant of

the success of NRM planning and management activities (Dale, 2013; Davidson et

al., 2006; Lockwood et al., 2010). As a result, consistent with the work of

Lockwood et al. (2010), this research uses the term governance to describe the

broader decision-making arrangements and processes that exist between a

number of institutions and influence the success of NRM planning. In this

research NRM planning is defined as the ongoing formal and informal policy-

making and decision-making processes concerned with the management of

natural resources.

Non-statutory regional bodies are often responsible for NRM planning in some

states in Australia and engage with numerous community, industry, non-

government and government institutions (SEWPaC, 2008b). The benefit of using

non-statutory and regionally located NRM groups is their proximity to the NRM

problem/s and legitimacy through community ownership (as opposed to

government authority)(Kroon et al., 2009). In many cases the NRM group is one

of several institutions with a vested interest in and responsibility for addressing

regional NRM issues (Robins & Kanowski, 2011; Wallington et al., 2008). The

lack of statutory powers and limited resources available to many of these

regional NRM groups means that the existence and strength of relationships

between themselves and other institutions are critical to effectively address

NRM problems.

In Australia, funding for NRM groups and their management activities is highly

competitive and limited, and also strongly influenced by shifts in the political

climate (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). Under these conditions NRM groups manage

natural resources to the best of their ability with funds garnered from a variety

of public, private, and philanthropic sources (Department of Agriculture, 2013;

20

DIICCSRTE, 2012b; Vella et al., 2013). Existing evaluative frameworks and

approaches can be time and resource intensive in their application or require

specific training or skills to apply. However, resourcing is a significant limitation

to NRM institutions and their capacity to engage in planning processes,

especially undertaking monitoring, evaluative, and review activities despite the

value of such assessments to decision-makers (Robins & Dovers, 2007b).

NRM practitioners and government funding bodies are currently unable to

evaluate the efficacy, state, and performance of the complex and multi-scalar,

multi-institutional governance arrangements for NRM. This is because of a lack

of a practical, and systemically oriented analytical framework to assess

governance systems. Existing evaluative frameworks in Australia are highly

focused on outputs rather than outcomes, and do not consider governance in

their evaluation (DEWHA, 2009; SEWPaC, 2011c). As a result, changes to

governance arrangements in any decision-making context are often driven by

shifting political paradigms, rather than based on evidence or a systematic

analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of existing governance arrangements

(Bulkeley, 2005).

There is a plethora of theoretical concepts on which an assessment of

governance systems, including those for NRM planning could be based. For

example, a handful of planning theorists have examined the relevancy of theories

related to structural-functionalism to planning theory and practice (e.g. Healey’s

(2007) exploration of structuration). Structural-functionalism is an early form of

systems theory drawn from sociology that emphasises that social systems (or in

this case governance systems) can only be understood through the interactions

of systemic components (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4)(Fisher, 2010;

Fontes & Guardalabene, 1976; Groth, 1970).

Many theorists abandoned structural-functionalism in the 1970s, in favour of

other emerging post-structuralist, post-positivist and post-modernist

approaches (Alexander, 2000; Chettiparamb, 2006; Cilliers, 2000; Howlett &

Ramesh, 2003). As a result systems and complexity theories have been widely

explored theoretically and empirically by the planning discipline (Allen, 1997;

21

Byrne, 1997; Chettiparamb, 2006; Van Assche & Verschraegen, 2008). Systems

theory departed from structural-functionalism in its perhaps flawed recognition

that social systems are systems of communication rather than systems of action

(Arnoldi, 2001).

Communication is widely recognised and extolled as a significant and crucial

component of decision-making and the capacity of the system to deliver desired

outcomes in planning systems (Bolton, 2005; Habermas, 1987; Healey, 1992;

Innes, 1995; Sager, 1994). However, communicative approaches downplay and

often fail to adequately consider the influence of actions and interactions within

planning systems on the decision-making outcomes delivered. Structural-

functionalism, on the other hand, emphasises that action is a critical component

of systems and systemic capacity to deliver desired outcomes (Chilcott, 1998).

Despite this recognition, there is little evidence to suggest that structural-

functionalism has been explored as an evaluative lens to assess governance

systems or NRM planning applications.

In Australia a number of empirically- and theoretically-grounded frameworks

have been used by academics and practitioners in the past to analyse and

evaluate individual NRM plans, programs, strategies and institutions (Althaus et

al., 2007; Bellamy et al., 2001; Connick & Innes, 2003; Curtis et al., 1998;

Hajkowicz, 2009; Vogel, 2011; Walter Turnbull, 2005). These frameworks are

diverse in their intent, focus and theoretical grounding. They draw variously on

concepts of corporate governance (Vogel, 2011), systems theory (Bellamy et al.,

2001), complexity thinking (Connick & Innes, 2003), firsthand observations

(Curtis et al., 1998), and economic efficiency (Walter Turnbull, 2005). While

these existing frameworks are useful for identifying problems at the plan or

program scale, they do not effectively address the interactions between plans,

policies and programs and the institutional capacities and relationships within

governance systems that impact on their implementation. They also do not

acknowledge that institutional interactions within governance systems can

significantly inhibit or support the outcomes of planning. This is particularly

problematic in complex governance systems, such as NRM planning systems.

22

1.3 Research questions and thesis overview

The thesis aims to analyse the complex relationship between NRM planning

governance structures1 , functions2 , and their capacity to deliver desired

decision-making outcomes3 in an Australian context. This is supported by a

secondary aim to explore the usefulness of structural-functional theory to

examine and evaluate the decision-making capacity of NRM planning governance

systems. It builds on the works of Almond and Powell (1966), Althaus et al.

(2007), Buchanan and Tollison (1984), Chettiparamb (2014), Dale and Bellamy

(1998), Forester (2013), Neuman (2012), and Rydin (2012). Within this context

it explores the subsequent four focus questions:

1. What is the relationship between governance system structure

and function, and NRM planning outcomes?

2. Why use structural-functionalism to evaluate complex, multi-

scalar governance systems?

3. How can structural-functionalism be applied to evaluate

complex, multi-scalar governance systems?

4. What lessons emerge from the assessment in Australian NRM

governance systems for governance evaluation more broadly?

1 This research considers individuals, institutions, and institutional alliances that are focused on

delivering specific desired outcomes (e.g. strategy development) as the structures of NRM

planning governance systems. This is discussed in greater depth in Chapter 4.

2 The functions of NRM planning systems are identified in this research as the decision-making

capacity, connectivity, and knowledge use of NRM planning structures. This is discussed in

greater depth in Chapter 4. 3 This research is focused on the decision-making/governance outcomes of the interactions of

NRM planning structures and functions. The research defines the desired decision making

outcomes as the capacity of structures to undertake the steps of the planning process. Further

discussed in Chapter 4.

23

These questions form the core of this thesis and are addressed in the nine

chapters described below. Based on these research questions, the objectives of

this research are to:

1. review planning, policy, structural-functionalism and governance

literature to understand existing conceptualisations of and

approaches to evaluating complex systems and policy making;

2. identify a framework to analyse multi-scalar governance systems

based on the sociological theory of structural-functionalism; and

3. test the utility of the framework in two case studies.

This thesis explores whether structural-functional approaches can be used to

support planners to practically assess the capacity of governance arrangements

to support planning processes in complex planning systems. The structural-

functional approach to understanding planning systems identified in this thesis

also draws on newer theories of complexity in planning and decision-making. It

emphasises that complex planning systems consist of many parts that contribute

towards the overall performance of the governance system. These parts can be

identified as being either structures or functions. This thesis argues that

structural-functional approaches can provide a practical foundation for an

analysis of the governance of complex planning systems. The structural-

functional approach suggested in this thesis considers the context in which

planning occurs, how the governance system is structured and organised, and

the way in which those structures interact and contribute to the system’s overall

performance and capacity to deliver desired decision-making outcomes.

Using a structural-functional approach, this thesis presents a practice-oriented

framework for analysing complex governance systems. The framework combines

theoretical and empirical concepts from structural-functionalism, the planning

discipline, policy sciences, and institutional studies. The proposed framework is

called the Governance Systems Analysis Framework (GSA). It pays particular

attention to the interactions of planning system structures and functions and

24

their impacts on the governance system’s processes and outcomes. Structures

tend to be the more static elements in planning systems. They may include

processes involved in the steps of the policy cycle and the alliances of

institutions involved. Functions, on the other hand, are the relationships that

exist between structures. Functions in planning systems include knowledge

application, connections between institutions, and the decision-making capacity

of institutions within the system.

This thesis used an iterative qualitative research design to answer the research

questions identified above. The GSA framework was developed using a desktop

analysis of existing frameworks and theories of governance, planning and

decision-making. The data used to populate the GSA framework for each region

was collected using a literature review, participant observation, and

unstructured and semi-structured interview research methods. These data

collection processes involved discussing the two case study region governance

systems’ structures and functions with a diverse array of expert participants

who are actively engaged in NRM planning and implementation at various scales

in both regions. Additional semi-structured interviews were used following the

initial assessment to validate and evaluate the accuracy of the assessment of the

governance arrangements in each case study.

The GSA framework is then used to examine the governance arrangements for

NRM planning in two case study regions, namely the Wet Tropics and Cape York

Peninsula NRM regions. Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics are two of

Australia’s most ecologically diverse and natural resource rich regions. They are

home to two internationally recognised World Heritage Areas, a number of

endangered and highly endemic species, and a strong Indigenous culture

(Bohnet & Smith, 2007; DSDIP, 2012; Holmes, 2012; RCRC, 2006; SEWPaC,

2008a; WTMA, 2011). Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics are two of the

56 NRM regions established in Australia in 2003 to devolve regional NRM

responsibilities to regional, non-government NRM bodies that became

responsible for the planning and management of natural resources.

25

In some regions the NRM groups were newly created, while in others they were

based on existing groups or arrangements. For example, the Wet Tropics NRM

body (Terrain NRM) was created based on previous environmental management

arrangements that existed in the region since the 1980s (McDonald & Weston,

2004). This makes the Wet Tropics one of the more established and developed

NRM regions in Australia. Comparatively, despite strong impetus for NRM

institutional arrangements in Cape York Peninsula, the contentious issues

surrounding land rights and resource access and use have meant that the

region’s NRM body was only established in 2011. Consequently, the institutional

arrangements for NRM in Cape York Peninsula are much younger and less

developed than those in the Wet Tropics.

The key structural and functional components of the governance arrangements

for NRM planning in the Wet Tropics and Cape York Peninsula regions are then

described and analysed. The thesis finds that the Wet Tropics NRM planning

governance system was likely to succeed to deliver its intended NRM planning

outcomes. Alternately, Cape York Peninsula’s NRM planning governance system

was unlikely to deliver its intended decision-making outcomes. However, this

thesis argues that structures in the Wet Tropics region are highly capable of

developing plans and strategies, but weak in implementation and monitoring.

Thus, in order to ameliorate ongoing and emerging issues of environmental

degradation, greater attention to the capacity and interactions of systemic

structures and functions, and their influence on systemic outcome delivery is

needed to support more effective, and sustainable NRM decision-making

outcomes.

A core conclusion of this thesis is that structural-functionalism can be practically

applied to better understand complex NRM planning systems. It can also be used

as a tool to support evidenced-based decision-making and systemic governance

reform. The proposed GSA framework differs from existing frameworks in its

focus on systemic dynamics rather than individual programs or policies. This

thesis emphasises that it is a practical and theoretically robust framework. The

framework recognises the importance of context in planning, while drawing on

empirically, and theoretically supported concepts of planning processes and

26

policy-making that are easily recognised and applied by practitioners (Baum,

1996; Dalton, 1986).

1.4 Significance of the research

This thesis makes several theoretical and empirical contributions to current

discussions in the literature regarding the value of a practice-oriented structural-

functional approach, the framing of regional governance issues, evidence based

planning, and evaluation of planning processes and outcomes. These

contributions are discussed further below.

1.4.1 Theoretical significance

Structural-functional approaches have been widely criticised and rejected by

theorists from many disciplines (Alexander & Colomy, 1990; Clark, 1972; Healey,

2007). However, few theorists have explored the value of a more practical

(rather than theoretical) application of structural-functional principles to

support the analysis and reform of complex governance or planning systems.

This thesis makes a significant contribution to this area of literature. This thesis

argues that structural-functional approaches to analysing complex planning

systems can be practical. It also argues that the identified structural-functional

approach to governance analysis is complementary to existing and emerging

planning and governance theories (Chettiparamb, 2014; Foster & Barnes, 2012;

Healey, 2007; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012). Classical structural-functionalism has

many limitations for explaining society and the dynamics within it. While these

limitations remain present, they do not affect the usefulness of structural-

functional approaches to evaluate complex systems at a static point in time.

1.4.2 Practical significance

An analytical framework for planning practitioners to better understand the

interactions of structures and functions in complex governance systems and

support evidence-based governance reform is presented in this thesis. While

existing frameworks tend to focus on individual programs, policies, or plans

(Althaus et al., 2007; Bellamy et al., 2001; Connick & Innes, 2003; Curtis et al.,

1998; Hajkowicz, 2009; Vogel, 2011; Walter Turnbull, 2005), the GSA framework

enables practitioners to look at the broader systemic dynamics and interactions

27

that influence planning processes and outcomes. The framework is more

systemically oriented than existing analytical frameworks used in practice (e.g.

Vogel, 2011) and is cheap, quick and easy to apply. It does not require

practitioners to have a PhD or undertake significant training to use it.

This thesis demonstrates that the GSA framework can be used as a tool for rapid

appraisal or comprehensive assessment of governance arrangements based on

institutional resource availability and systemic needs. In this way, practitioners

can identify the existing strengths and weaknesses of the existing governance

arrangements. This benchmark can then be compared against previous or future

assessments of the same system to determine systemic change. It can also be

used as an evidence base to support more informed decision-making and

governance reform.

1.4.3 Empirical significance

This research provides insight into the performance of the governance

arrangements and institutional relationships that support NRM planning in Cape

York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics NRM regions. The results provide a robust

evidence base that recognises where the governance system is currently strong

and/or weak. This evidence base can be used to support future decision-making

for the region at multiple scales. It also provides a catalyst for discussion and

greater understanding between scales of decision-making regarding the impacts

of policy and political shifts on NRM planning outcomes on the ground.

1.5 Thesis structure

This thesis is structured in ten chapters, and seeks to answer the research

questions set out in this chapter. The content of this thesis is organised in the

following chapters:

Chapter 2 describes the research methods and approaches used to explore and

answer the four core research questions of this thesis described above. The

reasoning for choosing these methods is described in detail, in addition to the

way in which they are applied in the context of this research. The chapter

explains the methods used to apply the framework proposed in Chapter 4.

28

Chapter 3 explores the complexities and nuances of NRM before examining the

Australian NRM governance experience. The chapter identifies that there is

currently not a holistic framework being regularly applied to assess Australian

NRM governance beyond individual programs or institutions. The chapter

investigates other evaluative frameworks available to practitioners and theorists

to analyse complex governance systems. In doing this, Chapter 3 identifies the

lack of a theoretical and empirically robust and systemic framework for

analysing complex governance systems, such as NRM planning systems beyond

individual programs or institutions, as a gap in both theory and practice.

Chapter 4 explores the sociological theory of structural-functionalism for its

usefulness as an approach to analyse complex planning systems and the

governance arrangements that drive them. Chapter 4 discusses how structural-

functionalism evolved; its strengths, weaknesses, and how it may be

complementary to current understandings of planning systems.

Chapter 5 consists of a desktop analysis undertaken to contextualise and

identify key decision-making mechanisms, needs, and problems for NRM in the

two case study regions. Chapter 5 also provides an overview of the two case

study regions, the history of NRM and land use planning, and the key challenges

faced in the regions.

Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 are focused on the results of the GSA assessment in

Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics NRM regions. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7

contain a description and analysis of the structural and functional elements of

each governance system. Each chapter concludes with a summary of the results

and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the key structures and

functions for NRM planning found in each system.

Chapter 8 consists of a discussion of the key findings set out in Chapter 6 and

Chapter 7. Chapter 9 concludes the thesis and describes the lessons that can be

drawn from this research and the application of the GSA framework for

governance evaluation more broadly. The strengths and limitations of the

29

research are also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 9 also provides direction for

future research based on the concepts and results contained in this thesis.

30

Chapter 2: Research methods Content in this chapter is published in the following articles:

Dale, A., Vella, K., & Potts, R. (2013). Governance Systems Analysis: A Framework for Reforming Governance Systems. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3(3), 162-187.

Dale, A., Vella, K., Pressey, R., Brodie, J., Yorkston, H., & Potts, R. (2013). A method for risk analysis across governance systems: a Great Barrier Reef case study. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 1-16.

2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the methodological framework and the

research methods used to answer the research questions for this study identified

in Chapter 1. This chapter describes the methods used to apply and assess the

proposed framework developed and described in greater detail in Chapter 4. The

chapter begins with a justification for the selection of two case studies in and a

description of the methods used to develop the theoretical and analytical

framework of this research (further described in Chapter 4). The five-step

application of this framework using methods of desktop analysis, unstructured

conversations, participant observation, and semi-structured interviews is then

described.

2.2 Research Approach

This research adopts a structural-functional ontology and interpretivist

epistemology to analyse and understand the interactions of structures, functions

and decision-making outcomes in NRM planning governance systems. Structural-

functionalism emphasises the interconnectivity of components of society,

arguing that we cannot understand its nuances and complexities without

examining the interrelationships between components (see Chapter 3 and 4)

(Chilcott, 1998; Fontes & Guardalabene, 1976; Kalu, 2011). Interpretivist

epistemology does not seek to explain the interactions of individuals or groups

within society, rather it emphasises exploration and understanding of

phenomena (Bryman, 2012).

31

Interpretivism has its origins in hermeneutics and phenomenology (O'Reilly,

2009). It emphasises plurality of perspectives regarding reality (Mathison,

2005). Reality and knowledge are considered to be highly subjective, socially

constructed, and cannot be understand easily from outside the ‘field’ (Mills et al.,

2010). Subsequently case study methodologies, and qualitative data collection

methods (interviews, participant observation, and questionnaires) are

commonly used to build understanding of a phenomenon in a specific context

(Bryman, 2012). One of the hallmarks of interpretivism is that the relationship

between the researcher and research participants is usually interactive and

cooperative, rather than detached, as is the case in more positivistic research

approaches (Mathison, 2005). This enables the understanding of phenomena to

evolve through the interactions of the researcher and research participants. The

research design described below was developed around an interpretivist

epistemology as described above.

2.3 Research design

Complex governance systems involve numerous and diverse stakeholders, with

varied knowledge and experience. Consequently, this diversity of perspectives

must be acknowledged and incorporated into an assessment of such a system.

Regional participants within the case study regions with significant experience

and knowledge of the system/s were observed, and interviewed in this research.

Consistent with the interpretivistic epistemology, this research focused on

collecting qualitative data from academic and grey literature, regional

participant perspectives, and through stakeholder observation to build an

understanding of the governance systems. The combination of data sources

added depth and context to the assessment, which was then further validated

through expert panels of regional participants, engaged using the Delphi

technique.

The Delphi technique is a research method that uses iterative structured and

refereed communications to achieve consensus on an issue amongst a group of

experts with disparate knowledge. The participants of Delphi expert panels are

generally not randomly selected, rather they are chosen for their expertise

and/or experience in the area being researched (Hay, 2005).

32

The Delphi technique is also highly flexible and has been applied in a number of

ways across disciplines including education, nursing, psychology and political

sciences (Adler & Ziglio, 1996; Crisp et al., 1997; McKenna, 1994). Despite the

diversity in its application, Delphi technique research generally has the following

seven traits:

1. the use of a panel of 'experts' for obtaining data;

2. participants do not meet in face-to-face discussions;

3. the use of sequential questionnaires and/or interviews;

4. the systematic emergence of a concurrence of judgement/opinion;

5. the guarantee of anonymity for subjects' responses;

6. the use of frequency distributions to identify patterns of agreement;

and

7. the use of two or more rounds between which a summary of the

results of the previous round is communicated to and evaluated by

panel members (McKenna, 1994, p. 1222).

The process used in the Delphi technique consists of a panel of experts who are

asked individually and anonymously to respond to specific questions asked by

the coordinating researcher (Plummer & Armitage, 2007; Yousuf, 2007). The

expert panelists may be contacted electronically or via post, however the expert

panelists may also participate in the process in-person in a one-on-one context

with the researcher (Hasson & Keeney, 2011; Sobaih et al., 2011). The results of

the first round of questions and responses are then analysed and synthesised by

the researcher who then submits a new series of questions to the experts based

on the results of the first round. During this process, the experts are asked to

indicate their agreement or disagreement with the deidentified responses of the

other participating experts. This process is repeated two or more times until the

expert panel reaches consensus on the issue or question at hand (Adler & Ziglio,

1996).

In order to reduce potential of researcher bias in selecting regional experts

(Murphy et al., 1998), regional experts were selected based on their extensive

work experience in and knowledge of NRM in the region, rather than their

personal relationship with the researcher. All the regional experts had at least

33

five years of experience, and most had more than ten years of experience in the

region. Semi-structured interviews replaced the questionnaire generally used in

Delphi research methods and involved asking the participants about the

accuracy of the proposed framework and the reasoning behind their response.

The purpose of the Delphi process was to enable the researcher to modify the

proposed framework and the assessment based on the panelists’ comments to

ensure the assessment presented an accurate appraisal of the NRM planning

governance arrangements in the region/s.

While the body of this chapter describes the research methodology in greater

detail, Table 2.1 provides a brief overview of the methods used, their application,

outputs and relevant research question.

Table 2.1: Summary of methods used in this research

Method Used to Outputs Research Questions

Desktop analysis

Identify key themes through a review of planning, policy, structural-functionalism and governance literature. Increase understanding of existing conceptualisations of and approaches to evaluating complex systems and policy making

Literature review in Chapter 3 and theoretical framework in Chapter 4.

What is the relationship between governance system structures, functions, and NRM planning outcomes?

Develop a framework to analyse multi-scalar governance systems based on the sociological theory of structural-functionalism,

GSA framework in Chapter 4.

Why use structural-functionalism to evaluate complex, multi-scalar governance systems? Contextualise NRM planning

in Australia and case study regions

Case study context in Chapter 5 and some of the content in the GSA framework tables in Chapter 6 and 7.

Unstructured conversations

Gather data to populate the GSA framework and assess the governance arrangements in case study regions.

Field notes, pamphlets, notices, annual reports, promotional materials, etc. to draw on in the assessment of governance in the case study regions. Populated GSA framework tables in Chapter 6 and 7.

How can structural-functionalism be used to evaluate complex, multi-scalar governance systems?

Participant observation

Semi-structured interviews

Fill remaining gaps in the GSA framework table, clarify points of contention, and

45 Interview transcripts (15 interviewees who were interviewed three times).

34

Method Used to Outputs Research Questions

validate the accuracy of the assessment’s conclusions. Applied iteratively using the Delphi technique.

Amendments to evidence, conclusions and initial scores in GSA framework tables (see Chapter 6 and 7)

The culmination of the application of and results delivered from the above

research design will enable me to respond to the fourth research question and

identify lessons for governance evaluation more broadly.

2.4 Case study approach and selection

The case study research method is an empirical research method applied

commonly in qualitative research in order to answer questions regarding how or

why a phenomena occurs (Yin, 2009). The primary intent of case study research

is to understand phenomenon through the study of an individual or small

number of 'real life’ cases (e.g. location, community, organisation, or

issue)(Bryman, 2012; Veal, 2006; Yin, 2009). Case study research can involve

multiple methods of data collection, which enables triangulation of results,

increasing the validity of the research conclusions (Hay, 2005; Veal, 2006). The

purpose of using multiple methods of data collection in case study research is to

further develop and deepen understanding of an issue or situation in one or

more ‘bounded systems’ (Hyett et al., 2014).

Case study research methods are particularly appropriate to analyse institutions

‘because they embrace explanations of complex causality’ (Mills et al., 2010).

Using two or more case studies enables a comparison of inputs, outcomes, causes

and effects, indicating reasons behind differences and similarities of situation

(Bryman, 2012). The greatest strength of case studies is the ability to ‘place

people, organisations, events and experiences in their social and historical

context’ (Veal, 2006, p. 111). The case study method is also particularly strong in

evaluation and policy research because it can test the effectiveness of a policy in

one or more settings, be applied to explore alternative policies, and establish the

need for reform of policy measures (Bryman, 2012; Veal, 2006).

35

Based on the above, a case study research approach was considered particularly

appropriate to study the nuances and complexities governance for NRM planning

in Australia. Consequently, this research examined the broader phenomenon of

NRM planning governance and systemic capacity to deliver desired decision-

making outcomes in Australia. NRM in Australia is operationalised at the

regional scale and there are 56 NRM regions across the country. As it was outside

the scope of a PhD to examine 56 regions, two were chosen based on a number of

illustrative and pragmatic grounds (Veal, 2006). The two regions include Cape

York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics. Reasoning for their selection is discussed

below.

Despite five attempts to develop regional land use or NRM plans for Cape York

Peninsula in the past twenty years, the Peninsula is the only NRM region in

Australia without a community-owned NRM plan to guide implementation

activities (CYPLUS, 1995; DEHP, 2012; DSDIP, 2012; NHT, 2005). On the other

hand, the Wet Tropics NRM group successfully delivered their first community-

owned NRM plan in 2004 (FNQNRM, 2004). This dichotomy suggests that the

capacity of the governance arrangements to deliver and support NRM planning

outcomes is different in the two regions. Subsequently, Cape York Peninsula and

the Wet Tropics were chosen as illustrative case studies, enabling a study of the

variability of the structures and functions for NRM planning and their role and

influence on the decision-making outcomes delivered in the regions.

A secondary pragmatic argument for the selection of Cape York Peninsula and

the Wet Tropics NRM regions was based on funding and existing relationships.

Prior to beginning this research I had existing relationships with a number of

‘experts’ in the Wet Tropics NRM region. The pre-existing relationships provided

me with a degree of initial access to information and experts in the Wet Tropics,

making it a practical choice as a case study region. Moreover, the Australian

Government Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)

provided me with top-up scholarship funding as an incentive to study the

governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula. The proximity of the regions

to each other further solidified their use as case study regions as a means of

36

reducing high transaction costs. The case studies are described in greater detail

in Chapter 5.

2.5 Developing the Governance Systems Analysis Framework

In order to develop the GSA framework described in further detail in Chapter 4, a

desktop analysis of the planning, governance, policy-making, and complexity

literature was undertaken. This provided a foundation of knowledge regarding

current understandings of complex planning governance systems on which to

build the theoretical framework for this research. The sociological, political, and

anthropological literatures discussing structural-functionalism were then

explored. A literature review was then compiled to explore the usefulness and

relevancy of the core concepts underpinning structural-functional approaches in

the planning discipline. Combining planning theory with structural-functional

approaches enabled the development of the GSA framework that can be found in

Chapter 4.

2.6 Applying the Governance Systems Analysis Framework

Four broad steps will be used to apply the GSA framework to analyse governance

in the two case study governance systems. They are:

1. contextualising the system and systemic risk assessment;

2. understanding and benchmarking the desired system outcomes;

3. describing the key structural and functional aspects of the system;

4. use GSA framework as a basis for governance system reform.

These steps will be further explained in the sections below.

2.6.1 Step One: context

Governance systems exist and evolve within a ‘multilayered context of political,

legal, socioeconomic, environmental and other influences’ (Emerson et al., 2011,

p. 8). Structural-functionalism and theories of polycentric governance agree that

changes to one element in the system will affect other system components across

different scales because of the high connectivity between them (Almond &

Coleman, 1960; Almond & Powell, 1966; Ostrom, 2008). Moreover, planning

theorists also recognise the importance of understanding the context in which

planning and policies are made and the role of context in shaping the

37

‘construction of practice’ (Healey, 2009). Contextual factors of a system can act

as drivers, or barriers for change, but also perpetuate the status quo

(McLoughlin, 1969).

The first step of analysing the governance systems was to recognise where each

system fits within the broader governance system of policy silos and scales. This

provided context for the key structural and functional elements of the system

and the way in which they interact. Step One involved ‘setting the scene’, which

acted as the scaffold for the analysis of the system to be built around. This was

intended to improve understanding of the system and the capacity to identify

where transformational changes are necessary within the case study governance

systems as demonstrated by Dale et al. (2013c).

This research included several scales of contextualisation. The NRM Planning

Domain in Australia, the Regional NRM Subdomain for the Cape York Peninsula

and Wet Tropics NRM regions are explored in Chapter 5. In order to

contextualise NRM planning in Australia and the case study regions a

combination of desktop analysis, unstructured conversations, and participation

observation methods were used. A desktop analysis of the history and

institutional arrangements detailed in the grey and academic literature on the

two case study regions provided the researcher with a general understanding of

the governance system context. This context was then groundtruthed and further

built on through participant observation, and informal and unstructured

conversations with actors from within the established governance systems

provided important contextual information that enabled the researcher to

ground truth and expand on the desktop analysis. These methods enabled me to:

identify the key regional participants within the governance systems;

build trust and rapport between regional participants, and myself; and

develop a ‘narrative account’ (Bryman, 2012) of the governance

arrangements for NRM planning in the region, which when combined

with interview data provided a rich and detailed picture of the setting

and relationships between regional participants.

38

Data from unstructured conversations and observation periods was recorded in

field notebooks in dot points, diagrams, and quotes written verbatim. These

notes were later coded based on their relevance to the steps of the planning

process (e.g. vision and objective setting) and the governance function being

described (e.g. connectivity). This coded data then formed the basis of the

assessment matrix and initial description of the governance systems in Step 3

(described below).

A total of 14 weeks of observation were undertaken intermittently in the regions

across a two-year period. Eight weeks were spent in Cape York Peninsula, while

six weeks were spent in the Wet Tropics. Unstructured conversations occurred

with regional participants who attended events I was invited to throughout this

period.

2.6.2 Step Two: desired system outcomes

Once the systemic context was determined, the next step was to consider the

governance outcomes the system was seeking to achieve and the structures and

functions that need to be operating well in order to achieve them. Step Two

emphasised that the state, condition and trend of the key outcomes of concern

for governance need to be well understood and agreed with systems participants

if the GSA framework is to be valuable. Institutions and stakeholders within the

system are likely to address multiple issues across governance silos

simultaneously, for example water quality, indigenous employment, and social

dysfunction. Based on this, and the planning and policy-making literature that is

discussed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, this research considers the desired

outcome of the interactions of structures and functions within a NRM planning

governance system as the capacity of system structures to undertake the steps of

the planning process. This includes:

creating visions and objectives to provide direction for on-ground

actions;

undertaking research and development to support strategy

development;

39

developing strategies that set out actions to achieve the desired

vision for the region;

implementing of such strategies and addressing issues that arise in

the system to work towards a strategically identified vision; and

monitoring and reporting to feedback into decision-making and

enable the visions and objectives to evolve based on emerging

information and knowledge (Althaus et al., 2007; Dale et al., 2013b).

2.6.3 Step Three: describing the system’s key structural and functional aspects

Step Three involved identifying and describing the key structural and functional

components in the case study governance systems. This section is separated into

two parts. The first subsection details the data collection process, while the

second part describes the data analysis methods used to develop the governance

assessment.

2.6.3.1 Data collection process

Step Three involved building on and validating the data collected in Step One

through iterative semi-structured interviews (applied using the Delphi

Technique). Step Three was undertaken as a collaborative assessment process

that engaged with regional participants who are currently actively engaged NRM

in one or both of the case study regions. The culmination of the data collected

through these data collection processes was a results table for each region (See

Chapter 6 and Chapter 7) containing evidence, conclusions and an indicative

score regarding the system’s performance towards delivering desired decision-

making outcomes. This scoring system is described in Table 2.2.

40

Table 2.2: Governance Systems Analysis Framework scoring system

Indicative score

Description

1 The governance system and structures within it are currently unable to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes.

2 The governance system and structures within it are likely to fail to deliver their intended desired decision-making outcomes.

3 The governance system and structures within it could fail or succeed to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes.

4 The governance system and structures within it are not likely to fail to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes.

5 The governance system and structures within it will not fail to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes.

The scores indicate the likelihood and capacity of the governance system and

subsequent structures to undertake the steps of the planning process and thus

deliver its desired outcomes (as defined in Section 4.5.2). For the purposes of

this research I assume each step of the planning process is equally weighted in

its importance. I formulated the initial score for each structure based on

participant observation, unstructured and semi-structured interviews. However,

a process of validation was necessary to clarify, develop, and triangulate the

assessment based on the data collection in Step One. A range of methods was

considered for their appropriateness to validate the accuracy the proposed

framework (see Table 2.3) The method needed to be capable of meeting four

criteria relevant to the case study regions in which the proposed framework was

tested, including:

1. extract information with a high level of detail;

2. limit or manage conflict between regional participants;

3. allow flexibility for participation due to seasonal, timing and

location constraints; and

4. be sensitive to contentious issues.

Potential methods were screened against these criteria to determine their

suitability, as shown Table 2.3. This assessment emphasised that structured

interviews and focus group methods were inappropriate because of lack of detail

or the high risk of exacerbating conflict between regional participants.

Alternately, semi-structured interviews and expert panels met all the required

41

criteria and provide a number of complementary strengths that provide greater

rigor around the data collection process.

Table 2.3: Assessment of the appropriateness of data collection methods for this research

Research methods Criteria Appropriate for this research?

1 2 3 4

Structured interviews X ✓ X X No

Semi-structured interviews ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Yes

Expert panels (Delphi) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Yes

Focus groups ✓ X X X No

✓ meets the criteria

X does not meet the criteria

Based on this process, regional participants were identified during Step One and

were approached by the researcher to participate in the Delphi semi-structured

interview process. Of the 16 people approached to participate as regional

participant ‘experts’ in interviews following observation and unstructured

conversations, 15 agreed to participate in the semi-structured interviews. The

near 100% participation rate is largely attributable to the significant investment

of time building relationships during the observation periods and unstructured

conversations prior to the semi-structured interviews.

A large number of regional participants from a variety of sectors contributed

their knowledge and feedback to the initial assessment of governance

arrangements in both regions through observation and semi-structured

interviews. However, from the large pool of regional participants, a smaller pool

of 10-12 regional participants from various key NRM-related institutions for

each region were asked to participate in up to three iterative semi-structured

interviews over the two year period and comment on the accuracy of the

assessment/s. As Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics NRM region are

geographically and politically aligned, a number of the regional participants were

asked to contribute towards both regional assessments because their position

42

provides them with knowledge and experience in both regions. A summary of the

regional participants can be found below in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Summary of regional participants interviewed

Sector Number of interviewees Comments

Cape York Wet Tropics

Research sector 3 Interviewees in these

sectors were able to

comment on both case

study regions.

Government sector 4

Regional non-government sector 5 3

Total interviewees 15

Total interviews 45

In the context of this research, regional NGOs are any non-government

organisation involved in NRM activities in the case study region and may or may

not have a direct mandate to participate in such activities. Representatives of

government agencies are defined by their involvement or employment by any

department or agency subsidiary to the Australian, State, or Local Governments.

To ensure anonymity, experts representing the government sector are not

identified by scale. This research uses the phrase research sector to describe any

interviewee who is involved in research relevant to the region, and may be self-

employed, or employed by a public or private institution. Quotes from

deidentified experts in the regions used in the results chapters (Chapter 6 and

Chapter 7) are italicised and identified by their institutional sector, including

regional non-government organisation (NGO), government agency, and research

sector.

The semi-structured interviews took place in various locations across the two

regions, including private offices, public halls, the James Cook University campus

in Cairns, and various coffee shops. They ranged in duration between 30 minutes

and 4 hours. The semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed

verbatim for later review and analysis.

43

The purpose of using the Delphi technique was to enable the researcher to

iteratively modify the proposed framework and the assessment based on the

panelists’ comments to ensure the assessment presented an accurate appraisal

of the NRM planning governance arrangements in the region/s. Semi-structured

interviews provided participants with the ability to make further comments

explaining why they have come to their conclusions on the accuracy of the

proposed framework and provided them with the opportunity to suggest

amendments to the framework.

Prior to the semi-structured interviews a series of focus questions/issues were

identified. The questions were then piloted prior to their application in the

region to ensure their clarity, sensitivity, and logical order. Following the pilot

tests, the questions were reworded, reordered and then tested in two case study

regions. Regional participants were asked to comment on whether the proposed

presented an accurate assessment of the governance arrangements in the

region/s. The assessment, including the scores and the evidence and conclusions

that led to their formulation were then presented to regional participants for

validation. This process confirmed the accuracy of many of the initial conclusions

and scores (as shown in black text in the final score column in the results tables

in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7).

Some of the region’s indicative scores were also adjusted when three or more

regional participants identified inaccuracies or found inaccuracies that pertained

to their specific institution/s (as shown in red text in the final score column in

the results tables in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7). By the third round of semi-

structured interviews, there was relative consensus amongst the regional

participants regarding the accuracy of the assessment. Only three dot points in

the matrices for each region were identified as inaccurate in their wording or

content. Subsequently, the identified dot points were amended and sent via

email to the regional participants who identified them to further validate their

accuracy. At this point, the assessment was considered accurate and consensus

achieved.

44

The interviews were not intended to gain consensus among participants on any

of the contentious issues within the regions. This combined with participant

anonymity further reduced the likelihood of conflict amongst participants

throughout the research process. The questions that all participants were asked

to respond to (in reference to the assessment of the governance system/s in

which they had knowledge/experience) were:

1. What does the term ‘governance’ mean to you?

2. What did you think of the assessment/s?

a. Are there any gaps in the assessment?

b. Is there any missing evidence?

c. Is any of the evidence incorrect?

3. How could this assessment be improved (e.g. additional questions,

evidence)?

4. How do you believe the governance system for NRM planning in the Wet

Tropics/Cape York Peninsula could be reformed?

Follow up questions were asked as appropriate and where relevant to garner a

more in depth understanding of participants’ responses.

2.6.3.2 Data analysis process

The field notes and interview transcripts were analysed using a thematic

analysis approach, which is consistent with an interpretivistic epistemology

(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Thematic analysis is a form of analysis that uses

coding to focus on the central themes and ideas raised in a text (Bryman, 2012;

Neuman, 2011; Veal, 2006). It is a common approach to analysing qualitative

data, particularly sourced from interviews or conversations and differs from

other approaches such as grounded theory in its focus on identifying patterns,

and overarching or common themes in the data (Bryman, 2004).

Initial coding of the field notes focused on classifying each line of data based on

themes drawn from the structural-functional and planning literature (discussed

in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). They included decision-making capacity,

connectivity, and knowledge use (see Chapter 4). These themes were iteratively

reviewed to ensure consistency and rigor throughout the analysis process. This

45

thematic coding then enabled the researcher to populate a matrix for each

conversation/meeting/event attended during the various fieldtrips. Transcripts

and notes for each conversation/meeting/event were thematically coded and

then individual sentences or quotes were put into theme-specific matrices based

on their relevance to the three overarching codes.

These individual matrices were then synthesised and combined with information

drawn and thematically coded from additional academic and grey literature to

respond to the questions set out in the matrices. The populated results tables

based on all of this information constitute an assessment of the governance

system surrounding planning in the region. This process was run simultaneously

in the two case study regions. The validation process for the GSA framework

tables was described in the previous section of this chapter.

2.6.4 Step Four: identifying priorities for governance reform

The results of Step One and Three were then used to identify key areas of

strategic reform of governance arrangements in the two regions. Although

actually reforming governance systems is out of the scope and capacity of this

research, I suggest that the GSA framework and the resulting assessments could

provide an evidence base to support governance reform that responds

appropriately to regional issues. In this research, regional participants were

asked to identify potential governance reforms at the completion of the semi-

structured interviews. Their responses were analysed thematically and

synthesised to form the list of governance reform recommendations for each

region found in Chapter 9.

Although in this research the GSA framework was applied as a once off appraisal

tool, it also has potential to be used as part of a regular review process and

means of tracking the system’s performance towards desired outcomes over

time and inform adaptive management. The process described in this chapter

could also be used as a means of stimulating discussion between system

participants regarding alternatives or improvements to existing governance

arrangements. This was happening informally between some of the regional

participants throughout the research project, but could be formally used in a

46

roundtable or workshop context. This in itself may lead to improved connectivity

between institutions and subsequently more integrated and adaptive

governance arrangements.

2.7 Research limitations

The research described in this thesis has several limitations. The first limitation

of the research is the number of final semi-structured interviews undertaken to

validate the GSA framework results in both regions. A total of 15 regional experts

were interviewed across the two regions, eight validated the results of the Wet

Tropics assessment. Of the 15 experts interviewed, ten validated the results of

the Cape York Peninsula NRM planning governance assessment. While the total

number of final semi-structured validation interviews is relatively low, a

significantly greater number of regional experts contributed to the assessment’s

development in each region. This was largely due to some participants,

particularly those at the local scale, requesting that they only participate in the

informal interview and discussion components of the research.

A second limitation of this research is any potential bias. Although every effort

was made throughout the research to talk with and interview experts from a

variety of scales, institutions, and positions relevant to regional NRM planning,

bias is still possible. One possible source of bias in the research is the low level of

participation and contributions from State Government agencies, which were

difficult to contact and engage in the research. All other sectors in the region

(industry, research, agriculture, community, and government) were well

represented in both the informal discussions and more formal validation

processes.

The evidence gathered to form the basis of the assessment was collected from

multiple sources – academic and grey literature, participant observation,

informal discussions, and semi-structured interviews. The informal discussions

and semi-structured interviews are a potential source of bias because they

involve participants providing their opinions, which may or may not be biased by

political or organisational affiliation, personal relationships, or other exogenous

factors. The diversity of data sources and groundtruthing with multiple regional

47

participants using the Delphi technique allowed the researcher to triangulate the

collected data, reducing bias in the final assessment and increasing the reliability

of the data.

One of the key assumptions of this research was that the experts identified in

participant observation for inclusion in the expert interviews had sufficient and

relevant knowledge to contribute towards an assessment of the case study

governance systems. However, there was a risk that the regional experts and

their opinions were not representative of the organisations working in the

region or of the situation within region/s. In order to reduce bias in the

assessment, efforts were made to engage with experts with diverse backgrounds,

knowledge, alliances and experiences in the region/s.

A further limitation of this research is that the GSA framework has only been

tested in the NRM planning policy silo, and although it may be useful in other

policy silos, it is yet to be tested in such contexts. Consequently, the results and

conclusions from this research can only be extrapolated to a point for their

relevancy and applicability to other complex systems. This suggests an

opportunity for future research into the applicability and usefulness of the GSA

framework and practical structural-functional approaches in other, non-NRM,

governance systems.

2.8 Conclusions

This chapter has comprehensively described how the GSA framework that is

developed in Chapter 4 was applied in this research. Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and

Chapter 7 involve the steps described above. Chapter 5 describes the context for

the study and fulfills Step One and Step Two of the process of applying the GSA

framework. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 describe the structural and functional

aspects of each case study, completing Step Three of the GSA process. Based on

the results, potential governance reforms are also identified in Chapter 9, ending

the GSA assessment process and completing Step Four.

Chapter 3: Literature review – understanding the

complexities of natural resource management and its

evaluation

3.1 Introduction

Managing natural resources is complex. This chapter consists of literature

review of the international NRM literature in order to understand the

dimensions of this complexity. It establishes a theoretical foundation about NRM,

governance of NRM, and evaluation of NRM governance systems both in the

literature and in an Australian context. The content of this chapter will be further

extended in Chapter 4 of this thesis. This chapter begins by defining natural

resources and the concept of NRM. The chapter identifies interacting complex

systems, devolved governance arrangements, and the diversity of stakeholders

to be engaged, as the three dominant explanations for complexity in NRM in the

literature.

The ‘great experiment’ of Australian NRM with participatory and devolved

governance arrangements for NRM and the challenges it has faced are discussed.

The chapter explores theoretical and normative evaluative frameworks and

principles currently available to practitioners and theorists to analyse complex

governance systems such as NRM governance. Following this discussion, the

evaluative frameworks currently used in Australia to track NRM and NRM

governance progress is discussed. The chapter identifies that evaluative

frameworks to assess NRM governance beyond individual programs or

institutions are limited in their use in Australia to support NRM.

3.2 What are natural resources and natural resource management?

Natural resources provide humans (and other organisms) with the basic means

to survive on earth, and include water (rivers, estuaries, lakes, oceans, wetlands),

soil, air, climate, and ecosystems of vegetation and animals (Hundloe, 2008).

While some natural resources are renewable, such as animals, forests, wind, and

water, others are non-renewable, including coal, natural gas, and petroleum.

49

Natural resources provide humans with many ecosystem services such as water

and air purification, waste processing, pest and disease control, and many others

(Bommarco et al., 2013). Natural resources are also described as environmental

assets (Australian Government, 2014), and common pool resources (Ostrom,

1990, 2000).

Natural resources are ecologically complex because they are highly

interconnected and are ‘shaped by unpredictable internal and external changes’

(Rammel et al., 2007, p. 9). Changes or degradation to one natural resource are

likely to impact one or more other natural resources that are connected (Heleno

et al., 2014). The resilience4 of natural resources to disturbance is, therefore,

critical. Natural resources often have concurrent social, cultural, environmental

and economic benefits and significance (Armitage, 2005; Bodin & Crona, 2009;

Brosius et al., 1998; Kellert et al., 2000; RCRC, 2005). Resilience requires

balancing not only the dynamics of ecological processes and systems of natural

resources, but also economic activities and the interests of the community that

rely on natural resources.

Recognising the importance and humans’ reliance on natural resources, NRM is

particularly focused on maintaining and conserving naturally occurring

resources and the interactions between people and the environment in a way

that enhances quality of life for present and future generations. NRM is

congruent to the concepts of environmental management and sustainable

development. It has a particular focus on stewardship and the intergenerational

principle (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2011;

Hundloe, 2008). NRM is a term used commonly in the Australian environmental

management literature, however internationally NRM is also described using the

terms community-based NRM (Armitage, 2005; Blaikie, 2006), integrated

resource management (Pahl-Wostl & Hare, 2004), comanagement (Lane, 2001;

4 Resilience is defined here as the capacity of an object or system (e.g. natural resource or

ecological system) to respond and recover from disturbance.

50

Olsson et al., 2004), environmental management (Genskow & Wood, 2011;

Margerum & Born, 1995), natural resource conservation (Agrawal & Gibson,

1999), collaborative management (Borrini-Feyerband, 1996; Koontz & Thomas,

2006), and watershed management (Costanza & Greer, 1995; Ewing, 1999).

3.3 Why is natural resource management complex?

A review of this literature reveals that the complexity of NRM practice is

discussed in the literature under three broad themes. They include: interacting

complex systems, devolved governance arrangements, and the diversity of

stakeholders to be engaged. These themes will be examined below.

3.3.1 Interacting multidimensional and complex systems

Scholars suggest that NRM and NRM problems are complex because they are

multidimensional and involve interdependencies and interactions between

numerous social, economic, political, cultural, and environmental systems

(Janssen & Goldsworthy, 1996; Morrison, 2007). The literature emphasises that

these dimensions also often play out across different temporal and spatial scales,

and require varied management approaches (Armitage, 2005; Brosius et al.,

1998). For example, management of a river system requires consideration of

agro-economic dimensions (irrigation, pesticide use, crop yield), environmental

dimensions (water quality, run off, invasive species), political dimensions (cross-

border relations, adherence to international agreements/conventions), social

dimensions (recreation uses, water quality, accessibility), and cultural

dimensions (Indigenous values, sacred sites, traditional meeting places).

Management strategies must therefore consider the interconnectivity of natural

and social systems and reconcile different and often opposing objectives for

multiple dimensions when addressing NRM problems.

A review of the literature revealed that NRM problems are often considered from

a systems perspective, which emphasises that the various dimensions of natural

resources cannot be considered in isolation of one another (Bellamy & Johnson,

2000; Bodin et al., 2006; Curtis et al., 2014; Morton et al., 2009). Social-ecological

system approaches to NRM problems also emphasise the role of humans and

decision-making on natural resource conditions. Discussions of natural

51

resources as part of social-ecological systems by scholars in the literature often

go hand in hand with explorations of adaptive management (Allan & Curtis,

2003; Gunderson et al., 2008), social learning (Genskow & Wood, 2011; Pahl-

Wostl, 2009; Woodhill, 2004), and sustainability (Dovers et al., 1996; Fiksel,

2006). Concepts of Social ecological systems and resilience thinking in planning

have gained particular traction in the planning literature because of their

consideration of systemic complexity, interconnectivity of social and ecological

problems, and uncertainty (Davoudi et al., 2012; Palomo et al., 2011; Wilkinson,

2011). Taking these perspectives, progress towards sustainability and resilience

can only be achieved through integrated and holistic approaches to NRM.

NRM can be challenging because ecological and social systems involve a high

degree of nonlinearity, uncertainty, interconnectivity, emergence, and conflict

(Brugnach et al., 2011). Wicked problems are thus a distinguishing trait of NRM.

NRM problems are ‘wicked’ because they have no clear solution, and policy and

planning interventions to address them can have significant and unintended

impacts on interconnected natural and human systems (Rittel & Webber, 1973).

Consequently, NRM problems require management approaches that are able to

adapt quickly to the unpredictable system dynamics inherent in large and

complex systems.

3.3.2 Devolved governance arrangements

Devolved decision-making powers5, and multiscalar6 governance arrangements

have become a further hallmark of NRM worldwide (Armitage, 2005). There is

strong support in the literature that ‘successful environmental management is

the product of the collective, bottom-up action of interregional actors, nested

5 In devolved NRM decision-making, responsibility to make decisions regarding management

strategies and activities has been ceded from a high tier of government (e.g. Australian

Government) to a lower tier of government (e.g. Queensland Government) or non-government

organisation (e.g. NRM groups).

6 Where governance arrangements are multiscalar they involve interactions between institutions

across numerous spatial and political scales (e.g. local, regional, state, national).

52

within government hierarchies’ (Morrison, 2007, p. 230). NRM governance

systems are subsequently highly complex because of the interdependencies that

exist across multiple institutions, sectors and scales to address NRM problems.

Decentralised approaches to NRM tend to focus on delivering sustainable,

integrated and collaborative regional scale planning and management through

increased participation of communities and localised groups (Farrelly, 2005).

The primary underpinning assumption of decentralised NRM is that involving

the community in decision-making is positive and leads to better outcomes

(Brown, 2007). However, there is no evidence that decentralisation actually

leads to better outcomes than a centralised approach to NRM (Hajjar et al., 2012;

Joshi, 2013; Kellert et al., 2000; Lane, 2006). By decentralising decision making

to regional or local groups, local knowledge becomes more accessible, actions

can be tailored to the context which they are responding to, enforcement and

management becomes more legitimate and different approaches can be tried in

different localities rather than a broadly implemented ‘one-size-fits-all’

management approach (Ostrom et al., 1999).

NRM Governance systems tend to involve non-hierarchical networks of

institutions and stakeholders with evolving interdependencies and

independence within a common set of societal or legislative rules (Ostrom,

2012). For this reason, NRM governance systems are often described as being

polycentric because they involve multiple scales of institutional arrangements,

stakeholders and institutions influencing environmental outcomes through

management activities (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006, p. 298). Polycentric governance

systems are ‘capable of providing and producing essential collective goods and

services to the citizens in that regime’ (Andersson & Ostrom, 2008, p. 77). NRM

governance systems are polycentric because they have many decision making

‘centres’ which are formally independent but tend to be interdependent in their

functions and relations (Ostrom et al., 1961). Centralised governing authorities

(e.g. Government) in polycentric systems provide support and resources to build

the capacity of local groups and communities to self-govern.

53

3.3.3 Diversity of stakeholders and how to engage them

Natural resources have a high intrinsic value to society. Changes to the condition

and management of natural resources can have significant implications for other

natural resources and stakeholders who value the resources. The literature

describes stakeholders with a vested interest in NRM from a multitude of groups

with diverse values and interests (Curtis et al., 2014; Johnson & Walker, 2000;

Reed, 2008; Reed et al., 2009). For example, Indigenous individuals and groups,

non-Indigenous individuals and groups, pastoralists, conservationists,

landholders, business operators from various industries, and plethora of

individuals identifying with varied age groups, geographic locations, gender

orientations, religions, and cultural groups.

Community-led, participatory, localised, and inclusive approaches to NRM

emerged in the 1970s, following widespread dissatisfaction with large-scale and

State-led conservation approaches (Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004; Kellert et al.,

2000). As a result, NRM is often described by scholars as being a participatory

process in which local communities and institutions with an interest in the

management of the natural resource/s (stakeholders) are involved in varying

degrees in decision-making processes (Kellert et al., 2000; Parkins & Mitchell,

2007; Schusler et al., 2003). The participatory arrangements for NRM exist

between local and non-local government, and non-government institutions

(including industry and community groups), leading to more complex and

multiscale governance arrangements than would exist in a top-down,

government approach to addressing NRM problems (Wallington et al., 2008).

The value of stakeholder engagement and participation in NRM and decision-

making has been widely extolled in the literature for more than four decades

(Arnstein, 1969; Dovers et al., 1996; Folke, 2006; Gunningham, 2009; Innes &

Booher, 2004; Lane & Robinson, 2009; Ostrom, 1990; Reed, 2008). The

participatory processes described in much of the NRM literature fit with

Habermasian communicative rationality that suggests problem solving is best

approached through negotiation, deliberative collaboration, and consensus

building (Bolton, 2005; Muro & Jeffrey, 2008). Such an approach involves

stakeholders sharing their knowledge with others to build a shared

54

understanding of NRM problems and the world more broadly (Leys & Vanclay,

2011; Pahl-Wostl, 2002).

A number of benefits of stakeholder participation in NRM are described in the

literature. The literature suggests that it increases the legitimacy of NRM actions,

while empowering stakeholders to take ownership of a problem and its

management, and increases the relevancy and efficacy of action through access

to local knowledge (Margerum & Born, 1995; Reed, 2008). The literature also

highlights stakeholder participation as a mechanism for negotiating conflict,

identifying and acknowledging local socio-cultural conditions, and motivating

collective action (Johnson & Walker, 2000; Wallington et al., 2008). Finally,

scholars also extoll its value in building social capital and enables social learning

by ‘establishing common ground and trust between participants and learning to

appreciate the legitimacy of each others’ viewpoints’ (Reed, 2008, p. 2420).

Australian and international scholars equally emphasise that the complexity and

value-laden multidimensionality of NRM problems requires the input of a wide

assortment of stakeholders to ensure the diversity of stakeholder perspectives

and interests are considered in decision-making (Jennings & Moore, 2000;

Margerum, 1995). They argue that NRM stakeholders are diverse in their

perspectives, which are informed by their culture, religion, capacities, histories,

values, and other contextual factors (Brugnach et al., 2011). The degree to which

stakeholders are engaged in decision-making is varied on a case-by-case basis

based on need, capacity, and contextual relevancy. Some scholars describe

engagement approaches on a spectrum ranging from dissemination of

information to inactive stakeholders to more active stakeholder collaboration

and participation in decision-making (Arnstein, 1969; Reed, 2008). Participatory

processes can improve the relationships that exist between stakeholder groups

across scales and foster social learning (Buchy & Race, 2001).

The importance of considering the plurality of stakeholder knowledge and

perspectives in resource management has increasingly been recognised by

theorists from the late 1970s (Dahl, 1989; Johannes, 1978; Mackinson, 2001).

However, there has been some debate in the literature surrounding how best to

55

integrate the diversity of scientific and local knowledge perspectives in a

meaningful way (Mackinson, 2001). Some knowledge integration methods

include process-based frameworks (Failing et al., 2007; Raymond et al., 2010),

participatory research methods (Martin et al., 1992; Reddel & Woolcock, 2004),

and social learning (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Pahl-Wostl & Hare, 2004; Reed et al.,

2010; Schusler et al., 2003).

In a study of crayfish management practices in Lake Racken Watershed,

Switzerland, Olsson and Folke (2001) found that knowledge is rarely distributed

evenly amongst stakeholders and concluded that it is important to involve

multiple participants with varied affiliations and experiences. They argue that

scientific information needs to be ‘contextualized and combined with locally

generated observations. This process results in management practices that are

constantly reevaluated and reshaped for improved performance’ (Olsson &

Folke, 2001, p. 97).

While the participatory approach to addressing NRM problems is espoused by a

significant number of theorists and empirical studies, Reed (2008, p. 2417)

argues that ‘the quality of decisions made through stakeholder participation is

strongly dependent on the nature of the process leading to them’. Theorists

stress that poorly planned and executed participatory decision-making

processes can in fact reinforce unequal power dynamics (Morrison, 2007),

increase ambiguity in NRM problems and management solutions (Brugnach et

al., 2011), and fail to deliver significantly improved outcomes compared to top-

down decision-making models (Reed, 2008). As a result, Reed (2008) identifies

eight best practice principles of stakeholder participation in the literature and

emphasises that best practice stakeholder participation for NRM should:

1. ‘be underpinned by a philosophy that emphasises empowerment, equity,

trust, and learning,

2. be considered as early as possible and throughout the process,

3. analyse and systematically represent relevant stakeholders,

4. have clear objectives for the participatory process from the outset,

5. have methods that are tailored to the decision-making context,

56

6. use highly skilled facilitators,

7. integrate local and scientific knowledge, and

8. be institutionalised’ (Reed, 2008, pp. 2422-2426)

This emphasises the impact of governance arrangements on NRM decision-

making processes and outcomes.

Conflict is a common feature in addressing NRM problems due to the diversity of

interests and values involved (Jennings & Moore, 2000). Conflict resolution

approaches that enable stakeholders with conflicting perspectives to bargain and

negotiate are particularly important to participatory decision-making for NRM

(Margerum & Born, 1995). In addition to diverse perspectives, there are also

disparities in the spread of resources, power and level of organisation among

stakeholders (Bouwen & Taillieu, 2004). Power relations between stakeholders

can be particularly influential on the success of NRM (Armitage, 2005).

Participatory NRM decision-making approaches carry the risk of stakeholders

with greater power than other stakeholders unduly influencing decision-making

and outcomes more than less powerful stakeholders (Reed et al., 2009).

3.4 Understanding governance

There are numerous definitions and classifications of governance across the

literature due to multiple interpretations from different disciplines. Governance

has been interpreted both as a broad concept that describes the structures and

actions of governments and institutions (Rhodes, 1996), and as a more

specifically defined concept that involves ‘coexisting forms of collective

regulation of social affairs, including the self-regulation of civil society, the

coregulation of the public and private actors, and authoritative regulation

through government’ (Dingwerth & Pattberg, 2003, p. 188). In fact, there are a

number of broad characterisations of governance in the literature, including:

Government – governance is the act of governing, usually by a

centralised, democratically elected party (Finer, 1971);

Corporate governance – governance is used to describe the way in which

organizations operate and are directed (Daily et al., 2003; OECD, 2004;

Stapledon, 1995; Strenger, 2004)

57

‘Good’ governance –governance involves the exercise of political power

at a scale broader than government and decision-makers should aspire to

have democratic decision-making processes (Aguilera & Cuervo-Cazurra,

2004; Doornbos, 2003; Graham et al., 2003b; Nanda, 2006; UNDP, 1997;

UNESCAP, 2012; Zattoni & Cuomo, 2008)

Self-organizing networks of decision-making – governance involves a

complex network of public, private, and voluntary organizations who

depend on their interconnectivity to deliver outcomes (Rhodes, 1996,

2007; Rosenau & Czempiel, 1992).

Prior to the 1970s, governance was considered synonymous with government

and described the actions of a traditional and hierarchical formally recognised

authority (Finer, 1971; Fukuyama, 2013; Marsh, 2008). However, in 1979

Williamson wrote a paper analysing transaction-cost economies, which he

referred to in his discussion as structures of governance. The paper introduced

the idea that governance consists of multiple structural elements that interact to

deliver certain economic outcomes (Williamson, 1979). This ‘new’ perspective

broadened scholarly interest in governance beyond the traditional economic and

government disciplines and began to be applied in more socially-oriented

contexts (Hollingsworth & Lindberg, 1985).

In the early 1990s the definition of governance broadened further and increased

its scope to describe the interactions of interconnected public, private and

government institutions. This increase in scope evolved out of a number of

publications looking at governance and alternatives to hierarchical control

(government) in Europe and discussed ideas of coordination and the policy and

decision-making processes (Bulmer, 1994; Kooiman, 1993). The definition

shifted to describe a non-hierarchical and multiple participant (not just

government institutions) model of governance. This shift was stimulated by the

growing recognition that governments were not the only institutions involved in

the process of governing and collective problem solving (Mayntz, 2003).

Governance systems are defined in this research as the network of formal and

informal processes, interactions and arrangements through which decisions are

58

made and outcomes delivered (Davidson et al., 2006; Young, 1997). Applying this

broad definition, governance can be seen as the means by which social

coordination occurs through one or multiple interactions, including self-

regulation, deliberation, authoritative choice and negotiation (Kemp & Parto,

2005).

Environmental governance emerged out of the sustainability and environmental

agenda of the 1970s and 1980s and refocused the business model of governance

on socio-ecological problems and catchment management (Paavola, 2007)

(McGinnis, 2005). Paavola (2007) argues that environmental governance differs

from the broad concept of governance in that environmental governance

involves multiple institutions attempting to resolve resource conflicts rather

than being focused on the internal issues and structures of an organisation.

Lemos and Agrawal (2006, p. 298) provide a more comphrehensive definition,

stating that ‘environmental governance refers to the set of regulatory processes,

mechanisms and organisations through which political actors influence

environmental actions and outcomes’. Environmental governance has also

become synonymous with concepts of social justice and decentralisation of

institutional processes (Bulkeley, 2005; Eckerberg & Joas, 2004; Lemos &

Agrawal, 2006)

Understandings of governance vary across disciplines. Economic disciplines

discuss governance as a means of regulating decision making and determining

fiscal outcomes, whereas sociological perspectives of governance place a greater

emphasis on the actions and behavior of individuals and their interactions within

a political context (Bevir et al., 2003; Braithwaite et al., 2007; Daily et al., 2003;

Dean, 2003; Dingwerth & Pattberg, 2003; Hill & Hupe, 2006; Mayntz, 2003;

Poppo & Zenger, 2002; Stoker, 2002; Williamson, 1979). Institutional theoretical

perspectives of governance take a broader structural perspective, defining

governance as the sum of rules, routines and social norms that guide both

individual and institutional behavior (Dean, 2003; Mayntz, 2003).

59

3.4.1 Conceptualisation of natural resource management governance in

this thesis

Based on the discussion above and the work of Dale et al. (2013b), this thesis

conceptualises governance systems as complex networks of interconnected and

interacting scales and silos of institutions, policies, plans, and programs.

Governance systems consist of broad and interrelated social, environmental and

economic silos that coexist and interact across scales and thus cannot and should

not be considered in isolation. Practice has shown us that the silos are highly

interconnected, demonstrating for example that environmental degradation may

be underpinned by social dysfunction or economic deficiencies (Dietz et al.,

2009; Fairhead & Leach, 1995; Rapport et al., 1998). Similarly, economic

prosperity may result in environmental degradation and social disengagement

(Ghazoul et al., 2010; Tamazian et al., 2009). Despite the widespread recognition

of the interconnectivity of these silos, governance research and analysis often

focuses on silos of management in isolation from each other (Failing et al., 2007;

Raymond et al., 2010).

Within the broader silo context there are a number of focus areas for policy and

action, including social or economic development, education, health, industry, or

environmental management. These focus areas involve specific groups of

stakeholders or communities of interest and tend to draw on a specific skill- and

knowledge-set within that community. They can occur across multiple spatial,

temporal and political scales. The importance of understanding the multiple

scales at which governance plays out have been widely emphasised in the

governance and planning literature (Cash et al., 2006; Cash & Moser, 2000;

Ostrom, 2012). The different spatial and temporal scales are complex and

interdependent. Governance systems playing out at one spatial scale are capable

and in fact likely to influence other governance sub-systems.

NRM in Australia has been a debated topic in the environmental management

literature in the last decade, following the progressive formalisation and

evolution of Australian and state environmental management funding and

decision-making arrangements. A significant number of studies emerging focus

on analysing the efficacy of the regional participatory approach to NRM and its

60

associated governance arrangements (Bellamy et al., 2005; Hajkowicz, 2009;

Jennings & Moore, 2000; Lane et al., 2004; Lockwood & Davidson, 2010;

Morrison, 2009; Morrison et al., 2010; Paton et al., 2004; Robins & Kanowski,

2011; Taylor, 2012; Tennent & Lockie, 2012; Whelan & Oliver, 2005). Several

theorists have described the departure from State management of natural

resources to devolved and collaborative NRM arrangements in Australia from

the 1980s as a significant ‘experiment’ in environmental governance (Curtis et

al., 2014; Morrison, 2009; Wallington et al., 2008). The following subsections

describe the ‘great experiment’ and the subsequent challenges it has faced.

3.4.1.1 The ‘great experiment’ of Australian natural resource management

The ‘great experiment’ of Australian NRM involved a shift away from centralised

and government-led environmental interventions to NRM problems, and

towards participatory and community-based NRM approaches (Curtis et al.,

2014). It is described as an experiment because it involved trialing an approach

to NRM that departed significantly from historic management approaches in

Australia. The evolution of the ‘great experiment is described below.

NRM appeared on the Australian political agenda in the 1980s in response to the

growing international sustainability agenda and evolving scientific evidence of

ongoing and increasing land degradation due to erosion, poor land management,

and salinity (Wallington et al., 2008). While there were some instances of

agricultural extension prior to the 1980s, land management was largely

considered the responsibility of individual landholders, rather than the

Australian or State Governments (Wallington et al., 2008). This is despite

constitutional responsibilities for land management being ceded to the State

Governments in Australia’s federation in 1901 (Wallington et al., 2008).

Early Australian and State Government endorsed participatory and community-

based approaches to addressing land degradation, first emerged in Victoria and

Western Australia in the 1980s (Curtis et al., 2014). These groups focused their

on-ground activities on NRM problems predominantly on private or leased land

and relied entirely on volunteers (supported by State Government agricultural

extension services) (Curtis & Lockwood, 2000; Ewing, 1999). In the late 1980s,

61

the Australian Government recognised the successes and strengths of Landcare

groups and legitimised grassroots NRM approaches by providing funding to roll

out the National Landcare Program across Australia (Tennent & Lockie, 2012).

The National Landcare Program provided information, capacity building, and

market-based incentives to private landholders to actively participate in NRM

(Lockie & Higgins, 2007).

The success of the decentralised and participatory approaches of the National

Landcare Program in mobilising communities to take action on NRM problems,

led the Australian Government to recognise the value of regional approaches to

integrated NRM (Head, 2005). The great experiment picked up momentum in the

late 1990s as the Australian Government embraced the regional model and

began to devolve NRM and land management responsibilities to regional

communities and non-government institutions through the National Heritage

Trust Phase 1 (NHT1) and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

(NAP) (Head, 2005). The devolution of NRM responsibilities to the regional scale

was in response to the inability of the National Landcare Program to address

landscape scale issues (Farrelly, 2005).

The Australian ‘great experiment’ with the regional delivery model for NRM

gained significant traction with the introduction of the National Heritage Trust

Phase 2 (NHT2) funding program in 2003 (Curtis et al., 2014). NHT2 was

intended to align NRM program delivery between the State and Australian

Governments and land stewardship amongst stakeholders (Whelan & Oliver,

2005). Through a bilateral agreement between the Australian and State

governments, the region was introduced as a fourth tier of governance in

Australian NRM and operationalised NRM through 56 regional NRM groups. This

process gave regional NRM groups some power and responsibility to develop

and implement NRM plans.

The role of regional NRM groups under NHT2 and NAP was to ‘develop and

implement regional plans and investment strategies’ (Robins & Dovers, 2007a, p.

112). However the non-statutory nature of many of the NRM plans meant their

success was largely dependent on stakeholder partnerships and access to

62

resources. NHT2 was replaced with CfoC in 2008 in an attempt to make NRM

more strategic and competitive (Morrison et al., 2010; Wensing, 2008). The use

of the regional model declined under CfoC in favour of a more centralised

programmatic structure and competitive funding model. This led to reduced

investment in NRM, loss of partnerships, and decreased social and institutional

capital that had previously been developed and supported under NHT2 (Robins

& Kanowski, 2011; Vella et al., forthcoming). The NRM programs described

above are described in further detail in Chapter 6 of this thesis.

3.4.1.2 Challenges of the ‘great experiment’

Empirical studies of Australia’s shift from a government to governance model of

NRM identify issues of accountability and legitimacy as the primary challenges

for NRM throughout the ‘great experiment’ (Abrahams, 2005; Curtis et al., 2014;

Moore & Rockloff, 2006; Morrison & Lane, 2006; Paton et al., 2004; Wallington et

al., 2008).

The ‘great experiment’ of Australian NRM has involved significant shifts in power

and responsibility to regional actors (Campbell, 2006). However, the actual

power devolved to local and regional stakeholders in reality has been limited

(Moore & Rockloff, 2006). NRM responsibilities were decentralised in Australia

(Moore & Rockloff, 2006; Morrison, 2009). As a result regional NRM groups were

ceded the responsibility of developing and implementing NRM plans, without the

corresponding authority (Lawrence, 2005; Lockwood & Davidson, 2010; Whelan

& Oliver, 2005). This lack of authority is a significant challenge to the legitimacy

of regional actors and their decisions (Wallington et al., 2008).

These tensions emerged out of the convergence of regionalism and

regionalisation approaches to addressing NRM problems in the last two decades

(Campbell, 1996). The ‘great experiment’ has involved both regionalism and

regionalisation. Regionalisation involves the development and ceding of power

to administrative regions to deliver top-down objectives surrounding identified

and defined problems efficiently (Taylor, 2012). This approach is particularly

evident in the creation of 56 regional NRM groups and provision of national NRM

funding through bilateral agreements to address NRM problems in Australia.

63

Alternately, regionalism is described as a more organic and ‘bottom up’ approach

to NRM, whereby more localised stakeholders identify a NRM problem/s and

develop regional arrangements in response (Jennings & Moore, 2000). This has

created challenges in mediating regional NRM priorities and funding allocation

(Robins & Kanowski, 2011).

A 2006 study of four regional NRM groups (or Catchment Authorities) found that

NRM groups’ upwards accountability to the Australian Government is generally

quite strong because of highly structured funding arrangements (Moore &

Rockloff, 2006). Some of the groups found horizontal accountability with the

State Government difficult, because of unequal power dynamics and low

transparency (Moore & Rockloff, 2006). Downwards accountability however is a

significant challenge, because ‘mechanisms for accounting sideways to partners

and downwards to constituents are poorly developed’ (Moore & Rockloff, 2006,

p. 268).

Low levels of funding to support monitoring and evaluation of NRM and NRM

planning under NHT2 and CfoC have been a significant barrier to measuring

outcomes and ensuring accountability of regional NRM groups (Vella et al.,

forthcoming). Changes to NRM program structures in 2008 with the introduction

of CfoC were particularly problematic for the legitimacy and accountability of

regional NRM groups (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). The narrowing of the NRM

agenda, increased centralisation of NRM decision-making power to the

Australian Government, and decreased overall NRM funding despite increased

transaction costs, have significantly undermined the legitimacy of regional NRM

groups (Curtis et al., 2014; Robins & Kanowski, 2011). CfoC has been described

as a departure from the ‘great experiment’ because of it’s move towards more

centralised decision-making and requiring regional groups to focus their

activities on national (rather than regional) NRM priorities (Robins & Kanowski,

2011).

3.5 Evaluative frameworks

There is no consensus amongst theorists or practitioners on evaluative

approaches to analyse complex governance systems such as NRM governance

64

(Imperial, 1999). Currently the literature provides several evaluative

frameworks to explore the efficiency and efficacy of a program, or policy at a

single scale of governance (Conley & Moote, 2003; Hoggarth & Comfort, 2010;

Hsu & Sandford, 2007; McDavid & Hawthorn, 2006; Owen, 2006; Patton, 1982).

Conversely, there are only a handful of recognised approaches to evaluation that

attempt to analyse complex governance systems that have high degree of

uncertainty and dynamism (Burns, 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Wallington et al.,

2008).

Some of these frameworks have been specifically developed based on normative

principles with NRM governance systems in mind (Lockwood, 2010), while

others are more theoretical in their origins or generic in their application in

complex governance systems (Burns, 2006; Hill & Hupe, 2006). Best practice

principles of NRM governance have also been explored and used by a number of

theorists as normative evaluative criteria to assess NRM governance (Blaikie,

2006; Cox et al., 2010; Davidson et al., 2006; Kellert et al., 2000; Lockwood &

Davidson, 2010).

The frameworks vary in their theoretical grounding, purpose, and practicality.

Table 3.1 provides a brief overview of a number of existing models for analysing

complex governance systems. This section provides a brief overview of the

existing evaluative frameworks relevant to complex systems promoted in the

literature.

65

Table 3.1: Overview of evaluative frameworks for analysing complex governance systems

Approach Underlying theory/ies

Data collection methods

Type of data collected

Approx. time period

Richness of data/

information

Tested in

practice

Case study location/s

Scope/scale

Evaluative frameworks for complex governance systems Large system action

research-based evaluation

(Burns, 2006)

Systems thinking,

Action research

Desktop analysis Case studies Exploratory interviews

Stakeholder conferences

Household surveys Inquiry groups at

different scales

Qualitative Quantitative

Long (2 years)

High Yes

Welsh Assembly

Communities First

Program Cardiff, England

Local-Regional

Multiple governance framework

(Hill & Hupe, 2006)

Polycentric governance

Unclear methods Case studies

Qualitative Unclear Unclear Yes (1)National Health

Service, England,

(2) Management of schooling in England

Multiple scales of a hierarchy

Evaluative frameworks for NRM governance systems Institutional Analysis

and Development Framework

(Ostrom, 2005)

Policy science Case studies Statistical analyses Document analysis Multiple ecological

and social data points


Unclear High Yes Multiple international case studies by multiple researchers


Management and Transition

Framework (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010)

Sustainability Adaptive

management Social learning

Case studies Unclear methods

Unclear Unclear Unclear No

- Local-Regional

66

Approach Underlying theory/ies

Data collection methods

Type of data collected

Approx. time period

Richness of data/

information

Tested in

practice

Case study location/s

Scope/scale

(triple loop learning) and

regime transitions

Polycentric approach for analysing multi-

scale governance (Andersson & Ostrom, 2008)

Polycentric governance

Desktop analysis Case studies

In-depth personal interviews

Census data analysis Surveys


Moderate High Yes (1) Bolivia, (2)

Guatemala, (3) Peru


Governance and Ecosystem

Management for the Conservation of

Biodiversity Framework

(Kenward et al., 2011)

Adaptive Management

Standardised questionnaires (80-85 ecological, social

and economic datapoints) Case studies


Unclear Moderate Yes 26 local case studies

8 international case studies

(specific locations not

described)

Unclear

67

The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework is one of the most

tested and recognisable policy science evaluative frameworks (Clement, 2009).

The IAD framework was developed by Elinor Ostrom (and colleagues) as a

method for analysing multiscalar, interorganisational networks surrounding and

managing natural resources (Imperial, 1999). The framework requires

examination of three variables, including the biophysical conditions of the

natural resources, the characteristics of the community (e.g. values, culture, etc),

and rules in use (shared understandings of the responses required to problems).

The variables are examined across multiple scales, including the constitutional

level, the collective choice level, and the operational level (Ostrom, 2009b). This

approach enables study of decentralised systems and power dynamics that exist

within them (Ostrom, 2009b). Both Hill and Hupe’s (2006) Multiple Governance

Evaluation Framework, and Pahl-Wostl et al.’s (2010) Management and

Transition Framework are based on the Institutional Analysis and Development

Framework.

The polycentric evaluation approach espoused by Andersson and Ostrom (2008)

emphasises the importance of contextual institutional incentives over the

secondary governance traits of technical capacity and financial resources. Their

focus on institutional incentives is based on the hypothesis that ‘one of the

strongest predictors of local political leaderships responding to decentralisation

reforms by investing in natural resource management activities is the incentive

structure for local politicians’ (Andersson & Ostrom, 2008, p. 81).

While the majority of evaluative approaches described in Table 3.1 use mixed

methods, Kenward et al. (2011) propose a more quantitative-dominant method

for evaluating the performance of governance strategies for ecosystem

management. The Governance and Ecosystem Management for the Conservation

of Biodiversity Framework (GEMCB) looks at the capacity, management

priorities, main processes and tools, and the economic, social, and environmental

impacts of strategies (Kenward et al., 2011). Using statistical analysis and

modeling, the GEMCB framework can identify the most significant strategies to

achieve specific outcomes for ecosystem management (Kenward et al., 2011).

68

3.6 Use of best practice principles of governance in evaluation

While the evaluative frameworks described in Table 3.1 are predominantly

grounded in theories of policy sciences, systems, and polycentric governance,

normative best practice principles are also widely used in the literature as a

means of analysing governance systems. This section will provide an overview of

the best practice governance principles found in the literature. There is a high

degree of congruency across the best practice governance principles promoted

and defined in the literature by theorists from a number of contexts, including

global development (OECD, 1995; UNDP, 1997; UNESCAP, 2012), corporate

responsibility (OECD, 2004; Strenger, 2004; Zattoni & Cuomo, 2008), public

sector (Barrett, 2003), and natural resource management (Griffith et al., 2009;

Gruber, 2010; Lockwood, 2010).

Dale and Bellamy (1998) recognised the high degree of congruency amongst the

principles across disciplines and synthesised the diverse array principles

available into a set of seven principles of ‘good’ governance systems. The seven

evaluative principles are: 1) equity; 2) accountability; 3) effectiveness; 4)

efficiency; and 5) adaptability, 6) sustainability, and 7) adequacy. They are

defined below in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Synthesised evaluative principles for natural resource management governance

Principle Description of Principle

Sustainability Governance and institutional arrangements can be maintained while

outcomes are being pursued

Equity The fairness of decision-making in the system

Accountability The answerability of decision-makers to other system participants and

broad interests

Adequacy Whether enough is being done to ensure activities within a system are

working

Effectiveness Governance activities result in meaningful on-ground outcomes

Efficiency Use of resources and capital to achieve outcomes through activities

Adaptability Ability of systems to strategically and operationally evolve and change as

the context of the governance system changes

Source: (Dale & Bellamy, 1998)

69

Table 3.3 demonstrates the process used by Dale and Bellamy (1998) to

synthesise of a number of governance best practice frameworks and their

principles for ‘good’ governance. Some of the models outlined in Table 3.3

identify multiple criteria that describe an individual principle or part of the

principle. For example, Thomas (2010) suggests the criteria of ‘voice and

accountability’ and the ‘rule of law’, both of which contribute towards the

accountability of the system. The principles were not all considered in the

models, with some only addressing only two of the principles in their sets of

criteria (Barrett, 2003).

Table 3.3: Comparison of principles of good governance

Criteria Equity Accountability Effectiveness Efficiency Adaptability Sustainability Adequacy

GOVERNANCE UNESCAP (2012) sets

out principles of sustainable human and regional development

✓

✓

✓

✓ ✓ X

X

Graham et al. (2003a) describe principles of

good governance

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X

X

Thomas (2010) defines World Bank indicators

of worldwide good governance

X

✓ ✓ X

X

X

X

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE OECD (2004) discusses

the principles of corporate governance

✓ ✓ X

X

X

X

X

Barrett (2003) defines principles for public sector governance in

Australia

X

✓

X

✓

X

X

X

NRM GOVERNANCE Zafrin and Rosier

(2011) describe indicators of successful governance of Integrated Coastal

Zone Management

✓ ✓ ✓ X

X

X

X

Lockwood et al. (2010) outlines principles for

regional NRM governance in

Australia

✓ ✓ ✓ X

✓

X

X

Gruber (2010) undertook a meta-

study of NRM initiatives/ programs and identifies traits of successful initiatives.

✓ ✓ ✓ X

✓

X

X

✓ Principle matches or matches in part X Principle is not considered

70

Of these frameworks all are grounded in or have been applied in real world case

studies, where they were tested for their relevancy and appropriateness to

analyse complex governance arrangements. For example, Lockwood et al. (2010)

developed and tested their list of evaluative principles in 13 NRM regions in

Australia, while Gruber (2010) undertook a meta-analysis of NRM initiatives and

their governance arrangements and identified the governance traits of successful

initiatives.

3.7 Evaluation frameworks currently used to assess Australian natural

resource management

The Australian Government invested over $AU6.51 billion over the past 25 years

in the five national-scale NRM programs that have largely been translated into

local or regional action, enhancing capacity and implementing the regional

model (Abrahams, 2005; Farrelly, 2005; Moore & Rockloff, 2006; Robins &

Dovers, 2007b). There have been a number of government-driven evaluations of

the efficacy of Australian NRM programs since the mid 1990s (ANAO, 1997,

2008; NHT, 2000; SSCRRAT, 2010; Walter Turnbull, 2005). The need for stronger

evaluative mechanisms and performance criteria for NRM in Australia has

repeatedly been recommended by these evaluations to enable evaluation of NRM

and progress towards desired outcomes. Despite these calls for improved

evaluative frameworks for NRM in Australia, there has been little attempt to

develop or apply an evaluative framework based on either existing theoretical

frameworks (as described in Table 3.1) or accepted normative best practice

principles as outlined in the previous section. Rather, a number of poorly funded,

and output focused monitoring frameworks are currently used to assess NRM

outputs in Australia. They are described below.

3.7.1 State of Environment reporting mechanism

The Australian and State Governments currently rely on the State of the

Environment (SOE) reporting mechanism to monitor the conditions of natural

resources (DEHP, 2011; SEWPaC, 2011c). SOE reports were introduced as a

reporting mechanism under the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable

Development in 1992 and the first national SOE report was published in 1996

(SEWPaC, 2012a). The SOE reports provide a snapshot of the condition of and

71

pressures affecting natural resources at national and state/territory scales every

four (state reporting) or five (national reporting) years (SEWPaC, 2011c). The

State and Australian Governments have largely relied on the SOE reports since

the mid 1990s as a simple indicator of the effectiveness of NRM policies,

programs and actions based on the biophysical outcomes produced (SEWPaC,

2011c). This approach assumes that there is a direct relationship between

policy/program quality and management outcomes. In reality, management

outcomes are influenced by a number of factors including the geographic

location, local demographic, history, institutional processes, and variations in

natural processes. SOE reporting is also problematic because it is undertaken

every six years, rather than annually to provide data on resource conditions to

resource managers (SEWPaC, 2011c).

3.7.2 Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and Improvement framework

As part of CfoC, the Australia Government also uses the Monitoring, Evaluation,

Reporting, and Improvement (MERI) framework, as a means of tracking

Government investment through grants against NRM outputs (e.g. number of

hectares sprayed for weeds). The MERI framework was introduced in 2008 and

enables the Australian Government to monitor the outcomes of NRM activities

funded under Caring for our Country against their investment (DAFF & SEWPaC,

2011a). Institutions receiving grants that are equal to or greater than $80,000

are required to develop a MERI plan. The results of MERI are used to develop

Caring for our Country Report Cards that track progress towards national NRM

priorities (DAFF & SEWPaC, 2011a). While the MERI framework is applied

annually, it does not examine governance arrangements or their impact on NRM

outcomes, limiting its efficacy to tracking NRM outputs (e.g. number of hectares

sprayed for weeds).

3.7.3 Natural Resource Management Excellence Framework

Many of the regional NRM groups in Australia currently use the NRM Excellence

Framework (Vogel, 2008) as a means of evaluating and tracking their corporate

governance performance. The NRM Excellence Framework has been used in

Australia since 2004. It is based on a number of principles that underpin

‘Business Excellence’ and was developed specifically for the NRM sector as a

72

means of analysing NRM group’s institutional performance (Vogel, 2008). The

framework examines institutional performance across three dimensions,

including their approach, deployment (efficacy of approach), and results (Vogel,

2008). These dimensions are explored within seven component areas, including

leadership, corporate strategy and planning, client and community focus,

information and knowledge, people focus, process management, and business

results (Vogel, 2008).

The intention of the NRM Excellence Framework is to support improvement of

institutional performance through evaluation (Vogel, 2013). However, the NRM

Excellence Framework is critically limited by two factors. Firstly, the NRM

Excellence Framework is largely focused on corporate governance of NRM

groups, rather than broader regional governance and the relationship of NRM

groups with other key stakeholders involved in NRM. In fact, the broad regional

governance arrangements for NRM that exist between multiple institutions and

scales are currently not monitored. The second limitation is that the results of

the NRM Excellence Framework assessments are confidential to the NRM group.

These factors limit the NRM Excellence Framework’s usefulness to inform

broader governance reform.

3.8 Conclusions

This chapter explored the NRM literature broadly and more specifically relating

to NRM in Australia. This process illuminated three broad themes used in the

literature to explain the complexities of NRM, including interacting complex

systems, devolved governance arrangements, and the diversity of stakeholders

to engage. These traits were reiterated in the Australian NRM literature and

evident in the challenges that have emerged out of Australia’s experimental

approach to NRM. Evaluative frameworks and normative best practice principles

promoted in the literature for use in analysing complex governance systems

were discussed. Evidence of their application in Australia was not found. Rather,

despite repeated national calls for more comprehensive and systematic

evaluative frameworks, existing approaches used to track NRM in Australia are

largely outputs focused and do not consider governance in their assessments.

73

This chapter provides the theoretical foundation regarding NRM for this thesis

and the answering of the four research questions described in Chapter 1. Chapter

2 provides a detailed description of the methods that will be applied to answer

the research questions. Theory described in this chapter is used to inform the

discussion and development of a framework for evaluating complex NRM

governance systems in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.

74

Chapter 4: Exploring structural-functional principles to analyse complex natural resource management planning governance systems

This chapter is published in Planning Theory in the following article:

Potts, R., Vella, K., Dale, A., & Sipe, N. (2014). Exploring the usefulness of structural-functional approaches to analyse governance of planning systems. Planning Theory, 1-27. doi: 10.1177/1473095214553519

4.1 Introduction

There is a significant body of empirical and theoretical work in the planning

literature looking at how to conceptualise decision-making processes, the

individual planner’s role and impact on outcomes, the role of planners in wider

governance processes, how power is exercised, and the degree to which the

public and their interests should be involved (Faludi, 1973; Forester, 1989,

2013; Friedmann, 1987, 1996; Healey, 1992, 1993; Hillier, 1993; Innes & Booher,

2003). A strong impetus to explore the cumulative impacts of the interactions

and relationships between the multiple institutions involved in decision-making

arrangements over time has emerged out of the NRM literature and questions of

the efficacy of current decision-making approaches (Reed, 2008).

As explored in Chapter 3, existing evaluative frameworks for complex

governance systems are often time consuming, expensive, require

evaluative/academic experts to apply, and/or fall short of a comprehensive and

systemic assessment of governance processes and outcomes. Public choice

theory and complexity theory have been demonstrated to be an excellent

starting point for planners to understand dynamic and multi-layered nature of

the governance of planning systems. However, theorists have yet to explore the

usefulness and practicality of structural-functional approaches for evaluation of

complex planning systems (Buchanan & Tollison, 1984; Chettiparamb, 2014;

Healey, 2007).

Without suggesting its application as a grand theory of society and planning, this

chapter explores structural-functional approaches and their relevancy to

planning practice. This discussion then forms the foundation of the exploration

75

in this thesis of whether structural-functional approaches can be used to support

planners and those interested in the reform of planning systems to practically

assess the health of governance driving complex planning systems. The chapter

argues that complex planning systems consist of many component parts that

contribute towards the overall performance and capacity of the system to deliver

desired decision-making outcomes, and that these parts can be identified as

being either structures or functions.

4.2 Conceptualising planning

Planning theorists have progressively embraced epistemic pluralism and ideas of

complexity as planning theory and practice have evolved. Friedmann (1996)

classifies the evolution of planning thought between the 1780s and the present

day into four distinct traditions, including social reform, policy analysis, social

learning, and social mobilization traditions.

The social reform and policy analysis traditions include relatively positivistic

approaches to planning that emphasise a rational, scientific approach to

planning and decision-making, (Friedmann, 1996). Planning approaches that fall

within the social reform tradition are described by Mannheim (1929), Banfield

(1955), Lindblom (1959), and Etzioni (1968). The policy analysis tradition is

evident more widely in the works of political science theorists (Friedmann,

1996). For example, Althaus et al. (2007) recognise decision-making as a series

of typical and identifiable steps beginning with establishing goals and objectives

and concluding with feedback and assessment to inform future decision-making

By itself, the positivistic rational planning paradigm is problematic because it

presents an idealistic, simplistic and linear model of decision-making. It also fails

to address issues of representation and the plurality of public interests, and

inaccurately suggests that the planner has control over the decision-making

situation (Alexander, 2000; Altschuler, 1965; Baum, 1996; Dalton, 1986;

Davidoff, 1965; Etzioni, 1968). Despite these criticisms, Baum (1977) and Harris

(1967) argue that planners need not reject or glorify the rational planning

paradigm, but should recognise the value of its reasoning and its usefulness to

theory and practice. There is a wide recognition amongst theorists and

76

practitioners that planning systems are more complex than the rational planning

paradigm suggests and the role of the planner much more diverse (Dalton, 1986;

Dorcey, 1986; Healey, 1992, 1993, 2003; Mazziotti, 1982; Muller, 1992). Hence,

strong elements of the rational planning paradigm continue to persist in

planning education and practice (Dalton, 1986; Whittemore, 2014).

Planning approaches in the social learning and social mobilization traditions

depart radically from the positivistic social reform and political analysis planning

approaches in favour of more empirical and post-positivistic approaches to

understanding the realities of local and strategic planning practices (Friedmann,

1996). The social learning approaches move away from the rational planning

paradigm, and towards ideas of pragmatism and Marxism (Friedmann, 1996).

Alternately, planning approaches in the social mobilization tradition tend to

eschew rationalism but support a bottom-up approach to planning involving

direct collective action to affect change, emerging often in response to

oppression, or dissatisfaction with existing power dynamics (Arnstein, 1969;

Mazziotti, 1982).

Social learning and social mobilization planning approaches described in the

literature include transactive planning (Friedmann, 1973), advocacy planning

(Mazziotti, 1982), bargaining-oriented planning (Dorcey, 1986; McDonald,

1989), and communicative planning (Forester, 1989; Healey, 1992, 1993). These

approaches differ from those within the social reform and policy analysis

traditions because they recognise that planning practice is shaped largely by the

ebb and flow of power and agency, and that the planner is not the omnipotent

gatekeeper of the planning system. Supported by theorists such as Arnstein

(1969), and Cornwall (1995), social learning and social mobilization tradition

planning approaches tend to assume that more public involvement is ‘good’,

while less public participation in the planning process is ‘bad’. However, Buchy

and Race (2001) argue that public participation is not about empowering

stakeholders as much as it is about challenging existing power structures.

Moreover, a stakeholder’s ability to participate is often ‘pre-determined by the

type of process used and the degree to which rationality drives it, supporting the

77

maxim that he/she “who initiates the process, controls the process”’ (Buchy &

Race, 2001, p. 295).

The increasing popularity of planning approaches within the social learning and

social mobilization traditions from the 1980s to present day emphasises the

rejection of early positivistic approaches to planning and a move towards largely

post-positivist, but also post-modern, post-structuralist, and neo-pragmatic

planning approaches (Allmendinger, 2002; Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones,

2002). More recent developments in planning theory have focused on further

developing these ‘post’ perspectives by drawing on the ideas and concepts of

philosophers such as Lacan (Gunder, 2010; Gunder & Hillier, 2009), Foucault

(Harris, 2011), and Deleuze and Guattari (Hillier, 2011; Purcell, 2013). Parallel to

these explorations, there has also been an emerging discussion surrounding

ideas of complexity theory (Chettiparamb, 2014), critical pragmatism (Forester,

2013), actor network theory (Rydin, 2012), and institutional theory (Neuman,

2012). Although these discussions have provided greater insight into the

contextual complexity of planning practice and decision-making, the gap

between planning theory and practice is yet to be fully bridged by the adoption

of complexity-rich but practically implementable approaches (Lord, 2014).

The above illustrates that there is a plurality of theoretically and empirically

founded approaches to conceptualise and analyse complex planning systems.

While there is some dissent regarding how planning systems function, there is

relative consensus amongst many planning/policy theorists and practitioners

that in practice:

planning and policy making are generally not linear activities (Althaus

et al., 2007; Chettiparamb, 2006);

the planner or policy maker is one of many semi-autonomous

stakeholders in the system (Even-Zohar, 1979; McLoughlin, 1969);

planning tends to comprise the goal setting and strategy development

processes within defined governance systems (Dale, Vella and Potts,

2013);

78

planning systems are highly dynamic rather than static (Althaus et al.,

2007; Chettiparamb, 2006; McLoughlin, 1969; Ostrom, 1990); and

planning and policy making are operationalised across a number of

interconnected institutions across multiple scales (Almond & Powell,

1966; Chettiparamb, 2006, 2014; McLoughlin, 1969; Ostrom, 1995).

4.3 Structural-functionalism

4.3.1 Development of structural-functionalism

Structural-functionalism is an early form of systems thinking that emerged in the

1800s out of the works of French and British sociological philosophers Comte,

Spencer and Durkheim who explored and developed the application of the

biological metaphor to understand society (Barton et al., 2004; Spencer, 1899;

Urry, 2000). Their work was particularly focused on explaining order and

stability of social systems, emphasising concepts of systemic needs,

interdependency, and socialisation (Harper, 2011). In the early 1900s British

anthropologists Radcliffe-Brown (1935) and Malinowski (1922) further

developed and applied the sociological construct of structural-functionalism in

anthropology as a means of framing ethnography and overcoming the limitations

of diachronic approaches to understand change. During this time period, similar

to theorists in structural-functionalism, theorists at the Chicago School of

Sociology were also suggesting that social life cannot be understood without first

understanding the interactions of actors within temporal and spatial contexts

(Abbott, 1997).

American sociologist Talcott Parsons and his students were particularly

influential in the development of structural-functionalism in sociology during the

1950s and 1960s, and based on their work structural functionalism became the

dominant sociological paradigm of the time. Parsons supported the biological

metaphor put forward by early sociologists and perhaps boldly argued that

structural-functionalism was a grand theory of sociology that could be applied to

understand any system (Parsons, 1939, 1951). Parsons developed a structural-

functional framework based on the belief that shared norms and values within

systems are the keystone to systemic survival and deviation from those norms

79

and values can jeopardise the survival of that system (Smith & Hamon, 2012). In

his framework, Parsons identifies four functions that social systems are

generally seeking to achieve to maintain stability, including: adaptation, goal

attainment, influence (on outcomes), and latent pattern maintenance (AGIL)

(Parsons, 1951).

Parsons’ student Robert Merton challenged the core principles of structural-

functionalism, and modernised structural-functionalism with his recognition

that not all functions are necessary to systemic survival or relevant to a system’s

needs (Merton, 1949). Rather, he argued that functions can influence the health

of social systems by reinforcing or reducing the system’s stability (Merton,

1949), recognising that maintaining the status quo can itself sometimes imperil

the health of a social system. Merton also developed the notion that by

themselves, functions can be either manifest (intended), latent (unintended), or

dysfunctional (having unintended negative affects) (Helm, 1971), which differs

from Parsons’ structural-functionalism, which predominantly emphasises

manifest functions.

Political scientists also introduced structural-functionalism into the policy

sciences in the 1960s as a means of comparing different political systems

(Almond & Powell, 1966). Almond and Powell (1966) describe their approach as

probabilistic functionalism and emphasise that structures within political

systems are highly interdependent but not necessarily intended to exist at

equilibrium as purported by early structural-functionalists. The political science

approach to structural-functionalism is probabilistic because it assumes that if

one structure within the system changes, then there is a high probability that

other structures in the system will also adjust to accommodate for that change

(Almond & Powell, 1966).

The political science application of structural-functionalism, however, provides

particularly good insight into how structural-functionalism might be applied to

describe the structures and functions of complex planning systems. Although

structural-functionalism has been used in the policy sciences to analyse and

compare political systems, and systems theory has been applied in planning

80

theory, the principles behind structural-functional approaches are yet to be

applied by planning practitioners to support a real-world, practical analysis or

evaluation of the governance arrangements for planning.

The ongoing relevancy and usefulness of structural-functional approaches to

understand complex systems is recognised by theorists such as Even-Zohar

(1979), or Luhmann (1995) who drew on Parsonian structural-functionalism

and sociological phenomenology to develop systems theory (Arnoldi, 2001).

Systems theory, however, departed from structural-functionalism in its perhaps

flawed recognition that social systems are systems of communication rather than

systems of action (Arnoldi, 2001). Following these criticisms of structural-

functionalism, later theoretical conceptualisations of systems moved entirely

away from the structural-functional approach, exemplified by the work by

Wallerstein (1979), and drawing on concepts from dependency theory, Marxism,

and the Annales school (Gregory et al., 2009).

The use of complexity theory to understand planning practice (Byrne, 2003;

Chettiparamb, 2014; McLoughlin, 1969), emerged following its inception in the

natural sciences (Gleick, 1987; Gribbin, 2004), and later applications in the social

sciences (Byrne, 1998; Gribbin, 2004; Luhmann, 1995). More recent discussions

of planning systems in the literature are both implicit and explicit in their use of

systems theory to conceptualise and understand planning practice. Few of these

revivals of systems theory, however, including complexity theory, have retained

or emphasise some of the most useful characteristics of structural-functional

approaches suggested by theorists in the 1950s-1970s (Chettiparamb, 2006,

2014). In fact, these approaches draw on ideas from old and new systems

theories, and are often hybrids of modernist and post-modernist approaches to

conceptualising or analysing planning processes and governance arrangements

(Alexander, 2000; Chettiparamb, 2006; Cilliers, 2000; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003).

4.3.2 Key concepts of structural-functionalism

Structural-functionalism conceptualises society as a system of interacting parts

that promote stability or transformation through their interactions. This

conceptual approach suggests that, to understand social systems, it is crucial to

81

look at the parts of the system that substantiate particular activities and their

interrelations (Chilcott, 1998). Hence, some of the overarching core (and most

useful) assumptions underpinning structural-functionalism include:

society consists of both structures and functions that are interconnected

and interdependent, and ultimately focused on maintaining or mediating

societal equilibrium (Radcliffe-Brown, 1935) and or necessary

transformation (Dale, Vella and Potts, 2013);

social systems consist of both structures and functions that are necessary

for the ongoing health or survival of that system (Chilcott, 1998);

structures exist to meet the functional needs of a system (Merton, 1949);

and

systemic functionality (i.e. how parts of the system work) across and

within structures serves to reinforce and maintain the stability of the

system’s structures in the context of an ever-changing, complex and

unpredictable system.

The key concepts of defined structures and their contribution towards systemic

functionality are at the heart of structural-functionalism, and are discussed

further below.

4.3.2.1 Structures

Structures are the more ‘static’ elements of a system (Sewell, 1992). That is not

to say that structures are immobile, rather they change at a slower rate than the

functions, which tend to be more dynamic and less robust than structures.

Structures are identifiable as they are usually organised or institutionalised in a

specific manner and consist of many interrelated, interdependent, but also

autonomous parts, including alliances of different actors within the system

(Sewell, 1992). For example, in the sociological applications of structural-

functionalism structures include kinship relationships, family, community,

employment, and religious organisations (Merton, 1949). Examples of structures

in a policy system include the institutional alliances that run processes or are

involved in goal setting in the policy cycle (such as government agencies,

industry groups, non-government organisations, community groups, and

individuals). The way in which structures operate is evidenced by their

82

expressed contribution towards achieving a goal of the system as a whole (Kalu,

2011).

Structures in planning systems may include the social and institutional networks

that carry out typical roles within the strategic policy or planning system being

analysed. While structures are largely responsible for running particular

processes, they also produce outputs (e.g. formal documents such as legislation,

policies, strategies, plans) and outcomes. In a governance system, structures

focused on setting strategic priorities for planning may deliver plans or policies

intended to guide action to achieve desired planning outcomes. Alternatively,

structures focused on the implementation of policies or plans may include

legislation writers and other institutions with local decision-making authority.

4.3.2.2 Functions

Functions are the traits that describe how structural aspects of a particular

governance system work or how the system is stabilised (Eisenstadt, 1990).

Within governance systems, certain functions must be present for the system to

persist (Almond & Coleman, 1960). Functions connect the structures in a system

but also represent the relationships between them.

There have been significant discussions involved in identifying functions

relevant in sociological terms (Parsons, 1951) and in the political sciences

(Almond & Coleman, 1960). Parsons’ proposed that functional traits describe the

social outcomes of the interplay between structures and functions, rather than

the actual functions of a system. Similarly, Almond and Coleman’s functions are

highly specific to government or hierarchy models of governance and are

inappropriate for application in governance systems that do not fit the

hierarchy-driven ‘government model’; a condition true of many planning

systems. Looking at governance systems more generally, aligned with the

Parsonian approach to understanding functions of systems, Dale and Bellamy

(1998) identify three cornerstone functions of healthy planning governance

system structures. These include knowledge application to improve governance

systems, the connection of effort within governance systems, and the decision-

making capacity of players within the system.

83

4.3.3 Criticisms of structural-functionalism

Structural-functionalism (and particularly Parsonian structural-functionalism)

has been extensively criticised in the literature (Alexander & Colomy, 1990;

Giddens, 1979, 1984). Critics, perhaps unfairly, argue that structural-

functionalism:

uses an ecological model to understand society (Chilcott, 1998; Craib,

2011);

only presents a simplistic and static model of society/systems focussed

on order and equilibrium, rendering it unable to adequately account for

transformation and change (Chilcott, 1998; Colomy, 1986);

is excessively abstract and cannot be applied empirically (Colomy,

1986);

overemphasises the importance of integration within the system, while

downplaying the role of the individual and agency in the system

(Giddens, 1979); and

does not adequately (if at all) address issues of self-reference,

complexity, or conflict (Alexander & Colomy, 1990; Clark, 1972;

Luhmann, 1982).

Giddens (1979) is particularly critical of structural-functionalism on the grounds

that it does not account for any degree of individual agency within systems, and

this is somewhat true for Spencer and Durkheim’s structural-functionalism.

Spencer and Durkheim were responsible for developing the broad principles of

structural-functionalism. Parsons (1951) and Merton (1949) further reified the

generalised structural-functional approach in an attempt to respond to critics.

Parsons (1951) considered agency in the ‘decision-making process for individual

actors’ in his framework, arguing that actors are guided in decision-making by

their environment and moral constraints. However, for many critics, Parsons and

Merton failed to gain headway in making the abstract ideas of structural-

functionalism applicable to the wider study of society.

Although structural-functionalism was largely abandoned by the 1980s, several

theorists recognised both the value and limitations of the structural-functional

approach, and developed new models that drew in varying degrees on some core

84

conceptual ideas. Some of the more well known approaches that emerged

include neofunctionalism (Alexander & Colomy, 1990), systems theory

(Luhmann, 1982), and structuration (Giddens, 1979). In line with the theoretical

and empirical developments at the time, these approaches moved towards a

greater recognition of epistemic pluralism, rather than seeking a grand or

unifying theory of society.

Dissatisfied with the normative and rational planning models of the 1960s, and

structural-functionalism in the 1970s, Healey (2007) drew inspiration from

Giddens (1984) in her study of planning practice using sociological

institutionalism. Healey (2007) uses Giddens’ arguments on the interrelations of

structure and agency in her work on understanding complexity in planning

practice. Indeed, Healey’s (2007) rejection of classic structural-functionalism is

one of the few examples where structural-functionalism has been considered for

use in the planning discipline.

In developing her approach, Healey (2007) addresses issues of cross-scale

complexity, network connectivity, governance, and the significance of context in

planning. Healey’s work, however, focuses on the interrelations of structures and

agency and subsequently fails to recognise the significant influence of functions

within the system. Despite this, Healey’s (2007) work emphasises and supports

the key argument of this thesis, that concepts of structural-functionalism (and its

varied evolutions) are highly relevant to understanding and analysing planning

governance systems. While Healey’s (2007) framework is theoretically robust

and well argued, it does not provide planning practitioners or institutions

interested in reform with a practical tool or approach to inform evidence-based

decision-making for systemic governance reform in practice. Rather, it seems

more oriented to an academic audience.

Chilcott (1998) and Goldschmidt (1966) argue that despite the many criticisms

of the theory, structural-functionalism remains a particularly strong practical

device for studying and interpreting complex systems. This is further supported

by Jarvie (1964) who suggests that the criticisms of structural-functionalism are

overcome if it is used as a ‘modus operandi’ for analysing systems, rather than as

85

a grand or unifying theory. Such an approach enables analysts to focus their

attention on the description and explanatory elements of systemic functionality,

while disregarding the meta-theoretical and more problematic aspects of

structural-functionalism (Chilcott, 1998). Based on this logic, and following its

preliminary but successful empirical application (see Dale et al. 2013 and 2014),

this thesis suggests the use of structural-functional thinking as a practical

analytical device, rather than as a broad theoretical or empirical approach to

conceptualising society or complex systems.

The static nature of structural-functional interpretations of systems is less

problematic when using it as a practical device than as a grand theory of social

systems (Goldschmidt, 1966). This is because an assessment or benchmark-

oriented assessment of a complex system presents a static picture initially, but,

when managed adaptively, repeated assessments provide a narrative of how the

system changes over time. Because of this, criticisms of structural-

functionalism’s overemphasis on equilibrium can also be disregarded when

using it as a practical analytical device. A practical structural-functional analysis

of a system does not need to question whether the system is going to maintain

equilibrium or the status quo; rather the analysis can focus on what the system is

currently doing and how it is currently working or delivering its intended

outcomes. Applications of this kind are not about maintaining the status quo but

about adapting systems to societal needs.

A practical structural-functional framework can also act as a tool for self-

reference (individuals and institutions within a system are capable of reflecting

on their system and how it works) and identifying the impact of both internal

and external conflict and required changes to both structural and functional

components in the system. Using structural-functionalism pragmatically moves it

from just being an abstract theory to its application as a highly empirical and

useful analytical tool, as demonstrated by Chilcott (1998).

4.3.4 Structural-functionalism in planning

Not all of the elements of the different models of structural-functional are

appropriate to use when analysing a planning system. The sociological

86

interpretation of structural-functionalism has been heavily criticised (as

discussed above). Although the political science interpretation of structural-

functionalism overcame many of its shortcomings, in its theoretical form, it

remains inappropriate to apply directly to analyse planning systems. Despite

these criticisms, this thesis seeks to test whether some of structural-

functionalism’s principles remain relevant and useful to planning practitioners

as a theoretical grounding for systemic analysis of real-world, multi-layered,

complex planning systems.

Planning practitioners can consider institutions and their interactions or

alliances of institutions as the ‘parts’ that contribute to the overall structure of

the planning system. In line with complexity theory, this approach also

recognises that institutions can exist at multiple scales and are interconnected,

interdependent, and autonomous decision-makers. Planning systems are likely

to be poorly understood if practitioners or theorists only look at how an

individual institution/s is organised, or the role and activities of an individual

institution within the system. Rather, in order to fully understand planning

systems, practitioners and theorists must consider the system as a whole and the

cumulative influences of:

the broad political, social, economic and cultural contexts of the system;

the configuration of institutions around key planning tasks (e.g. goal

setting);

the internal organisation of institutions;

the way in which institutions interact; and

the role of institutions in the planning process.

Institutions are likely to fulfill more than one role and multiple institutions may

have the capacity to fulfill the same role. An example of this is the

implementation of riparian zone management strategies along waterways,

whereby local councils, community catchment groups, landholders, and

traditional owner groups are all able to do the on-ground works. Institutions in

practice are created, shift, change, and can be destroyed based on external and

internal influences. This dynamism means that other institutions are able to

adjust to the structural need at hand and any changes in the institutional and

87

policy landscape as required. However, such structural changes are often not

seamless, nor are they ‘harmonious’; rather there may be periods in which core

roles are not being fulfilled, while the system’s institutions adjust, reorganise and

self-regulate.

The typical structural characteristics of planning governance systems are

described in Table 4.1, while the typical functions of structures in NRM planning

governance systems are outlined in Table 4.2. Functions in planning systems are

not discrete; rather they are often interrelated. Consequently, the boundaries

between the functions are often blurred, as they influence and interact with each

other. For example, the capacity of a planning system can be strengthened or

weakened by the presence, or lack thereof, of connections between key decision-

makers or implementers. Similarly, connections between structures are likely to

be weak if they structures lack sufficient resources to survive individually, let

alone support a systemic agenda.

88

Table 4.1: Typical descriptors of key structural characteristics of planning governance systems

Key structural characteristics

Typical descriptors of structural characteristics Typical structural outputs

Vision and objective

setting

Are there single or multiple institutions/individuals involved in system vision and objective

setting?

Which other institutions and individuals in the system need to be involved and what are their

visions and objectives for the system?

What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning vision and objective setting?

High level vision and objective statements for the system that set the scene for strategy development and implementation

Analysis (research and assessment)

Is research and development linked to the operation of the system?

Are there single or multiple institutions and individuals involved and what are their research

and assessment priorities?

Which other organisations and institutions need to be involved in research and development?

What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning analysis?

Strategic research programs well engaged across the system

Strategic link between research programs and system monitoring

Strategy development

Are there single or multiple institutions and individuals involved in strategy development and

what are their priorities?

Which other organisations and individuals need to be involved?

What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning strategy development

What is the solutions mix? Is it developed to achieve high level visions and objectives (i.e. the

balance between regulatory, suasive, market-based, education and capacity building or

collaborative approaches)?

High level strategic plans that drive cohesive program development and implementation

A balanced mix of strategic solutions that inform implementation programs

Implementation Are there single or multiple institutions involved in a strategic spread of implementation

programs and projects and what are their priorities?

Which other organisations and individuals need to be involved in implementation?

What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning implementation?

Strategic implementation of programs/projects

An appropriate solutions mix of regulatory, voluntary, suasive and market-based arrangements

Monitoring, evaluation and

review

Are there single or multiple institutions involved in system monitoring, evaluation and review

and what are their monitoring/evaluation/review priorities for the system?

Which other organisations and individuals need to be involved in monitoring and evaluation?

What are the policy and legal frameworks underpinning monitoring, evaluation and review

within the system?

Regularized state of the system’s monitoring and reporting frameworks

Strategic/periodic evaluations of key parts of the system

89

Table 4.2: Typical descriptors of key functional characteristics of structures in planning governance systems

Key functional characteristics

Typical descriptors of functional characteristics

Participant decision-making capacity

Understanding of system issues of relevance amongst all system participants (organisations and key individuals)

The strength and genuine nature of the motivations of key participants to engage well in the governance system

Access to relevant system information across all system participants

Technical, skill and financial resources available to support the involvement of all participants in the system

Mandates participant organisations and leaders have from their constituents and representational feedback and communication

mechanisms

Ability of all system participants to be involved in structured collaboration and negotiation arrangements

Negotiation capacity of key participants in the system, particularly those with most responsibility for making the system work

Leadership capacities of organisations and individuals within the system

Connectivity Existence of formal structured arrangements for collaboration and negotiation within and between key structural arrangements in the

system

Relationships (including trust) within institutions and individuals involved in different structural components of the system

Alignment of efforts and relationships between different structural components within the system

Alignment between the governance system and other most relevant governance themes, domains and subdomains

Alignment between the governance system and the most relevant governance domains and subdomains within the same theme

Alignment between spatial and time scales involved in the system

Knowledge-use Use of strategic analysis (research, assessment, monitoring and evaluative work) spread across all structural components of the system

Spread of knowledge across key system participants

Use of a spread of knowledge types, including social, economic and environmental, traditional and historic knowledge sets across the

system

Use of technologies/soft systems to support knowledge integration and decision-support within the system

Existence of knowledge retention and management systems

Existence of knowledge brokerage systems across the system

90

Power, agency and the interactions of individuals, and institutions inherently

drive the decision-making capacity and connectivity of structures within

planning systems. Consequently, it is difficult to understand the dynamics of

planning without considering them (Forester, 1989). Despite this, how to

conceptualise power and agency in a way that accurately reflects planning

practice remains contested. This is in part explained by the plurality of both

planning theory and practice, and it is unlikely that theorists and practitioners

will find or agree on a one-size-fits-all approach to solve this problem. Rather,

each situation should be considered contextually before applying an appropriate

model to describe or analyse its dynamics.

When using a structural-functional approach to understand planning and power

relations, power is considered dynamic and can be defined as the ability of an

individual or institution to draw on the functional elements of a governance

system to influence action and decision-making (Forester, 1989). For example, in

the development of a regional growth management plan, a developer with a

particular agenda may use their connections to government agencies or

influential individuals (such as councilors, funding bodies, or local government

employees) to manipulate decision-making or funding allocation for specific

projects in a way that suits their agenda. Individuals or institutions have access

to different forms of capital that constitute their decision-making capacity and

their ability to use and communicate different forms of knowledge (Gallopin,

2006; Leys & Vanclay, 2011). Further, the more knowledge they have enhances

their power or influence in the planning system compared to those with less

access to capacity and connectivity (Healey, 2013; Lobry-de-Bruyn, 2012;

Raymond et al., 2010; Smith, 2005). This conceptualisation of power and its

influence on governance dynamics is reiterated in the works of seminal planning

theorists, including Arnstein (1969), Healey (2003), and (Innes & Booher, 2004).

Based on the concepts discussed above and Dale et al. (2013a), Table 4.3

provides a structural-functionally derived framework that can be applied by

planning practitioners to systemically describe and analyse the core structures

and functions of the planning system, while also considering the underlying

complexities that are influencing the governance system. Table 4.3 uses the steps

91

of policy analysis as the structures of the strategic planning process, which can

then be discussed with stakeholders in the system to gain insight into the degree

to which functional elements (decision-making capacity, connectivity, and

knowledge use) are present and applied in the system.

92

Table 4.3: Governance Systems Analysis Framework

Decision-making Capacity Connectivity Knowledge-Use Vision and Objective

Setting

Do capacities exist to set higher level aspirational or condition targets?

Do the relevant stakeholders have the knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources required?

Do key institutions involved have strong corporate governance/continuous improvement systems?

Are relevant stakeholders actively connected to decision-making?

Are visions and objectives aligned to higher and lower scale visions and objectives?

Are collaborative frameworks for setting visions and objectives well designed?

Are there structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives?

Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for vision and objective setting?

Are traditional and historical knowledge sets being applied?

Are appropriate decision-support tools in place to support scenario analysis?

Research and Assessment

Are there strong research and analysis capacities in place to inform other structural components of the system?

Are there strong environmental, economic, and social research and analysis capacities in the system?

Are there strong collaborative linkages between different research institutions?

Are there effective brokerage and communication arrangements between research provider and end user stakeholders?

Are collaborative arrangements in place to integrate social, economic and physical research?

Are there systems in place for long-term research synthesis and knowledge retention?

Are there broad research priority setting exercises that need to be refined?

Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for systems decision-making?

Strategy Development

Do capacities exist to set clear strategic targets?

Do the relevant stakeholders have the knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources available to make the decisions required?

Are all relevant stakeholders connected to strategy decision-making?

Are strategies aligned to visions and objectives?

Are strategies aligned to higher/lower scale strategy development

Are collaborative frameworks for setting

Is there social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies?

Are decision support tools available to scenario test alternative strategies?

93

Decision-making Capacity Connectivity Knowledge-Use

Do the key institutions involved have strong corporate governance and improvement systems?

objectives well designed? Do strategies integrate an appropriate

solutions mix? Implementation Are there capacities to implement a

broad mix of strategic solutions? Do the implementation players

have the financial, human and infrastructure resources to implement?

Do the key institutions involved have strong corporate governance and improvement systems?

Are there effective partnership and integration arrangements between policy and delivery systems?

Do different components of the solution mix collaboration?

Are there effective research brokerage arrangements to support implementation?

Are there research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation?

Are local and traditional knowledge sets informing implementation?

Are effective data sets concerning implementation being managed and retained?

Monitoring,

Evaluation and Review

Are there effective monitoring and evaluation capacities in the system?

Are there collective monitoring alliances in place?

Are there defined and independent evaluation capacities in the system?

Are there reporting capacities to enable high levels of accountability?

Are there integration arrangements between objective setting and monitoring systems?

Are evaluative and review mechanisms linked to long-term monitoring?

Are monitoring and reporting strategic processes able to influence strategic processes and the allocation of resources?

Are social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system being monitored?

Are monitoring and evaluation data being retained in the long-term?

94

4.4 Why is structural-functionalism relevant to planners?

This section draws on structural-functionalism and applies it to planning

systems. Planning systems can be understood to consist of interconnected

structures and functions. The interactions of those structures and functions

contribute to the overall performance of the system. This perspective can be

used to inform the analysis of complex planning systems. Analysis of

governance underpinning complex planning systems using this perspective

should consider how the system is structured and organised, but also the way in

which the structures in the system function. Analysing both the structures and

functions enables planners to take a more systemic view of decision-making,

while still accounting (in a non-linear way) for the numerous dynamic

interactions of multiple structures across scales, and policy spheres.

The rational policy analysis model can be relevant and useful as a practical

approach for discussing and analysing the planning process, provided the

underlying complexities, uncertainties, and non-linear nature of planning are

recognised. Dalton (1986) argues that although in practice planners recognise

the limitations and shortcomings of the rational paradigm, the rationally-based

policy analysis planning process remains the aspirational ideal for many

practitioners. Dalton (1986) and Althaus et al. (2007) argue that public planning

practitioners and policy makers often unwittingly take a more general rather

than precise approach anyway to the steps suggested by the policy analysis

tradition and adapt their approach based on context.

For example, in Australia regional natural resource management (NRM) groups

engage with multiple Local, State and Australian Government agencies, industry

groups, community actions groups, traditional owners, farmers and other

landholders throughout the planning process (Gooch & Warburton, 2009;

SEWPaC, 2008b). Regional NRM groups tend to use less linear, and more

iterative and adaptive planning approaches in order to respond to their

particular regional political, social and institutional and resourcing contexts and

constraints (Vella et al., 2011). This means that they are likely to be

simultaneously involved in a number of rational planning steps such as

implementation and monitoring, or strategy development, research and analysis

and evaluation.

95

Moreover, there is a strong recognition that complex planning systems need

more adaptive and resilient planning approaches, rather than traditional, linear

and static models (Dale et al., 2013a). This means that the planning process is

often not focused on just developing a static plan, but rather is an ongoing

process intended to respond to changes within the system. In practice, however,

this form of adaptive strategic planning, still relies on planners asking questions

about the following:

Their goals for the region (visioning and objective setting),

What information is needed to support decision-makers (research),

How they should go about achieving their desired outcomes (strategy

development),

How to implement strategies (implementation),

Whether their activities actually made a difference towards achieving

desired outcomes (monitoring/evaluation).

This suggests that despite the rejection of rational planning by many theorists,

its core tenets remain useful and relevant as the recognisable structures of

strategic planning practice. Consequently, to begin to bridge the gap between

theory and practice, researchers and practitioners must develop tools and

theories that are complementary to the processes that are actually used in

practice. Theorists and practitioners should work together to develop analytical

tools to support planning decision-makers and that look beyond government

hierarchies and recognise the interplay between structures in social systems,

the environment and the feedback loops that connect them.

Structural-functionalism provides a logical and systemic approach to the

analysis of strategic planning systems that is grounded in systems theory and

complementary to existing theories of systems, complexity and planning. The

steps drawn from approaches in the policy analysis planning tradition provide

recognisable and practical markers for practitioners when applying the analysis

framework. Finally, the systems view of the planning process recognises the

inherent complexity of planning systems (e.g. consider approaches identified by

Friedmann (1996) in the social learning and social mobilisation traditions) and

allows analysts to consider a plethora of interactions and other factors

influencing planning processes and outcomes across scales.

96

I reiterate, however, that this thesis is not suggesting that structural-

functionalism is a grand or unifying theory of planning. Rather, the thesis

intends to explore whether it can inform an approach to analysing strategic

planning systems that can be complementary to existing planning theories. It

aims to investigate how practical and useful such an approach is to planning

practitioners. If the approach is proven to be highly practical and useful, it could

be an additional analytical tool in the practitioner’s ‘toolbox’ to support more

evidence-based decision-making and more targeted effort and financial

investment to reform areas of the system that are currently falling short of

delivering their desired strategic outcomes.

Such a tool would provide practitioners with an alternative to continuously

creating new plans, policies, programs, which fall short of delivering expected

outcomes because decision-makers lack an understanding of the impact of the

wider governance system on planning outcomes. Rather, if planners and policy

makers could recognise which components in that system are limiting the

success of planning, then they can focus their attention on improving and

redeveloping those areas. It could also enable planners and policy makers to

progressively increase the capacity of the system as a whole to deliver desired

decision-making outcomes using a systematic, evidence-based approach. An

evidence-based approach to planning system reform may also reduce losses of

goodwill, capacity, and partnerships that can occur when policies are drastically

and regularly reformed without due consideration of their existing strengths

and weaknesses.

4.5 Applying structural-functionalism in a complex planning system:

natural resource management planning

Planning and managing for natural resources is often highly complex, political

and contentious. NRM planning involves a diverse array of institutions, and

interests interacting across temporal and spatial scales (Gruber, 2010; Ostrom,

1990, 2000, 2009a), and is an apposite example of a complex planning

governance system. In Australia, 56 regional groups have been designated

across the country to manage NRM at the regional scale. In some states non-

statutory regional groups are responsible for NRM planning. They engage with

numerous community, industry, non-government and government institutions

in order to develop and implement plans and strategies. The formal and

97

informal governance arrangements that exist between such institutions are

particularly influential on the success of NRM planning and management

activities (Dale, 2013; Lockwood et al., 2010).

There are currently numerous empirically- and theoretically-grounded

frameworks available to NRM practitioners to analyse and evaluate individual

NRM plans, programs, strategies and institutions (Althaus et al., 2007; Bellamy

et al., 2001; Connick & Innes, 2003; Curtis et al., 1998; Hajkowicz, 2009; Vogel,

2011; Walter Turnbull, 2005). While these existing frameworks are highly

useful for identifying problems at the plan or program scale, they fall short of

convincingly considering the impacts of broader governance arrangements on

the outcomes delivered by governance systems as a result of the interactions of

institutions, plans, policies, and strategies. This means that changes to

governance arrangements are often not based on systematic or ground-truthed

evidence, leading to potentially unnecessary, poorly informed or misdirected

decision-making and governance reforms. The following sections describe a

complex NRM planning governance system using a practical structural-

functional approach.

4.5.1 Structures in planning systems

The steps described by the planning policy analysis tradition and policy

scientists such as Althaus et al. (2007) can be used to represent the core

structures of a strategic NRM planning or policy-making process, and include:

‘vision and objective setting;

strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis and

research;

strategy development (within various structural elements of the system).

implementation; and

monitoring, evaluation and review’ (Dale et al., 2013b, p. 6).

Figure 4.1 provides a conceptual framework of a structural-functional

interpretation of governance systems and the key components that influence

the capacity of systemic structures to undertake the steps of the planning

process. This includes the context within which the system exists and operates,

but also the interactions of the structures and functions within the system.

98

Figure 4.1: A conceptual framework of structural-functional governance system and its wider context

In NRM planning systems, structural activities occur across multiple scales and

involve numerous institutions and individual actors. While one organisation is

designated as the institution responsible for developing and implementing the

region’s NRM plan, there are in fact several other key institutions directly

engaged in NRM decision-making, planning and implementation activities for

the region. These include government authorities that plan for and manage

World Heritage Areas, a number of Local Government, State Government and

Australian Government departments and agencies, a plethora of voluntary

community institutions, traditional owner groups, and landholders (DAFF &

SEWPaC, 2011b; SEWPaC, 2008b).

Institutions in the NRM governance systems may fulfill only one role, while

others have several roles in the NRM planning and management processes. The

institutions are various policy-makers, funding bodies, implementers,

facilitators, mediators, researchers, and other roles. For example, catchment

groups are largely involved in implementation activities such as tree planting

99

and habitat management, while government authorities may be involved in

garnering and distributing funds for NRM activities, in addition to developing

plans and policies (WTMA, 2010a, 2011). The functions that connect NRM

institutions (and subsequently the NRM planning governance system’s

structures) are critical to the system’s stability and capacity to successfully

achieve its intended and desired outcomes. The interactions between NRM

planning structures and functions in a NRM governance system are simplified

and illustrated in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: A simplified example of the interactions between structures and functions in a governance system

4.5.2 Functions in planning systems

This section defines and discusses the governance functions identified by Dale

and Bellamy (1998) in a complex planning systems context.

100

4.5.2.1 Knowledge-use

The importance of applying relevant social, economic, environmental,

traditional and historical knowledge, to enable better-informed (and thus better

functioning) planning and governance systems has been discussed at length

(Campbell, 2012; Cash et al., 2003; Failing et al., 2007; Robinson et al., 2010).

Coordinating and integrating knowledge from multiple sources of knowledge

can provide NRM planners and policy makers with specific insight into the

source or potential solutions to often-complex problems (Leys & Vanclay, 2011).

For example, NRM institution's approaches to managing invasive flora and

fauna species often draw on traditional, scientific and historic knowledge

leading to strategies that involve multiple management methods (e.g. fire

landscape management, chemical controls/baiting, aerial shooting, manual

removal, education and awareness, etc.). The result of this is a more effective

multi-directional approach to mitigating the spread of invasive species than a

management approach that only draws on one set of knowledge or method.

Knowledge is highly dynamic, and consequently planning system structures

need to be flexible and connected to ensure emerging knowledge in

continuously fed into planning and decision-making (Raymond et al., 2010). For

example, NRM institutions are able to make more informed decisions regarding

the efficacy and appropriateness of their water quality management activities if

they have access to new research or information regarding different

management approaches and conditions of the rivers and lakes as they emerge.

Planning systems that draw on numerous relevant knowledge sources in an

integrated and coordinated fashion are likely to be better functioning than

systems that ignore the pluralism of knowledge available or fail to link

knowledge to decision-making through governance structures.

4.5.2.2 Connectivity

Strong connectivity between system structures, such as institutions engaged in

strategy development and institutions engaged in implementation activities,

provides systemic stability and enhances the overall capacity of the governance

system. Alternately, fragmentation of institutions can significantly impede the

success and effectiveness of planning (Lane & Robinson, 2009). For example,

poor connectivity between Australian Government NRM funding bodies and

regional NRM groups has led to low levels of alignment of national and regional

101

priorities (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). The result of this is that regional NRM

groups are only allocated funding to address national priorities and may not

have sufficient funds to address region-specific NRM problems that do not fall

under national priority areas.

Integrated institutional arrangements promote ‘more efficient and responsive

management approaches that are needed to achieve environmental

sustainability’ (Lane & Robinson, 2009, p. 16). The primary benefit of an

integrated approach to planning governance is that it better focuses

stakeholders and institutions on the need for the holistic management of natural

resources because they operate and exist as a whole system, rather than as a

series of subcomponents (Bellamy et al., 1999a; Margerum & Born, 1995).

4.5.2.3 Decision-making capacity

The capacity (including the agency) of the institutions and individuals within

NRM planning governance systems is a key driver of the system’s overall

performance and delivery of desired decision-making outcomes. Capacity refers

to the power or capability of an institution/s or individual to achieve outcomes

(Willems & Baumert, 2003). The capacity of any institution is dependent on the

amount and types of capital that they have accrued or access and may include

human, social, financial, and physical capital (Jacobs et al., 2010; Lin, 1999). The

different forms of capital are described in Figure 4.3.

102

Figure 4.3: Types of capital defined

Capacity building can have multiple positive effects on institutional

arrangements. For example, expanding stakeholder engagement and

participation, can increase consensus, and build stronger community and

institutional networks (TAI, 1996). There is a strong correlation between the

capacity of individuals, communities, and organisations and planning

behaviours and improved outcomes (Cavaye, 2005; Jacobs et al., 2010). For

example, if a regional NRM body has not garnered adequate: financial resources

to fund the implementation of their strategies, community support and

volunteers for on ground implementation activities, trained staff, and

appropriate infrastructure (office space, telecommunications, and technical

equipment), they will be unlikely to achieve their desired outcomes. Alternately,

other institutions in the same region that have better access to adequate

resources or capital are more likely to achieve good outcomes. Centrally funded

institutions are likely to have sufficient resources to support core planning and

management activities. However, smaller institutions such as community

groups or catchment groups often struggle to survive or achieve their desired

management outcomes due to lack of financial and infrastructure resources.

Acquiring sufficient capital is only a part of building capacity. Institutions also

require leadership, and agency (Cavaye, 2005). Although a regional NRM body

may have access to adequate capital to take an action, they may fail to do so

•Infrastructure and equipment such as offices, vehicles, telephones

•The income, credit, savings and assets available to support an individual or institution

• The skills, education, and knowledge of individuals

•The relationships between individuals, social norms, beliefs and values, and trust between individuals Social

Capital

Human

Capital

Physical

Capital

Financial

Capital

103

because they are unable to act due to legal or political constraints, lack adequate

motivation (incentives or disincentives), or are opposed to the action

strategically or philosophically. Agency plays a significant role in NRM

institutional arrangements and provides leaders within the system ‘the ability

to consider alternatives, the ability to make economic transitions, and the ability

to work cooperatively’ (Cavaye, 2005).

4.6 Conclusions

The structural-functional approach described in this chapter recognises the

influence of the interactions between institutions, and individuals on policy-

making and outcomes. It is in line with systems, complexity and planning

theories. Although the specific principles of structural-functionalism discussed

in this thesis have yet to be regularly applied in practice by NRM or other

planning practitioners, there is strong evidence that many of its core principles

remain relevant to evaluating complex planning systems. The methods used to

explore the practicality and usefulness of structural-functional approaches are

set out in Chapter 2), while the process used to test a structural-functional

approach in two case studies is described in the subsequent chapter (Chapter

5). A structural-functional approach will be applied in two case studies in

Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 in order to examine the practicality of such an

approach for analysing complex NRM planning governance systems.

104

Chapter 5: Contextualising natural resource management

governance arrangements in Australia

5.1 Introduction

NRM governance arrangements have evolved throughout the past century in

Australia with investments and delivery of programs, plans, and strategies

occurring across different tiers and scales of government and governance and

involving numerous government, non-government and industry institutions.

Power relationships between the State and Australian Governments in Australia

have shifted and this played an important role in shaping governance

arrangements and approaches to NRM since Federation (Wallington et al.,

2008).

Following the development of the theoretical framework in the previous

chapter, and fulfilling Step one of the four-step methods process described in

Chapter 2, this chapter provides contextualisation of the broader NRM

governance arrangements and mechanisms for regional NRM planning in the

two case study regions. The chapter sets the scene for the context for the

evaluation of NRM planning in the case studies described in Chapter 6 and

Chapter 7. Section 5.2 describes the evolution of Australian and State NRM

governance structures and functions that informs current regional NRM

governance arrangements in Australia. Section 5.3 provides an overview of the

case study regions and their history of NRM and land use planning.

5.2 Natural resource management governance in Australia

The NRM funding and environmental regulatory subdomains are particularly

influential on the NRM planning subdomain. The NRM funding subdomain

largely plays out at the national scale, with significant implications for the NRM

governance arrangements at the state, regional, and local scales. Alternately, the

environmental regulatory subdomain plays out at many scales simultaneously,

with regulatory instruments developed at the Australian and state scales, but

implemented at the regional and local scales. Consequently, although the focus

of this thesis is NRM planning governance arrangements, the NRM funding and

environmental regulatory subdomains are considered important contextually

for the NRM planning subdomain.

105

Both subdomains have developed rapidly over the last two decades and has

included a plethora of different policies, programs and institutional

arrangements across the local, regional, state and national areas of governance

addressing environmental issues using regulatory and participatory

approaches. Five strategic national programs were developed and implemented

incrementally from the late 1980s to encourage NRM implementation through

decentralised governance: the National Landcare Program, NHT1, NAP, NHT2,

and CfoC. The National Landcare Programme was introduced to replace CfoC in

2014, but was yet to be fully operationalised at the time of writing this thesis

and will thus not be included in the sections below. State-based initiatives such

as integrated catchment management (ICM) also contributed towards NRM

from the early 1990s throughout Australia. The following sections will describe

the evolution, interplay and impacts of these subdomains.

5.2.1 Natural resource management rhetoric pre-Landcare

There was a significant shift in Australia from the late 1980s, away from

previous government-led ‘interventionist’ NRM governance approaches

towards a more community, partnership and participatory decision-making

based NRM model driven by the Australian Government (Wallington et al.,

2008). This meant that State NRM functions were redistributed ‘downwards to

regions and outwards to non-state actors’ (Wallington & Lawrence, 2008, p. 2).

This trend was mirrored internationally with more collaborative, localised and

inclusive approaches gaining momentum as a means of dealing with

increasingly wicked environmental problems (Armitage, 2005). The more

interactive and devolved NRM governance arrangements were argued to be

more effective than past government approaches to NRM (Curtis et al., 2014).

Following the partnership-based NRM rhetoric, the Australian and State

Governments identified the region as the scale most appropriate to manage the

then emerging environmental problems such as erosion or water quality across

the nation (Wallington et al., 2008). However, it is argued that some regions

were ill prepared and poorly equipped to participate in regional governance due

to a lack of capacity or institutional experience in such governance

arrangements (Head & Ryan, 2004). Head and Ryan (2004, p. 362) argue that

‘this is especially so in the state of Queensland, which… had virtually no history

106

of institutional arrangements/forums for collaborative priority setting, planning

and delivery at the “regional” level’.

In addition to a lack of capacity and experience in regional arrangements, in

Queensland the environment has also been at the core of several clashes

between the State and the Australian Governments from as early as the 1970s.

In 1975 the Australian Government established the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park Authority and nominated (and awarded) the Great Barrier Reef as a World

Heritage Area in 1981 against the wishes of the State Government (GBRMPA,

1981). Similarly the Australian Government overruled the State Government in

1976 by closing sand mining operations on Fraser Island and also nominating it

as a World Heritage Site. In fact,

‘by the early 1990s, the federal government had a significant track record

in expanding the scope of its environmental powers through its financial

power to fund specific-purpose programmes, and through its control over

trade, foreign affairs and treaties, corporations and federal territories’

(Head & Ryan, 2004, p. 366).

This power play was also not limited to Queensland with the Australian

Government creating a World Heritage Area in the South-West of Tasmania

surrounding the Gordon-Franklin River to prevent the construction of a dam in

1983 (Head & Ryan, 2004).

Sustainable development emerged as an issue on the international policy

agenda in 1980 when the International Union for Conservation of Nature and

Natural Resources (IUCN) released the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN,

1980). In 1987 the United Nations World Commission on Environment and

Development (WCED) published the Brundtland Report to summarise

discussions at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in

Stockholm (Brundtland, 1987). The Brundtland Report provided the first

definition of sustainable development and defined it as ‘development that meets

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations

to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland, 1987).

By the early 1990s sustainable development was at the forefront of the

Australian political agenda and the National Strategy for Ecologically

107

Sustainable Development was published in 1992 (SEWPaC, 2011b). The

National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development is/was strongly

linked to the aforementioned international environmental policies and

established a broad framework for Australian institutions to coordinate and

address environmental degradation (SEWPaC, 2011b).

5.2.2 Australian Government natural resource management arrangements

A number of national-scale legislative, policy, and programmatic instruments

have evolved over the last 40 (though more rapidly in the last 20) years to

support NRM delivery in Australia. They are described below.

5.2.2.1 Legislation

The Australian Government enacted the Environment Protection (Impact of

Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) in response to global concerns surrounding the

impacts of development worldwide (Wood, 1992). The Act provided a

framework for the Australian Government to assess the environmental impacts

of Australian Government development projects and actions. The Natural

Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (Cth) was established by the Australian

Government to support the Natural Heritage Trust funding program for

environmental protection, which also began in 1997 (McGrath, 2011).

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC

Act) was the first piece of legislation that defined the Australian Government’s

role in regulating environmental protection in Australia (Spence, 2010). Prior to

2000 and the enactment of the EPBC Act, the Australian States independently

regulated and legislated for the protection of significant environmental areas

and species. The EPBC Act established an overarching nation-wide framework

for environmental protection of areas or species identified to be of national

ecological significance (including World Heritage areas)(SEWPaC, 2010).

Bilateral agreements were established between the State Governments and the

Australian Government under the EPBC Act, which aim to reduce duplication of

environmental assessment and regulations (SEWPaC, 2012b). Under the EPBC

Act bilateral agreements, the States are responsible for ‘conducting

environmental assessments under the EPBC Act and, in certain circumstances…

granting environmental approvals under the EPBC Act’ (SEWPaC, 2012b). The

bilateral agreements also require the States’ to have their environmental

108

assessment processes accredited by the Australian Government based on ‘best

practice’ criteria set out in the EPBC Act.

5.2.2.2 National Landcare Program (1989-2008)

The National Landcare Program (Landcare) was established as a partnership

initiative by the Australian Farmers Federation, the Australian Conservation

Foundation and the Australian Government in 1989 and was designed to

operationalise NRM by increasing community awareness of environmental

issues and encouraging local community groups to take action against

environmental degradation in their local areas (Lane et al., 2009). Landcare’s

primary role was to distribute $AU360 million from the Australian Government

to locally formed groups for short-term NRM-based projects (Moore & Rockloff,

2006).

Landcare was a significant step in governance arrangements towards a

community-led, regional approach to NRM through its emphasis on using an

integrated catchment management model (Broderick, 2005; Paton et al., 2004).

The integrated catchment model acknowledges that the interconnectivity of

resources transcends local political boundaries but is not as large as the state

and thus natural resource problems require more integrated, localised action

than was being delivered at the time (Lane et al., 2009).

Landcare was heavily criticised in its implementation for being ineffective at

achieving positive broad regional environmental outcomes because of its lack of

integration of local actions across the landscape and insufficient resources,

which led to spatially and temporally incongruent projects (Farrelly, 2005).

Martin et al. (1992, p. 63) also argue that Landcare was introduced as means by

which the Australian government could shift ‘responsibility for action from

government to local communities’. Other criticisms suggest that Landcare

groups were too narrow in their focus and lacked the capacity, leadership and

resources to function properly and improve landscape quality (Curtis &

Lockwood, 2000). Despite these criticisms, Landcare was well supported by

communities and argued to have improved social cohesion, empowered

communities to respond to change, and increased the capacity of communities

to garner funds for local environmental projects (Curtis & Lockwood, 2000).

109

In 2008 the National Landcare Program was disbanded and funding

responsibilities for Landcare groups were absorbed largely by regional NRM

groups under the then emerging Caring for our Country NRM program (Tennent

& Lockie, 2012).

5.2.2.3 Natural Heritage Trust Phase One (1997-2003)

The Natural Heritage Trust (Phase One) (NHT1) was established in 1997 with

the intent of resolving the integration and localised project problems stemming

from the lack of strategic vision and planning of the moribund Landcare

initiative. NHT1 distributed $AU1.25 billion over five years to both landholders

and to local NRM groups previously set up under ICM and Landcare on the basis

that they would take action to mitigate land degradation and loss of biodiversity

more collaboratively (Jennings & Moore, 2000; Morrison, 2009).

The aim of NHT1 was to build the capacity of entire local communities (rather

than single groups within a community) to collaboratively manage natural

resources in their region. NHT1 differed from Landcare in that it promoted

‘catchment and regional-scale projects’ rather than the more ‘individual,

project-based framework’ advocated through Landcare (Farrelly, 2005, pp. 394-

395). The responsibilities of community groups established under Landcare

were formally recognised in the Natural Heritage Trust Act, 1997 (Cth).

The NHT1 had ‘a greater emphasis on on-ground works than… Landcare and

assume[d] that “regional or catchment-level actions are an important approach

to sustainable management”’ (Curtis & Lockwood, 2000, p. 64). NHT1 involved

creating entirely new institutions, policies, strategies and the roles of previous

Landcare or catchment groups were redefined under the new paradigm. Despite

NHT1’s stronger emphasis on improving localised outcomes, the program failed

to meet expectations for multiple reasons, these included low accountability,

poor monitoring, evaluation and reporting mechanisms, significant duplication

in programs, very bureaucratic and the lack of an overarching regional strategy

(Farrelly, 2005).

5.2.2.4 National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Program (2001-2008)

Moore and Rockloff (2006) argue that NRM governance arrangements in

Australia shifted dramatically in 2000 following the establishment of the

National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Program (NAP). The

110

Australian Government introduced the NAP in 2000 to address issues

surrounding water quality and salinity in 21 priority areas across 30 regions

throughout Australia (Abrahams, 2005; Robins & Kanowski, 2011). The NAP

was a $AU1.4 billion contribution towards water-based NRM delivery by the

Australian Government (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). It was more focused than

NHT1 on achieving specific objectives surrounding water resources and was

delivered at a regional scale by the Australian Government in collaboration with

local groups.

The Australian Government attempted to gradually modify the Landcare

movement through the introduction of the NHT1 and NAP. The role of

regional/catchment groups changed dramatically with the paradigm shift

(Moore & Rockloff, 2006). While Landcare emphasised localised on-ground

works driven by landholders and supported by governments, the regional

paradigm that emerged from the NHT1 and NAP advocated a more strategic and

framework based approach involving identifying investment priorities and

regional-scale capacity building. In the NHT1 and NAP ‘regional groups [were]

expected to have a much more strategic, corporate role, to be able to plan and

make decisions across their region, and have sound business arrangements for

reporting and financial management’ (Moore & Rockloff, 2006, p. 262). Despite

the increasingly regionally devolved responsibilities for implementation, the

Australian Government retained the strategic planning, decision-making and

funding powers.

5.2.2.5 Natural Heritage Trust Phase Two (2003-2009)

Once the failings of NHT1 became evident, the Australian Government reviewed

the processes and delivery structures and discovered that there was inadequate

strategic planning and that actions were being undertaken without a greater

vision or objective. This led to the introduction of NHT2, which involved the

formal establishment of regional NRM bodies (Figure 5.1) and required these

groups to take greater responsibility for planning roles in their regions

(Lockwood & Davidson, 2010). The new roles of NRM groups is argued to

‘challenge the traditional state and local approaches, seen by the Australian

Government as having failed to address regional NRM issues’ (Head & Ryan,

2004, p. 373).

111

Figure 5.1: Australian natural resource management regions developed in NHT2

(SEWPaC, 2008b)

NHT2 took a broadly similar approach to NHT1 but increased its focus on

strategic NRM planning. NHT2 emphasised ‘regional empowerment and

ownership through integrated regional planning’ (Farrelly, 2005, p. 396).

Approximately $AU392 million was distributed through NHT2 (Robins &

Dovers, 2007b). Funding was delivered to regional groups to write regional or

catchment NRM plans that identified priority actions and become government-

accredited(Farrelly, 2005). Under this scheme, the greatest structural change

involved the nation being broken into 56 NRM regions in which natural assets

were to be managed by non-government, community based NRM catchment

groups (Abrahams, 2005).

The NHT2 was intended to provide more focused and integrated NRM efforts

and discourage ad hoc actions without prior planning as had occurred under

NHT1 by requiring regions to write regional-level strategic plans for NRM

112

(Paton et al., 2004). One of the roles of regional groups was to articulate specific

priority actions and investments in the regional plans mandated under NHT2.

The overarching principle for NHT2 was to build institutional capacity within

regions to coordinate management of natural resources.

Arguably, the greatest strength of NHT2 was that it institutionalised regional

governance through its requirement that region’s have accredited NRM plans. In

fact, Robins and Dovers (2007a, p. 117) explore the formalisation of regionalism

for NRM under NHT2 and argue that it ‘resulted in more coordinated and

accountable government servicing and reporting to regional communities, as

state/territory and Australian Governments have had to better coordinate

(within and between agencies) and account for activities and investments’.

The regional approach of NHT2 was described by stakeholders, particularly

Indigenous communities as preferable to previous top-down programs for

delivering NRM (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). This was because NHT2 increased

the focus of government funding to regional-scale NRM delivery and provided

participants a greater voice in decision-making and the process as it related to

natural resources in their region (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). The constructive

critiques of NHT2 indicate that with some revision, a third phase (NHT3) could

have resolved concerns surrounding the structures of NHT2 and achieved

significant positive outcomes based on the success of devolving planning to

regional groups under NHT2.

The devolving NRM functions to regional communities under the NHT2

‘encouraged State agencies and Australian and State Governments to collaborate

far more than they [did] in the past’ (Paton et al., 2004, p. 260). Stakeholders

throughout Australia were involved in decision-making processes for NRM

through State-based, Joint Steering Committees and regional management

boards. In Queensland the Regional Groups Collective (RGC) were created to

support regional NRM bodies and function as a ‘conduit for information flows’

(Paton et al., 2004, p. 260). However, Paton et al. (2004) also argue that

integration of policies, knowledge and priority setting under NHT2 was limited

because of a lack of resources, methodologies and capacity in regional groups.

The NAP and NHT2 also introduced more comprehensive monitoring and

evaluation activities into the management process than existed under Landcare

113

or NHT1. Under the NHT2, the performance of regional groups and the

outcomes of their management activities were assessed against the Australian

Government Framework for NRM Standards and Targets that ‘identified national

resource outcomes and associated resource condition targets, as well as

establishing protocols for regional target-setting, monitoring, and reporting’

(Lockwood & Davidson, 2010, p. 390).

5.2.2.6 Caring for Our Country (2008-2013)

The Australian Government established the CfoC scheme in 2008 to replace the

NAP and NHT2 and function as a funding mechanism for NRM projects in

Australia. CfoC was introduced as a means of distributing $AU2.25 billion over

five years for projects that contribute to achieving the Australian Government’s

pre-identified national targets for sustainable agricultural practices and

biodiversity (DAFF & SEWPaC, 2011a; Lockwood & Davidson, 2010).

CfoC is structured on a business model that in turn relies on a business plan for

guidance (DAFF & SEWPaC, 2013). The base level funding provided to regional

bodies under previous NRM programs that enable them to function was cut by

40% under CfoC (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). CfoC introduced a national market

mechanism that forces institutions to bid competitively for funding allocations.

Regional groups compete with other regional groups or institutions for funding

through the Environmental Stewardship Program, through which money is

allocated on a merit and needs basis (Clayton et al., 2011). Creating a

competitive bidding culture in NRM for funding between NRM groups and other

institutions (i.e. local government) presents an opportunity for and encourages

regional groups to collaborate and ‘integrate more effectively in order to have a

better chance at securing funding’ (Morrison, 2009, p. 230) whilst ensuring

greater cost savings to government.

CfoC is argued to have enabled a greater number of stakeholders to participate

in NRM delivery by allowing non-government organisations (NGOs) such as

Greening Australia to contend for competitive funding (Lockwood & Davidson,

2010). Previously under the NHT1, NAP and NHT2 NGOs were largely excluded

from applying for competitive funds. Although this demonstrates an increase in

the diversity of organisations participating in NRM delivery, the core funding for

NRM groups and institutions delivering NRM was reduced by the Australian

114

Government, limiting the capacity of some groups to deliver NRM (Robins &

Kanowski, 2011).

CfoC reinforces a funding-centric and physical outcomes-focused NRM paradigm

rather than the adaptive and learning based approach that NHT2 and the

proposed third phase (NHT3) were moving towards. Robins and Kanowski

(2011, p. 91) suggest that CfoC is ‘reminiscent of pre-NHT programs with a

single-issue focus’ because the national priority areas set out in the CfoC

business plan are very specific for example ‘biodiversity and natural icons,

including weed and feral animal control and threatened species’.

CfoC removed the previous NHT2 requirement for regional groups to have

regional NRM plans unless it is a statutory requirement by the State

Government in those states (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). NRM Institutional

arrangements in each of the states and territories differ based on whether or

not their functions and powers are defined in a statutory document such as the

Natural Resource Management Act 2004 of South Australia (Hajkowicz, 2009).

Regional groups in Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia, Victoria,

South Australia and Tasmania operate under bilateral agreements between the

Australian and State Governments. States where the NRM plans currently have

statutory force include Tasmania, South Australia, New South Wales, the

Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and the Northern Territory (Hajkowicz,

2009).

Under CfoC regional groups in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, Northern

Territory, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have continued

to develop and finalise second generation NRM plans (Dale et al., 2013a).

Alternately, many regional groups in Queensland and Western Australia have

continued to rely on their first generation plans. Under CfoC the Australian

Government retreated from the previous plan’s accreditation model (regional

bodies were required to have an accredited regional NRM plan) that was used

extensively under NHT2. Only four years after CfoC began, the Australian

Government announced the Clean Energy Futures Plan in 2012, which explicitly

emphasises the importance of NRM planning and regional NRM plans. A lack of

sufficient financial and human resources and Government support prevented

many regional NRM groups from developing them prior to the release of funds

115

in 2012. Using these funds, many regional groups are now (2013) progressing

towards their second or third generation NRM plans (Dale et al., 2013a).

NHT1, NAP and NHT2 involved an incremental devolution of decision-making

power and NRM responsibilities to communities while the Australian

Government retained funding powers. CfoC, on the other hand, removed a large

portion of regional autonomy by limiting funding allocation to projects that fell

into a set of nationally approved priority areas (DAFF & SEWPaC, 2011a, 2013).

The redistribution of power and responsibilities under CfoC is seems to be a

backwards step after the progress made by Landcare, NHT1, NAP and NHT2 and

appears to have undermined the legitimacy, inclusiveness, fairness and

integration of the NRM process.

Robins and Kanowski (2011) critiqued CfoC and argue that the program has

weakened and undermined the regional NRM model previously set up under

Landcare, NHT1, NAP and NHT2. They argue that CfoC narrowed the NRM

agenda and significantly limits regional groups’ ability to allocate resources to

manage context specific NRM problems (Robins & Kanowski, 2011). CfoC has

also been criticised for being too focused on outputs and ignores the complexity

and uncertainty of the real world; increased transaction costs, widening gaps

between regional bodies and local groups; and diminished Australian

Government funding for research and development surrounding regional NRM

(Robins & Kanowski, 2011).

A common theme throughout the evolving NRM governance system in Australia

has been regionalism within which the Australian Government has retained

power over program delivery, funding and program direction (Moore &

Rockloff, 2006). Landcare, NHT1, NAP, NHT2 indicated an increasing

bureaucratic support for regions to self-govern NRM whereby the Australian

Government became a systems enhancer and funding body rather than a

centralised decision-making body for NRM. CfoC, on the other hand reverted

back to the regionalisation model and the Australian Government regained the

responsibility and control over priority setting and directing NRM delivery

(Moore & Rockloff, 2006). It could be argued that the reversion of governance

was intended to increase the management efficiency and delivery of desired

outcomes. However, available evidence does not sufficiently indicate that CfoC

116

has yet resulted in better NRM delivery or outcomes perhaps due to the

program lacking a theoretical grounding (Hajkowicz, 2009). Hajkowicz (2009)

argues that there is an overarching problem with targeting, monitoring and

evaluating both the impact of NRM activities and government expenditure.

5.2.2.7 Clean Energy Futures Plan (2011)

In 2011 the Australian Government announced the Clean Energy Future Plan

(CEF) as part of meeting their commitment under the Kyoto Protocol and

UNFCCC to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by 5-25% of 2000 levels by

2020 and 80% by 2050. In order to achieve these emissions reductions, the CEF

identifies four focus areas for action and funding, including a carbon price,

renewable energy, energy efficiency and action on the land (Land Sector

Package). The Land Sector Package and Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) are

implemented across Australia through partnership arrangements between the

Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCEE) and the

Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). The Land

Sector Package includes six funding programs that focus on different issue areas

within the land (described in Table 5.1).

Table 5.1: Land Sector Package programs under the Clean Energy Futures Plan

Program Value ($AU) Description Biodiversity Fund $AU 946 million Provides funding to projects that increase

the resilience of species to the impacts of climate change and improve the environmental outcomes of carbon farming projects. i.e. Wildlife corridors, revegetation or reforestation.

Carbon Farming Futures

$AU 429 million Provides funding for research into new technologies and innovative practices, on farm action grants, tax offsets for conservation tillage equipment, and farm extension activities.

Carbon Farming Initiative Non-Kyoto

Carbon Fund

$AU 250 million Provides funding to purchase CFI credits that are not Kyoto-eligible and cannot be used by liable entities under the carbon pricing mechanism.

Regional Planning for Natural Resource

Management Climate Change Fund

$AU 43.9million Provides funding to support regional NRM groups to update regional NRM plans based on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Consists of two funding streams.

Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund

$AU 22 million Provides funding to support Indigenous communities to establish or participate in carbon farming projects.

117

Program Value ($AU) Description Carbon Farming Skills $AU 4.2 million Involves the establishment of a new

qualification in carbon farming and an accreditation scheme for carbon aggregators under the CFI.

Source: (DCCEE, 2012)

The Regional Planning for Natural Resource Management Climate Change Fund

directly contradicts the Australian Government’s retreat from regional planning

under CfoC. The Regional Planning for Natural Resource Management Climate

Change Fund allocates $AU 43.9 million specifically to support regional bodies

across Australia make their regional NRM plans more responsive to climate

change (SEWPaC, 2013). The fund is separated into two distinct streams:

Stream One and Stream Two, with funds to be distributed across four financial

years. Stream One provides funding to regional NRM groups to support their

plan revisions based on three overarching principles:

1. ‘Plans identify priority landscapes for carbon plantings and strategies to

build landscape integrity and guide adaptation and mitigation actions

to address climate change impacts on natural ecosystems

2. Planning process is logical, comprehensive, and transparent

3. Plans use best available information to develop actions and are based on

collaboration with government, community and other stakeholders’

(SEWPaC, 2012c, p. 3)

The Stream One funds were allocated to regional bodies mid-2013 based on

applications responding to a set of criteria and ranged from $AU 260,001 (ACT

NRM Council) to $AU 952,562 (Cape York NRM Ltd) (SEWPaC, 2013).

Alternately, the Stream Two funding focuses on building the capacity of regional

bodies to make their plans ‘climate ready’ by supporting the creation and

increased accessibility of ‘regionally relevant’ information on the impacts of

climate change and potential adaptation and mitigation strategies (DIICCSRTE,

2012c). Stream Two allocated money to eight region-specific research teams

who competitively bid for the role and funding. These teams involve multiple

research institutions and are described in Stream Two as ‘NRM clusters’. The

knowledge clusters were created based on similarity of NRM problems and

geographic catchments. The Wet Tropics Cluster is the only cluster to exist

within the boundaries of a single state, while other clusters such as the

118

Monsoonal North extends across the northern aspects of Western Australia, the

Northern Territory and mid-north Queensland (DIICCSRTE, 2012c). Each

knowledge cluster has a nominated knowledge broker who is responsible for

brokering knowledge between the research and practice sectors.

5.2.3 State Government natural resource management arrangements

Australia’s State Governments have also developed a number of legislative,

policy, and programmatic instruments over the last 40 (though more rapidly in

the last 20) years to support NRM delivery in Australia. They are described

below.

5.2.3.1 Legislation

The States are constitutionally responsible for their own environmental

legislation and regulation and Australian environmental legislation is generally

complimentary to State legislative instruments. In accordance with the

Australian constitution, each of the States has their own legislation and

regulations surrounding environmental planning, protection, and management.

State-based environmental legislation first emerged in Australia in the late

1970s and early 1980s in New South Wales and Victoria in the form of the

Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic) and the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979(NSW)(McBride, 2008; Wood, 1992).

Victoria was the first State in Australia to have a formalised environmental

impact assessment system and the Environment Effects Act 1978 (Vic) was

modeled directly on the Australian Government’s Environment Protection

(Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Wood, 1992). Other Australian States gradually

introduced legislation following the examples set by New South Wales and

Victoria. The Northern Territory enacted the Environmental Assessment Act

1982 (NT) and Western Australia followed four years later with the

Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (Wood, 1992). South Australia,

Tasmania and Queensland were the last States to introduce environmental

legislation and all did so between 1992 and 1994. The Australian Capital

Territory followed suit in 1997. There is a plethora of State-based legislation

relevant to environmental management. For example, in Queensland, in

addition to regulations, codes, and the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld),

there is also the Marine Parks Act 2004 (Qld), Native Title Queensland Act 1993

119

(Qld), Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld), Water Act

2000 (Qld), the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld), and others.

5.2.3.2 Integrated Catchment Management (1989-present)

Total Catchment Management was a State Government driven ‘community-

based policy initiative’ that was first introduced by the New South Wales State

Government of Australia in 1984 (Johnson et al., 1996; Margerum, 1995). By the

early 1990s Queensland and Western Australia had introduced the alternately

named but similar policy of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM). ICM was

prompted by growing national concern surrounding declining soil health and

erosion, and issues with maintaining agricultural expansion and productivity

(Bellamy et al., 1999b; Bellamy et al., 2002).

ICM in Queensland differed to other state approaches in that it did not involve

any new State or Australian legislation and was implemented within the

constraints of existing legislation (Johnson et al., 1996). Consequently, the ICM

Strategy for Queensland did not have statutory power. The lack of statutory

power placed a greater emphasis on the importance of collaboration and active

engagement with communities. Local government involvement was also

considered an integral player in managing environmental issues in catchment

areas under ICM (Syme et al., 1999). In Queensland, ICM was initially trialed in

river catchments between 1991 and 1996 and was later adopted in 10 other

catchments by Landcare groups, conservation groups, government agencies,

and local authorities (Syme et al., 1999).

The Queensland Department of Primary Industries was responsible for

implementing ICM as part of the Queensland Natural Resource Management

Program and were supported by the Queensland Department of Environment

and Heritage, Department of Lands and the Department of Local Government

and Housing (Johnson et al., 1996). New structures created for ICM in

Queensland included:

Catchment Care Groups - provided a community forum through which

catchment management issues could be raised by individuals, community

action groups and other institutions.

Catchment Coordinating Committee – only existed in catchments where

‘existing organisations or Catchment Care Groups have been unable to gain

120

enough community interest and support to address resource management

issues effectively’ (Johnson et al., 1996, p. 304).

Technical Advisory Groups – Consist of regional-specific experts located

regionally and provide technical advice to the Catchment Coordinating

Committee surrounding the impacts of proposed actions and strategies.

ICM was intended to increase and support community awareness of broader

landscape or regional issues, whilst ensuring that communities would have a

greater capacity to take action to manage their local environment and natural

resources (Walker & Bellamy, 1999). ICM in Queensland operated as a

voluntary partnership between 14 formal representative ‘Catchment

Coordination Committees’ and the appropriate State Government bodies

(Johnson et al., 1996). The partnership involved consulting, engaging, and

raising the community’s awareness of ‘issues of land and water management at

a catchment scale, and the interactions between them’ (Walker & Bellamy, 1999,

p. 206).

Head and Ryan (2004, pp. 371-372) argue that prior to the 1990s, ICM ‘had very

little substance in Queensland outside the Landcare movement’. However, a

1996 assessment of ICM in the Johnstone River Catchment in north Queensland

found that ICM successfully ‘fostered coordination…,promoted community

understanding…,[and] provided a forum for community and government

discussions’ (Johnson et al., 1996, p. 314). This success was attributed largely to

the strong relationships between institutions, representative nature of the

Catchment Care Group, and the support and involvement of the catchment

community, community leaders, resource agencies and government (Johnson et

al., 1996).

ICM was not a standardised model, but encouraged an experimental integrated

approach to NRM. Mitchell and Hollick (1993) compare the conceptualisation of

ICM to the broad concept of sustainable development, which has been similarly

criticised for being vague and poorly implemented due to lack of clarity or a

standard approach. The lack of a clearly defined ICM approach meant that many

catchment groups had difficulty translating the theory of ICM into practice

(Bellamy et al., 2002; Johnson et al., 1996).

121

5.2.3.3 State Investment Programs

In addition to many of the programs described above that are delivered through

bilateral agreements between the Australian and State Governments, the State

and Territory Governments also have NRM investment or grant funding

programs. They provide financial support to NRM groups and other stakeholder

groups to undertake NRM projects. For example, between 2013 and 2018 the

Queensland Government Department of Natural Resources and Mines have

allocated $80 million towards NRM in Queensland (DNRM, 2014). The majority

of this funding will be distributed to stakeholder groups for on-ground land and

water management projects through the State’s 14 regional NRM groups

(DNRM, 2014). Other States have similar investment or grant models for

delivery of State-based NRM funding (LGAT, 2014; SNRMO, 2014).

5.3 Overview of case study regions

As discussed in Chapter 4, the research seeks to test the GSA framework in the

Cape York and Wet Tropics NRM regions. As with many NRM regions, NRM

arrangements and decision-making are complex socially, culturally, and

politically, and related to the natural resource base and their human, including

economic, value. The broad trends in NRM governance I have outlined earlier in

this chapter only partly tell the story of NRM governance in each case study

region. Therefore, the chapter will now consider the key regional arrangements

in further detail. Note that this is not a detailed description of all arrangements

impacting on NRM decision-making in each region, for this would be outside the

scope of this thesis. Rather, this section describes some of the key decision-

making arrangements to contextualise the analysis found in Chapter 6 and

Chapter 7.

5.3.1 Cape York Peninsula

Cape York is highly politicised, contested and socially complex region. This

section will begin with a description of the social, economic, cultural, and

environmental background of Cape York Peninsula. The history of NRM and

land use planning is then briefly described, before the key regional stakeholders

with capacity to influence decision-making are identified. Finally, the section

concludes with the identification of region-specific challenges that shape NRM

governance and influence the success of governance arrangements are

discussed in depth.

122

5.3.1.1 Regional overview

Cape York Peninsula is located at the northern most point of Queensland (Figure

5.2) and has a seasonal monsoon climate. It has a population of approximately

15,000 people (the majority of whom are Indigenous) who inhabit an area twice

the size of the entire Australian state of Tasmania(OESR, 2012b; Phillpot, 2005).

Rights to access, own and make decisions about the use and management of

natural resources are at the heart of contention that has, until this point

prevented a regional NRM plan from being formally recognised and

implemented in the region. The region has an abundance of natural resources,

particularly remnant rainforests, mineral resources (bauxite, gold, kaolin, silica

sand), a number of rivers that are of national significance, high biodiversity, and

a strong culture and majority population (NHT, 2005).

Figure 5.2: Location of Cape York Peninsula in Queensland, Australia

The natural resources of Cape York Peninsula also have significant cultural and

natural heritage value. Conservative estimates suggest that 60% of the region’s

population have Indigenous heritage and 86.6% of the population are in the

123

‘most disadvantaged’ financial and social quintile, yet the region is rich with

economically valuable mineral natural resources (OESR, 2012b) All of the

region’s economic drivers are reliant on the condition and availability of natural

resources (Carney, 2012; Klimenko & Evans, 2009; Smith, 2003a). The primary

economic drivers of the region are mining, agriculture, fishing, forestry, and

nature-based tourism. More than 50% of the land in Cape York Peninsula is

used by pastoralists to graze cattle, however, primary industry contributes only

2.5% to the gross regional product (NHT, 2005).

The Peninsula’s population is highly dispersed, with more than 12,000 people

inhabiting an area half the size of the state of Victoria (Phillpot, 2005). This

creates challenges for providing and maintaining social services and

infrastructure for the people of the region (Green & Preston, 2010). Cape York

Peninsula is home to multiple vulnerable populations. Approximately 66% of

the population are Indigenous and 86.6% of the population are in the ‘most

disadvantaged’ financial and social quintile, yet the region is rich with

economically valuable mineral natural resources (OESR, 2012b). Approximately

50% of the Peninsula’s population earn less than $400 a week (OESR, 2012b).

This is due primarily to the significant lack of employment opportunities in the

Peninsula, which has traditionally been limited to cattle stations (though less so

since the 1960s), government programs or tourism ventures. Because of this,

much of Cape York Peninsula’s Indigenous population are highly reliant on

welfare and social outreach programs (QAS, 2000).

5.3.1.2 History of regional natural resource management and land use planning in

Cape York Peninsula

This section provides the historical NRM and land use planning context for the

analysis of governance in Cape York Peninsula in Chapter 6. Unlike many other

regions in Australia, natural resource planning and management and land use

planning have been closely intertwined historically in Cape York Peninsula. This

is largely because of the region’s significant Indigenous population, land rights

issues, and historic government management interventions regarding the

region’s resources and communities.

There have been five attempts to develop regional land use or NRM plans for

Cape York Peninsula in the past twenty years. Land use planning for Cape York

124

Peninsula was first attempted in 1989 as part of the Cape York Economic

Development Strategy. A year later, NRM planning was also attempted in the

region in 1990s through the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (Stage One

and Stage Two) (CYPLUS), which considered both land use and NRM issues. The

third attempt at regional planning for Cape York Peninsula occurred in the

2000s under the NHT2 and focused largely on NRM issues. A fourth attempt at

regional planning has recently commenced. It is being financially driven by the

Australian Government’s Clean Energy Futures Plan, but is yet to deliver a plan

for management of the region’s natural resources. Concurrent to the current

NRM planning process, the fifth attempt at planning has been underway in the

form of a statutory regional land use planning process, with a plan developed by

the Queensland Government in 2013 and began the consultation process in late

2013. This evolution and its outcomes are summarised in Table 5.2 below.

125

Table 5.2: An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in Cape York Peninsula 1989-2014

Planning Attempt

Planning Process

Emphasis Intention of the Process/Plan Outcomes

1 Cape York Economic

Development Strategy

1989

Land use To establish a stronger land use planning framework for the Cape York Peninsula in response to a number of land use pressures emerging in the region in the 1980s.

- Resulted in Interim Guidelines for Resource Utilisation and a checklist of key considerations to be explored during major project assessment.

- Recommended development of a regional conservation plan, regional accessibility plan, and clearer policy and development directions for pastoral and tourism industries

- Addressed the lack of planning in the region, and established a policy agenda for regional land use and conservation planning

2 Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy

(Stage One)

Early 1990s

Land use and NRM

To provide scientific data to inform planning and decision-making processes in the Cape York Peninsula that until that point had been lacking

- A significant number of research projects focused on the region (43) - Establishment of a large GIS database of environmental, social and

economic data - Public participation enabled public input into the process - Land use strategy consultancy released - Addressed the lack of information available to support planning in the

region, building the region’s capacity to undertake a planning process.

Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy

(Stage Two)

Late 1990s

Strategic planning to build local consensus and create a framework for centralised and regional decision-making surrounding the use and management of land in Cape York Peninsula (CYPLUS, 1995; Holmes, 2011a). Identifying specific project priorities rather than a definitive land use plan

- The State and Australian Governments responded with a $40 million response package that included land purchase, protected area infrastructure and property management

- The process was driven under the stewardship of a community-based advisory group, which led to high levels of community engagement and participation in the planning for Cape York Peninsula

- Began addressing land tenure and land rights issues in the region, which lead to the creation of the Cape York Heads of Agreement.

Cape York Heads of

Agreement

1996

Born out of the second stage of CYPLUS, the Cape York Heads of Agreement constituted consensus amongst regional stakeholders that the region had significant environmental, historical and cultural features that should be protected (Holmes, 2012).

- Signed by the Cape York Land Council, the Peninsula Regional Council of ATSIC, the Cattlemen’s Union, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society (Hart & Whatman, 1998).

- Recognition that the State and Australian Governments had some responsibility in the long-term conservation of the region’s resources.

- Addressed land tenure conflicts in the region through the establishment of the Cape York Tenure Resolution process

- Good land use outcomes for communities, landholders, and traditional owners

126

Planning Attempt

Planning Process

Emphasis Intention of the Process/Plan Outcomes

3 Natural Heritage

Trust Phase Two NRM

Plan

2005

NRM Securing community agreement on clear aspirational, resource condition, and management action targets for NRM in Cape York Peninsula. Developed by an external consultancy that was subcontracted by the regional organisation contracted to develop the plan.

- The plan failed to garner tripartisan support from the Commonwealth, and State Governments, and communities in the Peninsula and was subsequently not ratified

- Cape York did not have a regional NRM body at the time (NRM activities were coordinated by a Canberra-based Regional Liaison officer), leading to highly fragmented NRM in the region.

- The plan was never implemented and thus never addressed any of the region’s core issues such as land tenure resolution.

4 ‘Next Generation’

NRM Planning for

Cape York Peninsula

2014

NRM To establish a decision-making framework and community-owned NRM investment strategy to guide management of Cape York Peninsula’s natural resources

- Process underway - The process is focused on building the capacity of the region to undertake

NRM and land use planning, with a particular focus on engaging the various communities in the region regarding their aspirations for their land, community and region.

- Processes, frameworks, alliances and partnerships are evolving within the region to support the planning process.

- This process is not intended to deliver a plan, but aims to build capacity in the region and uses a Regional Investment Strategy to guide NRM implementation in Cape York Peninsula.

5 Cape York Regional Plan

2014

Land use To provide strategic direction for land use planning in Cape York Peninsula, and balance economic development with environmental conservation, through the use of zoning (DSDIP, 2012).

- Process underway - The process is being driven by State Government agencies external to the

region (based in Brisbane), however a regional advisory committee consisting of key institutions in the region has provided feedback and advice to the State Government.

- Prior to the consultation process (currently underway), there was little engagement of local stakeholders in the region in developing the statutory plan.

- The regional advisory committee has been made responsible for engaging local communities without additional funding provided.

127

5.3.1.3 Key institutions involved in natural resource management in Cape York

Peninsula

NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula involves numerous government,

Indigenous, environmental, industry, community, economic development, and

social welfare institutions and groups. The key decision-makers, and facilitators

of NRM at the regional scale are summarised in Table 5.3. There are numerous

other stakeholders involved in implementation of NRM in the Peninsula, such as

ranger groups, environmental management groups (e.g. South Cape York

Catchments), Indigenous communities, landholders and government agencies.

However, this research identifies the stakeholders who are described in the table

below as the primary regional stakeholders capable of making and influencing

NRM decisions in Cape York Peninsula.

Table 5.3: Summary of key natural resource management planning stakeholders in Cape York Peninsula

Key NRM decision-makers Role Cape York NRM Planning and implementing NRM activities in Cape

York Peninsula Cape York Sustainable Futures Supporting and developing regional economic

development in Cape York Peninsula Balkanu Corporation Supporting and developing indigenous economic

development in Cape York Peninsula

5.3.1.4 Challenges for natural resource management planning in Cape York

Peninsula

This section provides an overview of the region-specific challenges that

currently influence the governance arrangements for and success of NRM and

land use planning processes in Cape York Peninsula.

Land rights and access are a significant challenge in managing natural resources

in Cape York Peninsula. Debates surrounding Aboriginal rights and questions

about how to resolve Indigenous disadvantage have been ongoing in Cape York

Peninsula for the last 140 years. The significant contention between the region’s

Indigenous communities, and government agencies over land tenure and the

rights and responsibilities of different groups to manage land continues to

challenge governance and planning arrangements today. The contention is

largely driven by the conflicting and competing visions for the future of the

128

region amongst the region’s key power groups (miners, pastoralists, Indigenous

communities, conservation groups and developers). These contests are

‘characterised by flux in alliances and schisms between and among the two

recently emergent and currently dominant contenders, Indigenous and

conservationist’ (Holmes, 2011a, p. 54).

Holmes (2011a) argues that two dominant paradigms pervade decision-making

in Cape York Peninsula and suggests that institutions and stakeholders in the

region tend to fall somewhere on a spectrum between the

traditionalism/localism and developmentalism/modernism.

Traditionalists/localists generally are supportive of the conservation agenda and

economic development in the region using a customary or hybrid economy.

Alternately, developmentalists/modernists argue that to achieve greater self-

determination, Indigenous people must engage with the ‘real economy’ of

conventional industry (particularly mining)(Holmes, 2011a).

This dichotomy in approaches is evident in government, non-government and

community institutions’ agendas and policies throughout the region and the

tension between the two approaches has been particularly evident in the last

two decades as exemplified by debates about the proposed World Heritage Area

listing, the protection and declaration of wild rivers, natural resource planning

and management, and Indigenous disadvantage. Government decision-makers

responsible for setting policy agendas for Cape York Peninsula and based in

cities located south of the region (predominantly Brisbane and Canberra) have

supported both paradigms. In the past, external policy-makers intent on

protecting the natural values of the region have also relied on regulatory

mechanisms to ‘lock up’ and protect landscapes, without recognising the

significant constraints such regulations have on economic development in the

region (Dale, 2013). Recent political developments have seen the Queensland

State Government attempting to repeal ‘green tape’ legislation and in support of

the developmentalist/modernist agenda have declared the region as ‘open for

business’ (Kim & Nancarrow, 2013)

Within the region the divergence of perspectives is overlayed by a set of

regionally shared values regarding the future of the region, such as increased

129

economic development and reduced reliance on government handouts. Shared

values were a significant contributing factor towards the success of previous

regionally driven planning initiatives such as the Cape York Heads of Agreement

in 1996. The failure of externally driven planning activities for Cape York

Peninsula can also be attributed to the failure of decision-makers to

acknowledge and account for these locally shared values.

Land tenure in Cape York Peninsula is highly complex and frequently contested

by governments, politicians, Indigenous leaders, communities, and Indigenous

institutions (Balkanu, 2010a; Barrett, 2012; Carney, 2012; Holmes, 2011b;

Pearson, 2005; Smith, 2003b, 2005). While most other Australian regions have

fewer than five of the tenures types shown in Table 5.4, every kind of land tenure

that exists in Australia can be found in Cape York Peninsula. Similarly, while

tenures are relatively stable throughout much of Australia, in Cape York

Peninsula they have continued to evolve and land uses continue to be

transferred between tenure types. This is in part due to the regionally inspired

Cape York Tenure Resolution process that began in 2004 and has been highly

successful in returning high conservation value lands to traditional owners as

national parks or Aboriginal Freehold land with conservation agreements. The

contested land tenure issues in Cape York Peninsula are further compounded by

‘intense localism’ ‘which exists within Indigenous communities where “no one

wants to concede what little power they have” (Pickerell, 2009, p.76) precluding

regional consensus on any critical issue’ (Holmes, 2012, p. 261).

130

Table 5.4: Types of land tenure in Cape York Peninsula

Type of Tenure Year Title Introduced to Cape York

Peninsula

Definition

Leasehold Land 1870s Leasehold land is Crown land over which the Crown has granted an interest and rents out for a specific period of time. Many of the leases are perpetual and are mainly leased to pastoralists.

Homestead Lease 1870s A type of leasehold that allows Crown land to be used for homesteads (traditionally mining homesteads).

Pastoral Lease 1870s A type of leasehold that allows Crown land to be used for grazing stock. Rent has to be paid and the land must be managed in an environmentally sound way.

Aboriginal Reserve

1886 Crown lands reserved for Aborigines but under the control of state/territory Government Aboriginal affairs authorities.

Mining Lease 1957 A type of leasehold that allows Crown land to be used for mining exploration and extraction.

National Park 1957 Crown land that is reserved for conservation and public use

Deed of Grant in Trust Land

1984 A system of community-level land trust established in Queensland to administer former reserves and missions

Freehold Land/Aboriginal

Freehold Land

1991 Owner has exclusive rights to the land for an indefinite period of time.

Native Title Claim Land

1992 Legal recognition of Traditional Ownership of land and waters that have always belonged to Aboriginal people according to their traditions, laws and customs.

Source: (DIA, 2012; DPI, 2010)

Contested land tenure issues in Cape York Peninsula are related to problems of

social disadvantage. While there is growing interest in addressing social issues

through planning and decision-making approaches that enable Indigenous self-

determination, such approaches have largely failed to address power imbalances

within the region or resolve underlying land rights issues because external

institutions drove these past processes. High levels of social and economic

disadvantage in addition to the region’s concentration of natural resources have

been cited by the State and Commonwealth Governments as justification for

treating Cape York Peninsula as ‘unique’ and requiring special management. This

approach has historically disempowered local interests and perpetuated a

paternalistic view of the region’s uniqueness as needing to be ‘looked after’ or

http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Land/Land-Facts/15-What-is-freehold-land/

131

protected by external decision-makers. The region’s history of dispossession of

Indigenous people and government intervention in the region has led to a

significant lack of trust between local communities and government, particularly

surrounding Indigenous land rights and conservation areas.

5.3.2 Wet Tropics

The governance arrangements for NRM in the Wet Tropics have evolved over

more than 50 years (although much faster in the last two decades). However

farmers and traditional owners have been managing the land for much longer.

The planning arrangements to support such management have developed

significantly from the early 1990s. This section presents an overview of the Wet

Tropics case study region, followed by a summary of the history of NRM planning

in the region, identification of key decision-making stakeholders, and finishing

with a discussion of the key governance challenges faced by institutions in the

region.

5.3.2.1 Regional Overview

The Wet Tropics is located on the eastern coastline of north Queensland between

Cooktown and Townsville and covers an area of approximately 22,000km2

(DAFF & SEWPaC, 2011b)(Figure 5.3). The region includes parts of two World

Heritage Areas - the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and the Wet Tropics

World Heritage Area (includes the Daintree Rainforest). The Wet Tropics has a

higher Indigenous population (10.2%) in comparison to other major cities in

Queensland such as Brisbane where only 1.4% of the population is Indigenous

(OESR, 2012c). There are between 16 and 23 traditional owner groups in the

Wet Tropics who claim a connection to, and rights and responsibilities for

managing ‘Country’ in the NRM region (Ignjic, 2001; McDonald & Weston, 2004).

The Wet tropics is the fastest growing and most populous region in Northern

Queensland, with a population of approximately 251, 494 people, a majority of

whom live in Cairns (OESR, 2012a). Other major settlements in the Wet Tropics

include Mossman, Port Douglas, Atherton and Innisfail. The region has a seasonal

and monsoonal climate, with a distinct wet season (November-April) and dry

season (May-October)(DAFF & SEWPaC, 2011b).

132

The Wet Tropics has a higher indigenous population (10.2%) in comparison to

other major cities in Queensland such as Brisbane where only 1.4% of the

population is indigenous (OESR, 2012c). Unemployment in the Wet Tropics is

currently 2.5% higher than the state average of 5.5%, which is largely explained

by the impacts of the Global Financial Crisis on the region’s economy (Cummings,

2012a; OESR, 2012c). Approximately 34.5% of the working population (above

the age of 15) in the region earn on average less than $400 per week (OESR,

2012c).

Tourism in the Wet Tropics is particularly intertwined with the region’s natural

resources such as the Great Barrier Reef and Daintree Rainforest, rich cultural

heritage and year-round warm climate. General tourism is estimated to

contribute more than $AU 2.5 billion annually to the region’s economy (Jarratt,

2008). Approximately 45% of visitors to Tropical North Queensland (includes

the Wet Tropics and Cape York Peninsula NRM regions) are intrastate visitors,

while only 28% of visitors are from overseas and 28% from states other than

Queensland (TQ, 2012).

Agriculture is the second greatest industry in the Wet Tropics after tourism,

producing crop and livestock products worth more than $AU 750 million

annually (McDonald & Weston, 2004). Approximately 37% of the Wet Tropics

land area is used for agricultural production (ABS, 2010). Sugar cane is the most

dominant crop in the region being grown on 55% of farming properties (ABS,

2010). Cattle are grazed for dairy and beef on 41% of farming properties in the

region, while 20% are used for horticulture and 3% for broad acre crops (ABS,

2010). Approximately 70% of Australia’s bananas and 20% of Australia’s sugar

are grown in the Wet Tropics (ABARES, 2011; DERM, 2011).

133

Figure 5.3: Wet Tropics NRM region and bioregion boundaries (FNQNRM, 2004)

134

5.3.2.2 History of regional natural resource management planning in the Wet

Tropics

Natural resources in the Wet Tropics region have played an important role in the

political and environmental agenda at the region, state and nation’s level from

the 1970s. The region’s reef was first recognised as an important natural

resource requiring management and protection in the 1970s. Over the following

decades the value of the region’s terrestrial natural resources were progressively

recognised internationally through World Heritage declarations and at the

national, state and local scales through legislation and policy development.

Initially key pieces of legislation were passed to guide the management of

specific resources, such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and later

the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993. By the mid

1990s the Australian and State Government supported plans for the

management of the natural resources in the region’s World Heritage Areas were

passed. They included the 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area 1994-2019 and the Wet Tropics Management Plan 1998 (GBRMPA,

1994; Maclean & Chappell, 2013).

Following the introduction of the National Heritage Trust NRM program in the

mid 1990s, there was growing impetus to create a region-wide, non-World

Heritage Area specific NRM plan and by the 2000 the first Wet Tropics NRM

strategy had been implemented (FNQNRM, 2004). However, it wasn’t until 2003

under the second iteration of the National Heritage Trust (which included

designated funding for planning) and the formal recognition of regional NRM

groups that a formal NRM plan for the region as a whole was developed

(FNQNRM, 2004).

Following the success of the Wet Tropics NRM planning process, the Queensland

Government developed the first statutory regional land use plan for the Wet

Tropics region, which was published in 2009 (DIP, 2009). The statutory regional

plan included objectives relevant to NRM, but was not integrated with the 2004

Wet Tropics NRM plan. The Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 lost

its statutory power in 2012 following the Queensland Government repeal of the

State Planning Regulatory Provision for the Far North Queensland Regional Plan

135

(DSDIP, 2014b). Table 5.5 describes the evolution of NRM planning in the Wet

Tropics.

136

Table 5.5: An overview of land use and natural resource management planning in the Wet Tropics 1994-2014

Planning Attempt

Planning Process Emphasis Intention of the Process/Plan

Process/Outcomes

1 Great Barrier Reef: Keeping it Great - A 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

1994-2019

NRM of the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area

To provide a systemic management framework for the multiple users and managers of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and reduce ‘competing with or duplicating each other's activities’(GBRMPA, 1994, p. 4).

- A joint planning initiative funded by the State and Australian Government, and led by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA).

- Involved numerous workshops and an extensive consultation period. - Complementary to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which gives GBRMPA

regulatory powers in the GBR Marine Park. - Includes a number of objectives relevant to both terrestrial catchment-based activities and

GBR WHA oriented activities.

2 Wet Tropics Management Plan

1998 (Amended in

2009)

NRM of the Wet Tropics

World Heritage Area

To fulfill international obligations under the World Heritage Convention and describe prohibited and allowed activities within the World Heritage Area and clearly articulate zoning regulations (Maclean & Chappell, 2013).

- Funded by the State and Australian Government, and led by the Wet Tropics Management Authority

- Aims ‘to ensure the protection, conservation, presentation, rehabilitation, and transmission to future generations, of the natural heritage values of the Area’ (Maclean & Chappell, 2013)

- Subsidiary to the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993. - Identifies prohibited activities and management zones in the Wet Tropics WHA.

3 Sustaining the Wet Tropics: A Regional

Plan for Natural Resource

Management 2004-2008

NRM To guide the management of natural resources in the region with the intention of ‘adding value to existing planning and information networks…[while] conforming to new Federal and State Government requirements for accreditation and regional investment’(McDonald & Weston, 2004, p. 1).

- Funded jointly by the Local , State and Australian Governments (RCRC, 2006) - Involved extensive consultation with working groups, reference groups and expert panels - Met the Australian Government’s requirements under NHT2 for regional NRM bodies to

have accredited regional NRM plans (FNQNRM, 2004). - Drew on the work of the Natural Resource Management Board Inc (pre-FNQ NRM/Terrain

NRM) and the North Queensland Afforestation Association (NQAA) in the early 2000s on regional NRM planning (RCRC, 2006).

- Sets out a clear vision and numerous objectives for NRM in the Wet Tropics region.

137

Planning Attempt

Planning Process Emphasis Intention of the Process/Plan

Process/Outcomes

4 Caring for Country and Culture: The

Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural

and Natural Resource

Management Plan 2005

NRM and Traditional

owners

To articulate traditional owner’s aspirations for NRM in the region and develop a NRM plan that considers Indigenous values and traditions.

- The first formal articulation of indigenous interests in the region’s natural resources and their management (RCRC & FNQNRM, 2005)

- Resulted out of traditional-owner dissatisfaction with the process of engagement for traditional owners under the Sustaining the Wet Tropics Regional NRM Plan.

- Led to greater discussion among traditional owner groups regarding management activities and aspirations.

- Involved significant consultation of the region’s Traditional Owner groups. - Clearly articulates visions and objectives for NRM based on Indigenous values, and

aspirations.

5 Far North Queensland

Regional Plan 2009-2031

Land use To provide a framework to guide growth and development in 5 local government areas in FNQ (DIP, 2009).

- Funded by the Queensland State Government. - Driven by the then Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP). - The Far North Queensland Regional Coordination Committee provide the DIP with region-

specific and community-based guidance in the planning process - The State Planning Regulatory Provision for the FNQ Regional Plan was repealed in 2012,

removing its previous statutory power.

6 ‘Next Generation’ NRM Plan for the

Wet Tropics 2014

NRM To update and modify the 2004 regional NRM plan to make it more adaptive and responsive to climate change.

- Funded by the Australian Government’s 2012 CEF Stream 1 funding. - Process is currently underway (2014). - Process is drawing on the strengths of the 2004 NRM plan, while addressing the

weaknesses of the previous approach. - A number of more adaptive, responsive frameworks and processes are being developed as

part of this iteration of planning in the region to ensure the ongoing relevancy and responsiveness of the NRM group and the region’s NRM plan.

138

5.3.2.3 Key institutions involved in natural resource management in the Wet Tropics

The natural resources of the Wet Tropics region are planned for and managed by

a variety of institutions at various scales, including State and Australian

Government authorities, local government agencies, a non-government NRM

group, a number of community organisations, Traditional Owner groups, and

individual landholders (Carmody, 2011; DAFF & SEWPaC, 2011b; FNQNRM,

2004). The primary institutions involved in strategic decision-making and

planning for the region’s natural resources are summarised in Table 5.6.

Table 5.6: Summary of key natural resource management stakeholders in the Wet Tropics

Key NRM decision-makers Role Terrain NRM Planning and implementing NRM activities in the

Wet Tropics NRM region Wet Tropics Management

Australia Conserving and managing the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Conserving and managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Far North Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils

Coordinating action between councils within Far North Queensland

5.3.2.4 Challenges for natural resource management planning in the Wet Tropics

NRM in the Wet Tropics involves an incredibly diverse group of stakeholders

with varied interests and backgrounds. The key NRM institutions in the region

represent agricultural, conservation, development, and tourism interests at

different scales, including Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA), Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), Cairns and Far North

Environmental Centre (CAFNEC), Landcare/catchment groups, State and

Australian Government agencies, local government, and individual landholders.

In addition to this, the region contains multiple significant natural resources

with high environmental, social and economic values, which can be challenging

to manage due to multiple and often-conflicting stakeholder interests.

The diversity of stakeholders also means that there are multiple significant

threats to the condition of the region’s natural resources. WTMA (2012)

identifies the primary threats to the region’s natural resources as:

‘regional population growth,

139

urban development and pollution,

demand for community services infrastructure (roads, power lines, dams,

pipelines),

farming (agriculture, grazing and aquaculture),

tourism and recreation; and

feral animals and weeds’.

While these issues are highly interrelated, their management is almost entirely

separated by institutional and policy arrangements, that fail to recognise the

issues’ interdependence. This leads to a highly fragmented approach to

managing regional issues and creates a challenge for planners and decision-

makers who must make difficult decisions where there are conflicting interests,

limited amounts of funding or alignment of priorities amongst management

institutions. For example, despite centralised decision-makers prioritising

biodiversity through NRM funding programs, regional stakeholders may be more

concerned with water quality or weed management. Similarly, in other areas

there may be conflicting aspirations between stakeholders for the use and

management of land. For example, farmers wishing to expand their fields may

seek to clear trees on their land, while other groups in the region may be focused

on retaining and protecting biodiversity corridors or water quality through tree

planting in the same areas.

Institutional fragmentation is another significant challenge for decision-makers

in the region (Pert et al., 2010b). Although there are a diverse number of

institutions working in the region, their purposes and interests vary

substantially, which can limit their willingness to come together on projects or

plans. For example, the Queensland State Government’s Department of State

Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) is currently (2014) pushing a

‘pro-development’ vision for the region’s future, while the Australian

Government continue to support the work of two government authorities (one of

which is jointly funded with the State) to manage and conserve the region’s

natural resources. The dichotomy between these (and other) positions in the

region reinforces institutional fragmentation, limiting the overall capacity of the

governance system.

140

Decision-making, funding delivery and priority setting for NRM is highly

centralised under CfoC (As discussed in Chapter 5) (DAFF & SEWPaC, 2013).

Previously, under NHT1 and NHT2 NRM program funding was distributed within

regions based on regional priorities, encouraging institutional coordination and

collaboration to tackle region-wide problems. However under CfoC funding

arrangements for NRM have became significantly more competitive and

disincentivised collaboration between institutions in NRM (Robins & Kanowski,

2011). This has led to institutions in the Wet Tropics tending to operate within

individual ‘silos’ rather than cooperatively with other institutions.

5.4 Conclusions

NRM governance arrangements are often complex, and Australia’s Cape York

Peninsula and Wet Tropics NRM regions are no exception to this. The

governance arrangements for NRM in these regions are the result of bilateral

agreements between the Australian and Queensland State Government, diverse

funding sources from multiple scales, regionalisation and regionalism,

stakeholder interactions, and historical context. Failing to consider the case

study context would potentially limit the usefulness and accuracy of the

assessment. This emphasises the significance of considering the contextual

factors described in this chapter when analysing the results of the GSA

framework application in the case study regions.

This chapter described the overarching structural arrangements for NRM

planning and governance in Australia and the two case study regions in which a

structural-functional approach will be tested. The NRM planning context of the

two case study regions was described to provide greater understanding of the

results presented in Chapter 7 and 8. This chapter fulfilled Step One of the

process of the methods used in this research and described in Chapter 2. The

chapter has set the scene for discussing the key structural and functional aspects

of each of the case study regions in the following chapters (Chapter 6 and

Chapter 7).

141

Chapter 6: Case study one – Assessment of natural resource

management planning governance in Cape York

Peninsula

6.1 Introduction

The GSA framework developed in Chapter 4 was applied in Cape York Peninsula

to analyse the NRM planning domain of governance and test the accuracy of the

framework. The results in this chapter were validated for their accuracy in May

2014 and were considered accurate by regional participants at the time. This

chapter fulfills Step Three of the GSA framework application process described

in Chapter 2 in the Cape York Peninsula case study. The results are discussed and

summarised tables using the structural and functional elements of NRM planning

systems and then scored using the five point scoring scale defined and described

in Chapter 2. The key findings of these results are further synthesised and

summarised in Section 6.3.

6.2 Description of the governance system

This section consists of a discussion of the interactions between structures and

functions in the Cape York Peninsula NRM planning governance system. Quotes

from deidentified experts in the region are italicised and identified by their

institutional sector, including regional non-government organisation (NGO),

government agency, and research sector. A more comprehensive description of

the lines of evidence to support and justify the conclusions discussed below can

be found in Appendix 10.1. The following subsections are organised based on the

key structural steps of the planning process, enabling discussion of the traits of

systemic performance towards the achievement of individual steps of the

planning process, and the performance of the system as a whole to deliver its

intended decision-making outcomes.

6.2.1 Vision and objective setting

Regional participants believe that structures for vision and objective setting for

NRM in Cape York Peninsula are likely to fail to deliver their intended desired

decision-making outcomes. Cape York’s NRM body was established in 2010-

2011, approximately 8 years after all other NRM regions in Australia, leading to a

142

situation where the arrangements to support NRM planning are still in their

infancy compared with other NRM regions. The conclusions regarding vision and

objective setting structures are summarised in Table 6.1, and are followed with

further discussion in the subsections below.

Table 6.1: Summary of conclusions regarding vision and objective setting structures in Cape York Peninsula

Indicators Conclusions Initial rating

(1-5)

Final rating (1-5)

Capacity: Capacity to set higher level targets, availability of financial, knowledge, human and infrastructure resources to decision-makers

Although there are numerous institutions capable of setting higher level

aspirational/ condition targets, there is currently a discord between these

institutions leading to multiple and at times conflicting targets for the region

Despite this, the regional capacity to set higher-level visions and objectives is

developing and improving

There is a high degree of connectivity between broad regional interests and

higher-level RDA and cross regional strategic interests.

The Queensland Government has a significant capacity to set

aspirational/condition targets, however their aspirations are not always in line

with the interests of regional stakeholders

Sufficient financial, and infrastructure resources available to identify visions and

objectives for Cape York

Some gaps in knowledge to support vision and objective setting

Insufficient human resources available

Conflict amongst institutions limits their capacity to work together in establishing

a shared vision or objectives for NRM in Cape York, however there are signs that

this is slowly improving and capacity subsequently increasing.

There is limited regional planning capacity in the individuals employed by

institutions in Cape York

2 2

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to decision-making, alignment of visions and objectives to higher and lower scale visions and objectives, collaborative frameworks for setting visions and objectives, structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives

The State and Federal Government are currently not actively linked to decision-

making for NRM planning in the region.

Externally driven planning and policy-making is generally poorly linked to

lower/regional levels of visioning/objective setting

Discord amongst key institutions limits the alignment of higher and lower scale

visions and objectives.

Collaboration frameworks are weak, despite a foundation of common interests

There is a moderate alignment between the visions and objectives set by Cape

York NRM and DSDIP, following recent (2014) changes to the land use planning

agenda.

There is high degree of alignment between local aspirations and the visions and

objectives set out by regional institutions.

The lack of alignment between key institutions is currently preventing

bargaining/negotiation frameworks from producing more effective outcomes

There are currently no existing frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over

setting visions and objectives for NRM.

2 2

Knowledge: Availability of all forms of social, economic and environmental information for vision and objective setting, application of traditional and historical

There is very little baseline or current and comprehensive data sets on the social,

economic or environmental conditions of some areas of the Cape.

There is a bias towards biophysical data availability.

Traditional knowledge is applied by institutions in the region to support

vision/objective setting

Cape York NRM currently lack sufficient scenario analysis decision-support tools

to support and vision/objective setting.

2 2

143

Indicators Conclusions Initial rating

(1-5)

Final rating (1-5)

knowledge sets, availability of decision-support tools to support scenario analysis


Cape York NRM are the region’s designated NRM body, however both of the

region’s economic development institutions (CYSF and Balkanu) also engage in

various NRM planning and implementation activities across the region, and have

done so since before Cape York NRM was conceived. This crossover of interests

amongst institutions is not surprising and is due to a number of factors. These

include the integrated nature of indigenous culture; the limited number of non-

NRM derived economic development opportunities in the region; and

institutions seeking any available funding to ensure their ongoing survival.

Conflict between institutions engaged in NRM activities in the region has been a

significant limitation on their capacity to set higher level aspirational targets for

the region’s natural resources. One interviewee compared the capacity of

regional institutions to undertake vision and objective setting in Cape York

Peninsula and the Wet Tropics, suggesting that the Wet Tropics ‘have got a car,

but they need a transition box upgrade, some oil, or a different driver. In the Cape,

they’re still looking for tyres for the car’ (Government Agency).

Recent changes to funding structures, in combination with the government-

driven statutory regional land use planning process (and its engagement

processes), interviewees suggest, have led to increased discussions between and

coalescence of the region’s institutions and their vision for the future of Cape

York Peninsula and the way in which it is planned for and managed. This

demonstrates that ‘the capacity within Cape York has … evolved quite extensively.

It’s in its early stages yet for NRM, but the foundations are building’ (Government

Agency). Cape York NRM have also demonstrated growing capacity to develop

visions and objectives specific to NRM based on community aspirations through

the development of a Regional Investment Strategy 2013-2014 (RIS).

144

Federal Government agencies have demonstrated their capacity to set higher-

level visions and objectives for Cape York Peninsula through past and current

planning processes. However, regional participants noted that their visions and

objectives are largely ‘not in line with the priorities of regional stakeholders….

They [haven’t taken] a collaborative approach. They have made the decisions and

that’s how it was going to be. The right people haven’t sat around the table to

discuss the issues’ (Regional NGO). Regional Development Australia Far North

Queensland and Torres Strait have also proven their capacity to develop visions

and objectives for the region in their regional roadmap. However, these visions

and objectives are predominantly economically and socially oriented.

Almost all of the interviewees explained that access to financial, human,

knowledge and infrastructure resources in the region has historically been poor,

and continues to reduce the capacity of institutions in the region to undertake

region-wide projects or planning. Decision-makers in Canberra or Brisbane

externally allocate all NRM funding to the region based on Federal or State

Government priorities. One quarter of these financial resources are distributed

through Cape York NRM (Chester & Driml, 2012), while the remainder is

distributed to other regional or local institutions in Cape York Peninsula. The

majority of this funding is project-specific, and little to none is allocated towards

NRM planning for the region. Changes to national NRM funding structures in

2012 reduced the value and availability of grants, which in addition to regional

restructuring of funding delivery, led to some of the region’s institutions ‘fighting

each other for money to ensure their survival’ (Government Agency). Some of this

tension has begun to be resolved through the creation of a memorandum of

understanding (MOU) between CYSF and Cape York NRM in early 2014. The

MOU sets out key principles to be adhered to by CYSF and Cape York NRM in

their work in the region, and aims to improve relations between the two

institutions. It is yet unclear as to whether the MOU will be effective.

There are currently inadequate financial, technical, and knowledge-based

resources to undertake a comprehensive regional NRM planning process in the

region, leading to Cape York NRM taking a ‘planning by doing approach’

(Research Sector)(Based on the work of Mitchell et al. (2014)). This approach

acknowledges the dynamic nature of the region and focuses on supporting

145

projects that are linked to regionally identified priorities set out in a RIS, rather

than an extensive list of objectives or NRM plan. Regional participants

acknowledged that the CEF Stream 1 provided Cape York NRM with a significant

amount of funding to support planning the region and responding to the impacts

of climate change on the region’s natural resources (Discussed further in Chapter

5). However, they explained that despite the substantial investment in NRM

activities in the region, and the Federal Government’s support of improved

planning, few of the region’s institutions have employees with professional

training or experience in NRM regional planning. The capacity of local

stakeholder groups and Local Government in the region to develop visions and

objectives is also chronically limited by a lack of financial, skill, human, and

knowledge resources.


Regional participants emphasised that not all the appropriate and relevant

regional or externally based stakeholders are actively engaged or even

connected to decision-making for NRM in Cape York Peninsula. They identified

the State and Federal Governments as being particularly disengaged with

regional NRM planning, and are only involved from a funding allocation

perspective. CfoC, and CEF Stream 1 emphasise this funding-oriented

connectivity. Several interviewees mentioned that the State Government has

been highly involved in the development of a regional land use plan for Cape

York Peninsula, however they argued that issues with low levels of community

engagement have led to that process stalling and being drastically revised in

2014. Although the State and the Federal Government are

‘politically aligned… at the bureaucratic level there is still a disconnect.

There seems to be more connection between the coordinating organisation

and the State, rather than the Local, State and Federal Government.

Sometimes there are direct connections between institutions and the

Federal Government, or even between individuals and land trusts.

Sometimes there’s a direct connection that excludes the State and the Local

Government’ (Government Agency).

146

At the regional scale, stakeholder engagement in regional NRM planning is

varied. Cape York NRM are highly engaged in NRM planning, while CYSF and

Balkanu tend not to be actively engaged in Cape York NRM’s planning processes.

Many of the region’s local stakeholder groups have been the target of

engagement programs run by Cape York NRM, encouraging their engagement in

NRM planning through surveys, electronic tablets and applications, roundtables,

workshops, competitions, and others. An example of this is the Indigenous

Reference Groups (IRGs) that were initially established as a means of consulting

Traditional Owner groups on the Wild Rivers Act 2005. The IRGs have shown a

high degree of success in engaging Traditional Owners in NRM planning in many

areas in the region. The region’s mining sector is largely disengaged from NRM

planning, while the agriculture sector is somewhat engaged.

There is widespread consensus amongst the region’s institutions and the

interviewees that Cape York contains internationally significant natural and

cultural values and that the people of Cape York should be able to decide how

they are managed. Despite this, several of the regional participants reiterated

that the visions and objectives of institutions in the region relevant to NRM are

generally poorly aligned with higher-level visions and objectives for NRM in the

Peninsula. They believe that alignment of visions and objectives for NRM

between institutions based in the region is currently weak, and is ‘reinforced by

political tensions’ (Research Sector) and financial insecurity. Although ‘the

alignment is not quite there yet, the mechanisms are in place. Some of the people

are also in place and are creating relationships, making connections, and creating

channels for NRM’ (Government Agency). They suggest that poor connectivity is

further limited by a lack of structured or collaborative frameworks for

bargaining and negotiation over visions and objectives in the region. This is

problematic because ‘there’s never an opportunity where we can all get together,

except for the regional [land use] plan committee. It’s the only one… that has

actually brought all the parties together. We all [have] a common vision: the

people of Cape York need to decide, not the government’ (Regional NGO).

6.2.1.3 Knowledge use

Regional participants observed that there is very little social, economic, cultural

and environmental data available to support decision-makers to develop visions,

147

objectives or strategies for Cape York Peninsula. Baseline data regarding the

condition of resources is unavailable, further limiting the capacity of institutions

to establish aspirational targets or objectives. Many of the interviewees

suggested that the limited body of research relevant to NRM in the region is

biophysically oriented and is often specific to a particular location or community,

such as the Steve Irwin Reserve or the Wenlock River. This bias of data is ‘partly

because the funding is targeted at collecting information for a particular sector’

(Government Agency). However, the State Government made all of its data sets,

the majority of which are biophysical, available to the public via their website in

2013, increasing the amount of data available to support planning in the region.

All of the region’s institutions recognise the value of traditional knowledge in

tackling NRM problems and incorporate such knowledge into their decision-

making. However, interviewees noted that historical knowledge sets have been

drawn on inconsistently to support NRM planning. There is

‘a large number of people who have lived in the Cape and managed land for

several generations that aren’t being tapped into. To an extent they may

have been disregarded because they aren’t traditional owners, custodians

or part of a land trust. But anyone who breathes and dies by the seasons will

have some knowledge, experiences, ideas, and suggestions that will be

valuable’ (Government Agency).

Cape York NRM, CYSF and Balkanu are all working with the region’s landholders

(both indigenous and non-indigenous) to ensure they have the opportunity to

contribute towards NRM planning.

Cape York NRM’s 2013-2014 ‘Your Climate’ program is designed as a scenario

analysis approach to improve landholder’s awareness of the projected impacts of

climate change on their land and the region’s natural resources. The ‘Your

Climate’ program allows landholders to contribute their ideas, knowledge and

experiences regarding how the landscape has changed and build the knowledge

base of Cape York NRM to plan. This program relies on electronic tablets and a

Fulcrum stakeholder engagement application that enables stakeholders to

interact and contribute their knowledge to be stored and later synthesised from

a shared cloud database. Other than this, decision-support tools in the region are

148

somewhat limited, with low levels of competency in computer based decision-

support tools such as Community Vis or GIS in all institutions. Although progress

has been made towards improving knowledge availability to support NRM

planning, there is still significant work to be done in this area.

6.2.2 Research and assessment

The governance structures for research and assessment to support NRM

planning in Cape York Peninsula are likely to fail to deliver their intended

desired decision-making outcomes according to regional participants. The

conclusions regarding research and assessment structures are summarised in

Table 6.2, and are followed with further discussion in the subsections below.

Table 6.2: Summary of conclusions regarding research and assessment structures in Cape York Peninsula

Indicators Conclusions Initial rating (1-5)

Final rating (1-5)

Capacity: Research and analysis capacities, capacity to inform other structural components, diversified research and analysis capacities

Research and analysis capacity is growing in the region, but remains

somewhat limited.

Due to poor connectivity and lack of knowledge management systems in the

region Research is only able to support/ inform other structural components of

the system in a limited way,

Research and analysis capacity is strongly biased towards

physical/environmental research, however there are signs of increasing

proficiency in socio-political and socio-economic research and analysis

2 2

Connectivity: Collaborative linkages between different research institutions, brokerage and communication arrangements between research provider and end user stakeholders, collaborative arrangements that integrate social, economic and physical research

There are generally weak collaborative linkages between the various research

institutions and research institutions and end user stakeholders in the region.

Academic research is often poorly brokered in the region due to poor

brokerage arrangements and conflicting priorities between end users and

academic researchers (e.g. projects vs. publishing).

Information sharing between institutions in Cape York is also poor.

Research brokering between research providers and end user stakeholders in

the region is generally poor.

Research on the region is biased towards biophysical data collection, and fails

to integrate the social, economic, cultural and biophysical aspects of the

region.

2 2

Knowledge: Long-term research synthesis and knowledge retention systems, refinement of broad research priority setting exercises, availability of all forms of social, economic and environmental

Knowledge management systems are weak and unable to effectively support

planning activities, but they are developing and frameworks are emerging

CYNRM has emerging capacity to retain and synthesise information/data in

the long-term

It is unclear how other institutions will contribute data to the Cape York NRM

Atlas

Data availability (cultural, social, economic, and environmental) in the region

is poor, and biophysical data is more available than other forms of data

The ongoing research agenda for the biophysical aspects in the region is

relatively strong,

The research agenda and data availability is weak when it comes to social,

economic, and cultural research.

2 2

149

Indicators Conclusions Initial rating (1-5)

Final rating (1-5)

information for systems decision-making


Interviewees suggested that currently the capacity to undertake any form of

research in the region is poor. There is a high degree of research capacity in Far

North Queensland, due to the high concentration of research institutions based

in Cairns and Townsville. In contrast, interviewees mentioned that the number

of researchers studying Cape York is very limited and those researchers who are

involved in projects focused on the region tend not to be based in the region or

even Far North Queensland. They suggest that this has resulted in research

largely being driven by researcher priorities and interests rather than regionally

negotiated or identified priorities.

The research capacity that does exist is ‘too [focused] on the environment, and

doesn’t take a holistic approach to everything that is going on. The social,

economic, and cultural values are being lost because the environment is held above

everything else’ (Regional NGO). Only a small number of researchers are studying

non-biophysical features of the region, such as the anthropological aspects of the

region’s indigenous communities. Interviewees suggested that the region’s

management and economic development institutions have demonstrated a

limited emerging capacity to undertake social and governance research

themselves in recent years and several have published research reports.

However, they believe that this capacity is unlikely to grow as limited resources

constrain the region’s institutions to their core activities.


Interviewees observed that the connectivity between research institutions, and

research institutions and end-users is currently weak. Aptly summarised by one

interviewee who stated that in Cape York Peninsula ‘research is fragmented,

researchers are fragmented’ (Research Sector). They argued that the majority of

researchers who are studying Cape York are highly dispersed and generally not

collocated with other researchers studying the region. This dispersal inhibits the

150

connectivity between this small group of researchers, as they are less able to

meet in workshops, or locally as researchers located in the Wet Tropics are able

to do. Consequently, despite impetus from institutions in the region, there are no

collaborative arrangements in place to integrate different types of knowledge

and research on Cape York Peninsula.

Connectivity between researchers and end-users is particularly poor, largely due

to the lack of a region-wide system or mechanism through which research can be

disseminated. The CEF Stream 2 Knowledge Broker is intended as a bridging

mechanism between research and practice, however the position is part time

and only focuses on brokering biophysical information relating to climate

change. This is further compounded by the overall lack of baseline data for Cape

York and the problem that ‘what does exist certainly hasn’t been communicated

back to NRM groups…, but that’s not the role of researchers. It is justifiable to say

that there should be someone else who does that or it should be funded separately

as it is under Stream 2’ (Research Sector). Communication and brokerage of

research has been problematic. Often research is

‘not in a form that can be easily used by decision-makers and the mob. We

need to get research into a form and published in a way that people in Cape

York can actually use. We do research projects ourselves and we strike

issues with the hard-core researchers because our documents aren’t written

using the same jargon they use. Sometimes you’ll read their documents and

they are impenetrable because of the jargon of the field they work in.

Research should be useful and it should be in plain English’ (Regional NGO).

This suggests that connectivity between researchers and end-users could be

greatly improved by strengthening the currently low communication and

brokerage capacity of researchers.


Knowledge management has been limited in the region, and is currently unable

to support or inform NRM planning according a number of regional participants.

Much of the information gathered and reports written as part of ‘CYPLUS were

lost for a long time. It was as if all that work disappeared. Some of that stuff is only

now available online’ (Regional NGO). However, in an attempt to overcome this,

151

Cape York NRM are currently developing a dynamic NRM Atlas for the region,

which will serve as an online and publicly accessible depository of scientific,

traditional, and historical knowledge to support NRM strategy development. The

Atlas represents an emerging capacity for long-term knowledge retention, but

requires stronger brokerage and communication arrangements to enable

synthesis or integration of different forms of knowledge relevant to the region.

This suggests that the region’s knowledge management systems are ‘developing,

but… are weak’ (Regional NGO).

Regional participants believe that the lack of connectivity between researchers

and management institutions also limits collaborative research priority setting

for the region. The effect of this is that research is often not well aligned to the

needs of end-users and often limits the usefulness of such research. Additionally,

much of the research on the region ‘has been done by outsiders. Those outsiders

haven’t educated the community about what all of these things might do for

them…..[there’s been] a lack of ownership and engagement’ (Regional NGO).

Interviewees identified dispersal of researchers studying Cape York as an

ongoing challenge for engagement and collaborative processes for identifying

research priorities that involve regionally based institutions and externally

located researchers. Funding is also a significant limitation to such relationships

as researchers may seek funding from NRM institutions that are financially

constrained and thus unable to financially support their research, preventing the

project from moving forward.

6.2.3 Strategy development

Regional participants advised that the structures for strategy development for

NRM in Cape York Peninsula are likely to fail to deliver their intended desired

decision-making outcomes. This is due to insufficient resources, low levels of

coordination and inadequate data. The conclusions regarding strategy

development structures are summarised in Table 6.3, and are followed with


152

Table 6.3: Summary of conclusions regarding strategy development structures in Cape York Peninsula

Indicators Conclusions Initial

rating

(1-5)

Final

rating

(1-5) Capacity: Capacity to set clear strategic targets, decision-makers’ access to knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

General strategic capacity of key institutions to set clear strategic targets

remains chronically limited by available resources and ongoing political

and institutional tensions.

The capacity to set strategic targets for the region is growing as

relationships between institutions develop.

Financial and human resourcing is a limitation in strategy development

for most institutions.

There is also a lack of long-term financial security for NRM

Indigenous capacity is progressively increasing in the region, but there

remain many social and economic barriers to overcome.

2 2

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to strategy-making, alignment of strategies with visions and objectives, alignment of strategies with higher/lower scales of strategy development, design of collaborative frameworks for setting objectives, integration of solutions mix in strategies

Most of the key regional institutions and relevant stakeholder groups are

consulted during the planning process, however the State and Federal

Government tend to be relatively disengaged with the regional NRM

planning process.

Levels of stakeholder engagement in the decision-making process are

varied across the region

There is some alignment between higher level strategies and regional

institution’s strategies in part due to the current funding arrangements

There are a limited number of collaborative frameworks to connect

monitoring of key priority areas

A wide range of suasive instruments are used in the region by

institutions, and there is an opportunity to develop market-based

instruments in the future.

2.5 2.5

Knowledge: Availability of social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies, availability of decision support tools to scenario test alternative strategies

There is currently very poor knowledge/data collected to support an

assessment of the efficacy of key strategies in the region.

Resources and institutional support for scenario testing in the region is

limited

1.5 1.5


The capacity of institutions to develop strategies for NRM in Cape York Peninsula

has grown significantly since 2010, however interviewees suggest that this

capacity remains limited by available resources and political tensions between

the region’s institutions. The Federal and State Government currently fund NRM

strategy development using a project-oriented approach rather than objective

oriented approach. Such funding is usually allocated for a short set time period,

usually between 1 and 3 years, with a limited number for the duration of 5 years.

These short timeframes are also a significant constraint on the ability of

153

institutions to be strategic about NRM because ‘there’s no security in funding. It

comes back to ticking boxes instead of community ownership [of the problem]’

(Regional NGO). Moreover, strategic capacity and connectivity in the region has

been damaged by this insecurity. One interviewee suggests that in Cape York

Peninsula

‘where there is a real financial risk, [institutions without a NRM mandate]

will go seeking funding for certain projects. Normally that funding will only

be for certain groups in the community, whereas had another organisation

actually been successful it may have had broader applications. [Institutions]

may be moving into areas where maybe they haven’t traditionally operated,

but because of financial imperatives they looked at other avenues. All

organisations [in Cape York] have done that to one extent or another, and

it’s quite damaging to relationships’ (Government Agency).

Some regional participants emphasised that there are currently sufficient

financial and infrastructure resources to support NRM strategy development, but

they explained that there is only a limited number of individuals trained or with

experience in strategic regional or environmental planning to support NRM

strategy development. Despite this, they suggested that the capacity to develop

strategic targets exists in a small number of the region’s institutions, however

they tend to do so individually rather than collaboratively as a result of tensions

between the institutions regarding mandate and funding. The limited emerging

capacity

‘to come together to develop and deliver programs, has resulted somewhat

out of financial necessity. If the money remained fat then [the region’s

institutions] would continue to fight for it. When resources are good, they

will battle each other. When resources aren’t there, they will work it out’

(Government Agency).

Balkanu demonstrates this capacity in their development of Indigenous

conservation plans, while CYSF (funded by Cape York NRM) develop property

scale fire management plans. Cape York NRM’s RIS is a further example of their

emerging capacity to develop clear strategic targets that fit within existing short

154

funding cycles. Low levels of human and financial resources chronically limit the

strategic capacity of local stakeholder groups and local government in the region.


CYSF, Balkanu, and Cape York NRM all engage with various local stakeholder

groups and communities to ensure their strategies and projects are in line with

their constituent’s aspirations. However, interviewees observed that

connectivity is not regionally consistent, with some local groups favouring

working with specific regional-scale institutions over others. This variability is

largely based on the strength of relationships and trust that have been built

between such institutions. This reiterates that operationally the region’s

institutions have increasingly ‘good relationships, but relationships for policy and

governance still need a lot of work’ (Regional NGO). An example of this is Cape

York NRM’s use of IRGs to ensure strategy development is sensitive to the needs,

aspirations and ideas of Traditional Owners in the subregions that are working

with Cape York NRM to develop NRM projects.

On the other hand, regional participants observed institutional connectivity at

the regional scale as being more fragmented, with some institutions choosing not

to engage with other regional scale institutions in the development of strategies

in areas where there are shared interests. Such fragmentation has emerged

following the erosion of the ‘strong collaborative culture’ (Regional NGO) that

was evident in strategic planning outputs such as the Heads of Agreement, which

involved ‘strong collaboration. But now it’s a bit like in Machiavelli’s The Prince.

We collaborate when we need to and through that collaboration we are then able

to differentiate what we do’ (Regional NGO). In the current governance landscape

‘interpersonal relationships are fundamental’ (Government Agency) to strategy

development and achieving mutually beneficial decision-making and

environmental outcomes, and the limited examples of coordination.

Individual institutions have varied visions and objectives for the region, which is

understandable given their varied focuses (e.g. economic development

institutions have visions and objectives that focus on economic develop, while

Indigenous institutions have visions and objectives that focus on Indigenous

issues). Despite the variety in mandate and focus, a number of the region’s

155

institutions (Balkanu, CYSF, CYNRM) are engaged in NRM activities, but have

varied degrees of alignment (usually limited) in their NRM strategies and

broader visions and objectives. A number of interviewees emphasised that the

lack of alignment has largely resulted out of a lack of collaborative frameworks

for setting regionally coherent objectives and strategies, and competition driven

NRM funding mechanisms. One interviewee expanded on this, emphasising

‘we aren’t collaborative. We aren’t doing things from the ground up. We’re

not engaging the right people around the table and governments are

coming in and telling us what to do. It comes back to collaboration in the

end. Ego is a big part of it. People need to leave their egos at the door and

remember whom they represent and why they are at the table’ (Regional

NGO).

Consequently, Cape York NRM, CYSF, and Balkanu align their objectives and

strategies with that of their constituents, but not with each other, despite

significant cross-over in interests. Amongst the region’s institutions

‘there’s just this hope that if everyone runs around and is busy as blue arse

flies then something good will come out of it. It’s not coordinated. Because

there are such great needs [in Cape York], it is completely easy to have your

time overrun responding to people asking for help to do different projects.

There’s no doubt that [institutions] are busy. There’s no doubt that people

are committed. But at this point it’s totally project oriented rather than

strategically oriented’ (Research Sector).


Institutions currently accessing Federal Government NRM project funding are

required to monitor and report the outputs of their funded activities, such as the

number of hectares sprayed for weeds or the number of feral pigs shot. While

this information is useful, interviewees suggested that it fails to provide

institutions with sufficient or appropriate data to determine the efficacy of their

projects or strategies in achieving their desired objectives. According to regional

participants, very little monitoring is done in the region, and what is done is

generally limited to biophysical aspects. They suggested that this limits the

capacity of institutions to draw on monitoring data to inform ongoing strategy

156

development. It is further compounded by the lack of adequate decision-support

tools to enable scenario testing of different strategies and a low level of

institutional support and resources to develop them.

6.2.4 Implementation

Cape York Peninsula’s implementation structures are likely to fail to deliver

their intended desired decision-making outcomes based on regional participant’s

observations. The conclusions regarding implementation structures are

summarised in Table 6.4, and are followed with further discussion in the

subsections below.

Table 6.4: Summary of conclusions regarding implementation structures in Cape York Peninsula


rating

(1-5)

Final

rating

(1-5) Capacity: Capacity to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions, implementers’ access to financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

There is moderately high capacity to apply a broad range of tools/strategic

solutions to achieve positive outcomes in the region

Education-based tools are broadly underutilised, while skills-based suasive

instruments and financial support instruments are largely well used by

numerous institutions

Data availability on the condition of social systems and natural resources

to support ongoing implementation of NRM in the region is poor.

The key institutions generally have moderately-strong corporate

governance and improvement systems

2.5 2.5

Connectivity: Partnership and integration arrangements between policy and delivery systems, use of collaboration in implementation, research brokerage arrangements to support implementation

Alliances between decision-makers and implementing institutions tend to

be based on funding rather than a shared agenda, however there is a

coalescence of regional institutions and their position on the region in

higher-level policy-making discussions has recently emerged out of the

current land use planning process.

The collaborative culture between NRM institutions in Cape York is

currently weak, but improving.

Research brokerage arrangements are generally poor in the region and are

poorly organised or designed to support implementation.

Connectivity between research institutions/agendas and implementation

activities is poor

2 1.5

Knowledge: Research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation, use of local and traditional knowledge sets to inform implementation, management and retention of data sets concerning effective implementation

Research is used inconsistently to inform continuous improvement in

implementation across the region

Traditional knowledge is used widely across the region by institutions

engaged in NRM

Data has in the past and continues to be poorly retained in a broad regional

context, however there is some capacity particularly in service delivery

institutions to develop data retention and management

Data management and retention are likely to improve.

2 2

157


The region’s institutions draw on a number of suasive and financial tools to

increase stakeholder awareness of NRM issues and improve their capacity to

implement NRM strategies or projects. Devolved grants and fee-for-service are

used by Cape York NRM, CYSF and Balkanu to support NRM specific operational

activities of regional stakeholders including ranger groups, landholders, and

community groups. Suasive tools, however, are particularly important in the

region and have been used extensively in an attempt to drastically increase the

capacity of stakeholders in Cape York not only for NRM, but also developing

economic opportunities, and encouraging greater social and financial autonomy.

A primary example of this is the fire workshop facilitated by Cape York NRM in

2012. The fire workshop not only allowed brokerage and communication of

different types of knowledge between Traditional Owners, scientists, and land

managers, but also provided an opportunity to build connectivity and capacity of

the attendees.

At the local scale, ‘there’s a growing capacity. All the ranger groups are at different

levels of experience, training, education and access to resources. Some are miles

ahead of others for a range of reasons (Government Agency). Regional

participants believe that the emerging capacity reflects the significant

investment of regional institutions in local institutions in recent years. This

investment has been based on the premise that the region’s communities were

interested in being engaged with NRM, but lacked sufficient skills, knowledge,

financial resources, and leadership. Although there remain substantial capacity

limitations, they emphasise that the capacity building approach of Cape York

Peninsula’s institutions has made a significant positive impact on the capacity of

the region. However, the focus on building local capacities is suggested to be at

the detriment of integrated NRM and broader regional outcomes because it

‘stops work being done at the landscape scale to an extent. It is being done

at the much smaller ranger specific level. If they aren’t communicating with

others in the catchment then there will be ad hoc work done. They might

build capacity and get very good at some things, but if it’s not in the context

of a bigger landscape or catchment scale approaches then we probably

aren’t getting as good value for money or the landscape isn’t getting the

158

investment and the work that it needs. It’s quite fragmented’ (Government

Agency).

Prior to 2010 NRM funding to Cape York Peninsula was not coordinated due to

their lack of a NRM body, rather it was awarded to various institutions in the

region based on competitive applications (as per CfoC). This led to a high degree

of duplication and fragmentation of NRM projects and implementation.

Following the establishment of Cape York NRM in 2010-2011, these funding

arrangements were restructured, leading to a reduction of ‘middlemen’

(Research Sector) and reducing the capacity of some regional institutions to

implement the same number of projects that they had previously undertaken.

Although financial resources are somewhat limited in the region, the majority of

institutions have sufficient financial resources to support their core activities in

the short term. Cape York NRM, CYSF, and Balkanu all have sufficient human and

infrastructure resources to support implementation. Similarly, all three key

institutions have moderately strong corporate governance systems to support

their operational activities.


Interviewees observed that coordination and collaboration between institutions

engaged in regional-scale strategy development and project implementation is

currently limited. That isn’t to say there aren’t examples of collaboration in the

region, rather

‘there are pockets and patches [of connectivity]. Some specific projects have

connectivity, but once the project is finished or the funding runs out then it

all peters out. That can be quite damaging because you have to work to

rebuild those relationships or introduce new players into it. It can take the

12 months of their funding to get anyone to actually get to know them and

want to work with them, by which time the funding has gone’ (Government

Agency).

Collaboration between regional-scale institutions is limited by concerns of

conceding power, funding, and control. As a result, alliances for NRM in the

region ‘tend to be based on funding rather than a shared agenda’ (Regional NGO).

In Cape York Peninsula funding is a significant source of power and influence for

159

institutions. Some institutions have been reluctant to collaborate, as they have

not wanted to concede control of what they see as ‘their project’. This is despite

the fact that collaboration would provide such institutions with a larger body of

resources and relationships on which to build and implement integrated regional

NRM strategies. Higher-level funding structures are highly influential on the

connectivity and capacity of the region’s institutions to collaboratively

implement projects. One interviewee suggested that the lack of collaboration is

underlined by ‘the issue…that we aren’t funded to achieve a shared agenda. If we

were, we’d probably be doing it. Our funding comes in boxes to deliver specific

projects. We are all captured by our contracts. We have little discretionary funding

to invest in a shared agenda’ (Regional NGO).

Cape York NRM, CYSF, and Balkanu all collaborate extensively with their

constituents in the development and implementation of NRM strategies and

projects. The result of this fragmentation is an ‘incredible duplication of effort in

the Cape for dugong, turtles, and fire management. [It’s] out of control and it’s

because people want to own it’ (Government Agency). The West Coast Turtle

Threat Abatement Alliance (WCTTAA) is an example of a collaborative NRM

arrangement. The WCTTA is a collaborative partnership that involves numerous

ranger groups, Local Governments, Ghostnets Australia, and Cape York NRM

working together to manage and protect turtles on the west coast of Cape York

Peninsula.


All of the interviewees mentioned that there has been limited collection,

retention or analysis of data regarding NRM strategy implementation in Cape

York Peninsula. Consequently, they explained there is also no mechanism to

support or inform continuous improvement of implementation activities in the

region. However, they noted that there is impetus among the institutions

involved in NRM to draw on evidence where it is available to ensure their

strategies are effective. Knowledge use to support NRM planning is improving in

the region, with several projects in recent years drawing on multiple sources of

knowledge. For example, through the aforementioned Cape York NRM fire

workshop, ranger groups, land managers, and scientists were able to share and

160

combine their varied experiences, understandings, and knowledge of fire

management practices suitable to Cape York Peninsula.

6.2.5 Monitoring, evaluation and review

Regional participants observed that the structures for monitoring, evaluation

and review for NRM are likely to fail to deliver their intended desired decision-

making outcomes in Cape York Peninsula. The conclusions regarding

implementation structures are summarised in Table 6.5, and are followed with


Table 6.5: Summary of conclusions regarding implementation structures in Cape York Peninsula


rating

(1-5)

Final

rating

(1-5) Capacity: Monitoring and evaluation capacity, collective monitoring alliances, evaluation capacities in the system, reporting capacities that enhance accountability

The capacity of institutions to monitor and evaluate NRM activities or

planning arrangements is low, largely because systemic monitoring,

evaluation and reporting mechanisms to benchmark such things do not exist

within the region and a lack of sufficient resources to undertake or develop

such monitoring frameworks

The silo mentality to managing issues in the region is a significant limitation

to the region’s institutional capacity to effectively monitor and evaluate

planning processes and outcomes.

Collective monitoring alliances are piecemeal and fragmented.

Evaluation capacity in the Cape York Peninsula is neither defined nor

independent

Reporting capacity is low due to low levels of monitoring data or

frameworks.

2 2

Connectivity: Integration arrangements between objective setting and monitoring systems, connectivity between evaluative and review mechanisms, and long-term monitoring, capacity of monitoring and reporting strategic processes to influence strategic processes and the allocation of resources

The objective setting and monitoring systems for planning in Cape York are

disjointed, and Institutions are likely to continue to discuss visions and

objectives, but struggle to move forward without greater integration of

objective setting and monitoring systems

There is little connection between monitoring, strategic processes and

allocation of resources in the region at this stage.

The emerging Cape York NRM Atlas and Cape York NRM Regional

Investment Strategy have potential to influence strategic processes and

allocation of resources in the region.

2 2

Knowledge: Monitoring of social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system, retention of monitoring and evaluation data in the long-term

Monitoring of social and economic conditions is weak and unable to show

short or long-term changes.

Environmental conditions are not well monitored

Despite previously poor retention of monitoring data, Cape York NRM and

Cape York Sustainable Futures are currently improving their data

management systems to retain monitoring and evaluation data over time.

2 2

161


Monitoring capacity across the region is low. Financial and infrastructure

‘resources are a determinant of monitoring strategies’ (Regional NGO) and there is

a tendency amongst the region’s institutions to invest the majority of financial

resources in on-ground actions rather than planning or monitoring activities.

One interviewee expanded on this point, saying ‘look at what it costs to monitor a

project on Cape York. If we did the job we’d liked to do on just one of our projects…

we would blow the whole lot. We try to monitor as we go along to be cost effective,

but it’s tough’ (Regional NGO). The governance arrangements for NRM planning

and most NRM projects in the region are currently not monitored or evaluated

by any institutions. Individual institutions have demonstrated some capacity on

a project-by-project basis, however such monitoring is chronically limited by

lack of resources and impetus. There is also limited mandate in or requirement

of the region’s institutions to undertake monitoring of governance arrangements

or NRM activities beyond the widget counting process set out by the national

MERI framework under CfoC.

The limited number of existing collaborative monitoring alliances are

fragmented and subregion specific according to a number of interviewees. The

WCTTAA is an apposite example of one such alliance. Other institutions have fee-

for-service relationships whereby one institution is financially supported by

another institution to undertake specific implementation or monitoring

activities. For example Cape York NRM fund CYSF to manage the Queensland

component of the North Australian Fire Information website, which monitors

fire events across regions in north Australia. In other words, ‘at an individual

level some people communicating and sharing with each other, but it doesn’t

translate or transfer up in the monitoring, evaluation and reinvestment process.

That’s where the problem is’ (Government Agency). The low capacity for

monitoring and evaluation is caused in part by poor connectivity. There is

currently no mechanism through which key institutions can come together to

identify bigger regional issues or evaluate the risks and outcomes of possible

courses of action.

162


Regional participants believe that the overall lack of monitoring systems in the

region limits the ability of the region’s institutions to draw connections between

their objectives and the on-ground outcomes of their strategies and projects.

While ‘in some areas the data is there, it has been lost in many others or simply

doesn’t exist’ (Regional NGO), preventing institutions in the region from using the

outputs of monitoring and evaluation processes to influence strategic decision

making or allocation of resources in the future. Because of this, strategic

processes for NRM in Cape York Peninsula are ‘not based on sufficient knowledge

or information a lot of the time’ (Government Agency). The Cape York NRM Atlas

is intended to fill this gap and once implemented has potential to influence

strategic processes and allocation of resources within the region, indicating

probable improvement in the connectivity between monitoring and strategic

processes.


The social, economic, cultural and environmental outcomes of NRM activities in

the region are mostly unmonitored, with only output data recorded for the

majority of projects. Institutions in the region are thus unable to demonstrate

the efficacy of their strategies in combatting regional issues. Interviewees

explained that data management in the region is also poor, and very little of the

monitoring data that has been collected has been retained for long-term

synthesis and evaluation. They argued that this is due in part to the lack of data

management systems in place in the region, but is also affected by financial and

human resourcing constraints. The only exception to this is the Northern

Australia Fire Information website, which stores and retains significant data

relating to fire management over time, allowing decision-makers to identify

long-term trends and patterns. Data management for NRM in the region may

begin to improve once Cape York NRM introduce their Atlas and it is connected

to the NRM planning structures, but is still in development at the time of writing

this description (June 2014).

6.3 Summary of results

Table 6.6 provides a summary of the results of this chapter and synthesizes the

scores allocated by regional participants. Cumulatively regional participants

163

suggested that the structures for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are

currently likely to fail to deliver their intended desired decision-making

outcomes. They consider that this was due to a combination of fragmentation

between some institutions, low levels of decision-making capacity (despite high

levels of operational capacity emerging), and limited data availability to support

decision-making. Regional participants in this research identified these barriers

as the key constraints on the capacity of the governance structures to deliver

desired decision-making outcomes. They are discussed in greater detail in

Chapter 8.

Table 6.6: Summary of structural and functional scores for natural resource management planning governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula

Decision-making capacity

Connectivity Knowledge use

Total (out of

15) Vision and objective

setting 2 2 2 6

Research and assessment

2 2 2 6

Strategy development 2 2.5 1.5 6 Implementation 2.5 1.5 2 6

Monitoring, evaluation and review

2 2 2 6

Total 10.5 10 9.5 - Average score 2.1 2.0 1.9 6

Region’s cumulative average score

2.00

6.4 Conclusions

This chapter consisted of the results of Step Three of the GSA framework

application in Cape York Peninsula based on the framework described in Chapter

4. This process revealed that the primary constraint on governance in Cape York

Peninsula, as identified by regional participants, is fragmented connectivity

between regional institutions, particularly the three primary regional NGOs

involved in NRM in the region. While low levels of capacity in all regional NRM

decision-makers, and stakeholders (particularly local Indigenous communities)

were identified as a concern, these findings were mediated by strong evidence of

emerging capacities across the region. Limited data availability to inform NRM

planning activities was a further constraint identified by interviewees. However,

164

it was suggested by some interviewees that as capacities of regional stakeholders

to participate in NRM and regional NGOs to undertake NRM continue to grow

and evolve, then data availability is likely to increase. The next chapter (Chapter

7) contains the results of Step Three of the GSA framework’s application in the

Wet Tropics NRM region. The results of both chapters will be discussed in

greater detail in Chapter 8.

165

Chapter 7: Case study two – Assessment of natural resource management planning governance in the Wet Tropics

7.1 Introduction

The GSA framework that was developed in Chapter 4 was applied in the Wet

Tropics to analyse the NRM planning domain of governance and test the

accuracy of the framework. The results in this chapter were validated for their

accuracy in May 2014 and were considered accurate by regional participants at

the time. This chapter fulfills Step Three of the GSA framework application

process described in Chapter 2 in the Wet Tropics case study. The results are

discussed and summarised tables using the structural and functional elements of

NRM planning systems defined in Chapter 4 and the scored using the scoring

scale described in Chapter 2. The key findings of these results are further

synthesised and summarised in Section 7.3.

7.2 Description of the governance system

This section consists of a discussion of the interactions between structures and

functions in the Wet Tropics NRM planning governance system. Similar to the

previous chapter, quotes from deidentified experts in the region are italicised

and identified by their institutional sector, including regional non-government

organisation (NGO), government agency, and research sector. A more

comprehensive description of the lines of evidence to support and justify the

conclusions discussed below can be found in Appendix 10.2. The following

subsections are organised based on the key structural steps of the planning

process, enabling discussion of the traits of systemic performance towards the

achievement of individual steps of the planning process, and the performance of

the system as a whole to deliver its intended decision-making outcomes.

7.2.1 Vision and objective setting

Regional participants indicated that structures for vision and objective setting

for NRM in the Wet Tropics are not likely to fail to deliver their intended

decision-making outcomes. They argue that this is because the system has well-

resourced and capable institutions; there is also a moderate level of connectivity

166

between the region’s NRM invested stakeholders, and an abundance of data and

knowledge to inform vision and objective setting structures. The conclusions

regarding vision and objective setting structures are summarised in Table 7.1,

and are followed with further discussion in the subsections below.

Table 7.1: Summary of conclusions regarding vision and objective setting structures in the Wet Tropics

Indicators Conclusions Initial Score (1-5)

Final Score (1-5)

Capacity: Capacity to set higher level targets, availability of resources to decision-makers

There is significant capacity in the region to set both higher-level and regional aspirational/condition targets for the region, particularly for the GBR and Wet Tropics WHAs

Although in the past funding has been a limitation to NRM planning for the region, the CEF Stream 1 funding has provided ample funding to support the current NRM planning process in the Wet Tropics

Institutions in the region have sufficient human and infrastructure resources available to support vision and objective setting.

There is significant knowledge/data available to support vision and objective setting in the region, however available data is strongly biased towards the biophysical conditions of the region.

There is an emerging capacity to reduce the data bias through the CEF Stream 2 funding and knowledge broker position.

3.5 4

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to decision-making, alignment of visions and objectives to higher and lower scale visions and objectives, collaborative frameworks for setting visions and objectives, structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives

Although all of the relevant stakeholders appear to be connected and engaged in the vision and objective setting process, their level of engagement with the process through different institutions is variable.

There is a moderate level of alignment of visions and objectives for the region across scales.

Collaborative frameworks for vision and objective setting are well designed, but are currently weak, however these frameworks are being further developed and strengthened as part of the new planning process.

Currently there are limited and specialised structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives for the region. Frameworks explicit to NRM are expected to emerge out of the current planning process.

2.5 3

Knowledge: Availability of all forms of social, economic and environmental information for vision and objective setting, application of traditional and historical knowledge sets, availability of decision-support tools to support scenario analysis

There is an abundance of research and data available for the region, however biophysical data is much more prevalent than social or economic data, preventing vision and objective setting from being as informed by socio-economic factors as it is by biophysical data.

Although there has been an increase in the use and application of traditional and historic knowledge, there remains a significant amount of traditional and historical knowledge that is yet to be drawn on to support the planning process.

Although some institutions have spatial and scenario analysis tools and skills, their application in NRM planning remains limited.

There is emerging capacity to do scenario analysis for the planning process as a scenario analysis tool (Community Vis) is currently being developed collaboratively in the region.

3 3.5


Regional participants suggest that the capacity to set visions and objectives for

NRM in the Wet Tropics is particularly high, sustained by numerous

167

State/Federal Government agencies and authorities, experienced and highly

skilled regional NGOs, and a strong regionally based research sector. Almost all

of the region’s institutions have sufficient knowledge, human and infrastructure

resources to undertake vision and objective setting, with the exception of some

local groups with limited skills, human resources and infrastructure. However,

interviewees raised the issue that in recent years funding has been a significant

limitation to the capacity of the region’s NRM body (Terrain NRM) to undertake

vision and objective setting for NRM in the Wet Tropics beyond the 2004-2008

Wet Tropics NRM Plan. They suggested that the Federal Government’s 2012

Clean Energy Futures Program (CEF) Stream 1 allocated Terrain NRM with

sufficient financial resources to review and update their NRM planning, enabling

them to revisit the visions and objectives for NRM in the region.

Based on this emergent capacity, Terrain NRM began a new planning process in

2013 focused on building on the strengths of past planning, whilst overcoming

the weaknesses and limitations of the 2004 Wet Tropics NRM Plan. Rather than

develop a static and time-limited regional NRM plan, the focus is on developing

more iterative and dynamic frameworks to support NRM. Consequently, the

NRM plan will be web-based, enabling greater flexibility and responsiveness of

the visions, objectives and strategies to change (e.g. a severe cyclone, or

emerging invasive species). This process was ongoing at the time of the final

interviewees and the web-based plan/planning resources had not yet been

published.


Although the region’s institutions are varied in their level of engagement and

collaboration, regional participants argue that the connectivity between them to

support vision and objective setting for NRM and NRM planning more broadly

could fail or succeed to deliver the intended decision-making outcomes. The

relevant stakeholders are mostly engaged in vision and objective setting. One

interviewee suggests that ‘those who want or care to be involved are and those

who don’t care aren’t involved’ (Regional NGO). Similarly, some institutions are

‘more actively engaged in decision-making than others based on their mandate,

vested interest, and resourcing constraints’ (Government Agency).

168

As the State and Federal Governments set broader NRM policy agendas and

funding priorities, they are usually not represented or involved in regional NRM

planning. However, their interests in NRM are articulated in the Wet Tropics

through the GBRMPA (Federal) and WTMA (Federal and State). There is a high

degree of alignment between higher-level policies, including the previously

statutory Wet Tropics Regional Plan 2009-2031 and the Far North Queensland

Roadmap of the Federal Government Regional Development Authority (Far

North Queensland and Torres Strait).

Interviewees emphasised that there is some fragmentation between the region’s

local government and NRM institutions. They explained that this fragmentation

has, in the past, limited the alignment of visions and objectives for NRM across

the local and regional scales, however there are signs of improvement in this

space. For example, FNQROC and Terrain NRM are currently sharing the cost of

an employee whose role is to improve the alignment of the visions, objectives

and strategies of Terrain NRM, local councils, and the region’s communities.

In past planning processes, ‘communities and catchment groups tended to be

consulted by institutions rather than actively engaged in developing visions and

objectives based on their aspirations’ (Regional NGO). The current NRM planning

process is emphasising active stakeholder engagement and it is expected that the

community will have a greater role in developing visions and objectives that they

had in the 2004 process. Traditional owners and Indigenous institutions in the

region (e.g Girrigun) were engaged in vision and objective setting for Country in

2005 when the Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource

Management Plan was developed. Traditional owners are somewhat engaged in

the current regional NRM planning process. However, traditional owners are

currently evaluating and reviewing their progress against their 2005 visions and

objectives to better inform future vision, objective and strategy development.

Many of the interviewees believed that the 2004 NRM Plan had relatively strong

frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over vision and objective setting,

which have largely been eroded. However, they suggested that the current NRM

planning process currently lacks structured frameworks for institutions and

169

stakeholders to bargain and negotiate visions and objectives. Interpersonal

relationships among some of the region’s NRM institution employees serve as

informal networks for bargaining and negotiation, but are highly varied, and

vulnerable to change. Structured bargaining and negotiation frameworks do

exist in other subdomains in the region, for example relating to management of

invasive species by local government, but frameworks are still being developed

specific to the NRM planning subdomain.


Information availability to support vision and objective setting for NRM is quite

high in the Wet Tropics due in part to the concentration of research institutions

based in the region according to regional participants. Although ‘[the Wet Tropics

is] data rich as a region, there’s traditionally been a pretty heavy focus on

biophysical evidence, and there is a gap as far as the social and economic side of

the equation’ (Regional NGO). Interviewees strongly emphasised that there is a

strong bias in the information available to inform decisions makers towards

biophysical information particularly relating to the ecological conditions of the

GBR and Wet Tropics WHAs. They suggest that although social, economic and

cultural information is available, it is much less prevalent than biophysical

information and currently is only able to inform vision and objective setting in a

perfunctory way.

Traditional and historical knowledge sets are recognised by most (if not all)

institutions in the Wet Tropics as valuable, but remain limited in their

applications to inform vision and objective setting or implementation. Such

forms of knowledge have tended to be poorly recorded and more likely shared

orally between members of traditional owners clans/groups, community level

institutions, or landholders rather than written down. Traditional knowledge

was used to inform the development of the Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and

Natural Resource Management Plan 2005. Despite this, regional participants

argue that there remains a significant body of traditional and historical

knowledge that is yet to be drawn on to inform vision and objective setting for

NRM in the Wet Tropics in the current planning process.

170

Many of the region’s institutions employ or have access to people with skills and

experience using GIS and mapping programs to develop maps, including (but not

limited to) WTMA, GBRMPA, Terrain NRM, Commonwealth Scientific and

Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and James Cook University (JCU).

However, the capacity of institutions to do higher-level analysis using such

programs remains limited. Local government councils in the Wet Tropics are

currently using several decision-support tools for scenario analysis to inform

their planning and implementation activities, including cost-benefit analysis

frameworks, objective setting frameworks, and situational analysis frameworks.

Despite the availability and demonstrated usefulness of such frameworks in the

region in town planning and invasive species management subdomains,

interviewees specified that they are yet to be applied to inform vision and

objective setting in the NRM planning subdomain for scenario analysis. Scenario

analysis tools have been used in a limited way to support a small number of NRM

projects, including one in the Mossman area and another by GBMRPA in the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. FNQROC and Terrain NRM are currently

developing a set of NRM specific decision-support tools for scenario analysis to

support planning. The key example of this is a region-specific version of scenario

analysis tool Community Vis. Interviewees suggest that this demonstrates an

emerging capacity to undertake scenario analysis in the region, and is likely to

improve as tools and technology develops and evolves.

7.2.2 Research and assessment

Regional participants suggested that the governance structures for research and

assessment to support NRM planning in the Wet Tropics could fail or succeed

to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes. The strong research and

analytical capacity in the region’s institutions is largely limited by the lack of

connectivity of institutions both in the research and management sectors, and

the overemphasis and bias towards biophysical information and research. The

conclusions regarding research and assessment structures are summarised in

Table 7.2, and are followed with further discussion in the subsections below.

171

Table 7.2: Summary of conclusions regarding research and assessment structures in the Wet Tropics


Score

(1-5)

Final

Score

(1-5)


The Wet Tropics has a strong research capacity and multiple public, private and government research institutions are based in the region

The connections between research institutions are somewhat fragmented and often based on interpersonal relationships.

Despite this fragmentation, the region’s research institutions are largely able to inform other structural components of the system

The environmental research and analysis capacity of the system is particularly strong with many research institutions almost entirely focused on studying and monitoring the biophysical conditions of the region

The social and economic research capacity is developing, but remains less developed than environmental/biophysical research capacity in the region.

3.5 3.5


Despite the significant number of research institutions in the region, the linkages between them are piecemeal, variable, competitive, and often driven by interpersonal relationships.

Research currently being done on/in the region tends to be poorly aligned to end-users and sometimes falls short servicing the needs of people on the ground.

Social data has been particularly poorly integrated with the region’s economic and physical research.

Collaborative research arrangements in the region are increasing in strength, but are largely failing to integrate social, economic and physical research

The silo mentality remains strong in the research sector, with few incentives for researchers to collaborate.

2.5 3

Knowledge: Long-term research synthesis and knowledge retention systems, refinement of broad research priority setting exercises, availability of all forms of social, economic and environmental information for systems decision-making

There is currently no broadly used system to enable long-term research synthesis or knowledge retention in the Wet Tropics. Several specialised data retention frameworks have been developed, but have not been applied regionally for research synthesis or knowledge retention.

Connectivity between research institutions in the region could be strengthened and greater focus on projects that incorporate social, economic and environmental aspects of the region could be further developed.

Biophysical data availability is good, while social and economic data availability is limited.

2.5 2.5


The research and assessment capacity for NRM in the Wet Tropics is strong

according to regional participants. This strength is due to the high concentration

of regionally based public and private research institutions in the region funded

to engage in Wet Tropics specific research. They include JCU, the CSIRO, the Reef

and Rainforest Research Centre (RRRC), and the National Environmental

172

Research Program (NERP) Tropical Research Hub. Additionally, a number of

externally located researchers are undertaking short and long term projects

relevant to the Wet Tropics, and are based at institutions such as the University

of Queensland (UQ), Griffith University (GU), Queensland University of

Technology (QUT), Charles Darwin University (CDU), and others. A number of

private research consultancies based in the region also contribute towards the

capacity to do research and assessment in the region.

Interviewees suggested that the cumulative impact of the factors described

above means that the research sector in the Wet Tropics has strong capacity to

inform other institutions and decision-making structures in the region. The

capacity of management agencies to draw on the strong research and analytical

capacity of the research sector is currently limited by issues of connectivity,

timing and differences in institutional objectives (discussed further below). In an

attempt to overcome this, a knowledge broker position to bridge the gap

between the research sector and NRM planning was introduced as part of the

CEF Stream 2 funding, adding to the capacity and connectivity of research and

management institutions engaged in the region. The knowledge broker is

expected to ‘add a lot of value. If you are just relying on the connectivity to

naturally happen then it is going to be less effective than if you have some

resources to focus on that role and its outcomes’ (Research Sector).

The capacity to undertake environmental research in the region is exceptionally

high, with scientific and environmental studies on the region currently being

undertaken by researchers based at JCU, UQ, GU, CSIRO, CDU, NERP, WTMA,

GBRMPA, and RRC. Research capacity around the GBR and Wet Tropics WHAs is

also exceptionally high according to regional participants. There is a small, but

growing body of research looking at the social, economic, cultural, and socio-

political aspects of the Wet Tropics. This body of research remains minor

comparative to the biophysical literature body for the region.

The comparatively limited number of bodies of social and economic research

focused on the region are not due to lack of effort, rather, they ‘just need a bit

more time to develop and mature. There is quite a lot happening, some of it is still

173

pretty basic because [the social and economic]7 research areas don’t have the same

history to build on, as the biophysical area’ (Regional NGO). Research capacity,

specific to the social, economic and cultural aspects of the region, is developing.

For example, in 2012 the CSIRO established a long-term social and economic

monitoring program for the region. The knowledge broker position is a relatively

recent development in the region, and may further add to the capacity of both

researchers and NRM institutions as the position evolves (depending on

funding).


The relationships and connections between research institutions in the Wet

Tropics could fail or succeed to deliver their intended decision-making

outcomes, according to the scores nominated by interviewees. However, they

argued within this that the structures were more likely to succeed than fail to

deliver their intended outcomes despite being fragmented, and at times highly

competitive due to higher-level funding structures. Arguably, ‘linkages are good

in some parts, particularly where [there is a] construct that forces people together,

forces a degree of connectivity, but I don’t know if researchers tend to connect

naturally that well’ (Regional NGO). Because of this, interpersonal relationships

are a significant driver of collaboration between research institutions in the

region, and often, where interpersonal relationships are poor, competition is

high. A lack of collaborative culture in academic institutions combined with a

lack of incentives means that ‘there’s not much holding people together, there’s no

reason for them to work together’ (Government Agency).

The flow on effect of this is that when researchers are collaborating, it tends to

be limited to a specific silo (usually biophysical research), and often are not well

integrated with social, economic or cultural research on the region. However,

7 Square brackets have been used selectively to modify the phrasing of expert interviewees

quotes to ensure their clarity and coherency. They have been carefully used so as not to change

the meaning of the quote.

174

interviewees emphasised that collaborative research arrangements are

increasing in their prevalence in the region as national funding availability

declines and subsequently becomes more competitive, and as relationships

between individuals develop and evolve. Many of the region’s research and

management institutions employ staff who have previously worked elsewhere in

the region or who are involved in multiple roles at any one time. This

subsequently means that there is a high degree of informal connectivity in the

region. An example of this is an employee of a regional NRM institution who in

the past has worked in the research sector, but is now employed in the

management sector, and has remained in contact and on good terms with their

colleagues from their previous employment.

Other than the CEF Stream 2 knowledge broker (a part time position) (Described

in further detail in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7), ‘there is no formal system or

mechanisms through which research in the region can be aligned to the needs of

end users or communicated clearly’ (Research Sector). Consequently, it was

suggested that the informal interpersonal networks that exist across sectors in

the region are an important mechanism for both research collaboration and

research brokerage. The fragmented nature of such informal interpersonal

networks means that research often falls short of servicing the needs of end

users and overall connectivity is poor. Similarly, the differing objectives of

research institutions and management institutions means that even where

relationships allow transference of knowledge, the information may not be in

digestible form for end users, limiting its usefulness. In spite of these limitations,

‘the glass is half full. It will never be well aligned to end-users, but research is

abundant in the region and the region is well served compared to other regions in

the country’ (Government Agency).


The WTMA, GBRMPA, and CSIRO have all developed long-term monitoring

frameworks and data retention systems for specific programs or projects in the

region, enabling data synthesis over time. Terrain NRM is still in the process of

developing such systems as part of the current NRM planning process, while

most local and catchment groups do not have systems to retain or synthesise

175

data in the short or long-term. While capacity to develop such frameworks is

evident, regional participants argued that poor connectivity and resource

limitations limit institutions from translating or applying them to support policy

or planning processes in the region. Some of the region’s research institutions

have well developed computer network systems, enabling long-term data

storage, sharing and management (e.g. CSIRO), while in other institutions

individual researches manage their own data and have limited, if any, access to

other data (especially if it is not published or distributed).

The capacity of the region’s researchers and management organisations to

collaboratively develop research and strategic priorities is limited. This is due to

a lack of connectivity between research and management institutions, and poor

connectivity between national research investment and the needs of end-users

(though this is somewhat improving with the Stream 2 Knowledge Broker).

Broad priority setting exercises are generally research silo-specific, further

limiting the outputs of such exercises. The separation of research into silos is a

limitation to decision-makers in the region, because they lack the social,

economic and cultural data to add context and dimension to their management

of biophysical resources.

7.2.3 Strategy development

The structures for strategy development for NRM in the Wet Tropics could fail

or succeed to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes. They are

largely limited by fragmentation between institutions and poor alignment of

NRM strategies according to interviewees. The conclusions regarding strategy

development structures are summarised in Table 7.3, and are followed with


176

Table 7.3: Summary of conclusions regarding strategy development structures in the Wet Tropics


Score

(1-5)

Final

Score

(1-5) Capacity: Capacity to set clear strategic targets, decision-makers’ access to knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

There is significant capacity in the region’s institutions to set strategic targets

for the region, however institutional fragmentation limits their capacity to set

clear strategic targets for the region collaboratively

Although there is a limited amount and diversity of socio-economic data and

an abundance of biophysical data for the region, there is an adequate amount

of social, economic and environmental information to inform basic decision-

making and strategy development for the region.

Resourcing has been a significant limitation for strategy development, both in

the amount of money available, time frames for grants, the progressive

decrease in grant numbers, and shifting political funding priorities.

Government funding is often project or outcome specific, meaning there are

not always enough funds available to develop and implement strategies

focused on regional priority areas.

Spatial tools such as GIS are widely available and several of the region’s

institutions have employees trained in their use. However, the capacity to do

higher-level analysis using such tools remains limited.

3.5 3.5

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to strategy-making, alignment of strategies with visions and objectives, alignment of strategies with higher/lower scales of strategy development, integration of solutions mix in strategies

Some connectivity exists between institutions in the region, however these

connections are fragmented and tend to be driven by convenience or mandates

for on-the-ground activities or reporting rather than strategic decision-making.

Despite consensus on the importance of the region’s resources, the alignment

of strategies with visions and objectives in the region is varied and fragmented

Strategy alignment between regional institutions and local groups tend to

demonstrate greater alignment than the alignment between State and Federal

Government strategies and priorities and regional institutions and their

strategies.

Collaborative planning in the region has been limited in recent years, leading

to limited alignment of visions and objectives.

The solutions mix is varied on a project-by-project basis, while suasive

instruments are the primary tool used by institutions in the region, despite

capacity and authority to use regulatory instruments existing in the region

2.5 2.5

Knowledge: Availability of social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies, availability of decision support tools to scenario test alternative strategies

Data availability in the region is relatively high (particularly biophysical data),

however, the information is yet to be applied to assess the efficacy of key

strategies in the region.

There is capacity to scenario test strategies in the region, however the

application of available tools is limited in NRM. This is expected to change as

a scenario-testing skills and tools are being developed as part of the current

NRM planning process.

2.5 3


Terrain NRM, WTMA, and GBRMPA have more than 40 years of experience and

knowledge in NRM strategy development and implementation between them,

and have demonstrated a strong degree of capacity to set clear strategic targets

independently. Under the NHT2 funding structures, prior to CfoC, Terrain NRM

177

had greater access to discretionary funding, and capacity to develop and

implement strategies with multiple intended outcomes and outputs. However,

regional participants explained that under CfoC the alignment of Queensland and

Federal Government NRM priorities declined, reducing overall funding

availability to the region and increasing competition between regional NRM

institutions for funding. These structural changes mean that Terrain NRM,

WTMA, and GBMRPA and a limited number of community institutions now only

have sufficient financial, human, infrastructure and knowledge resources for

basic strategy development. Terrain NRM, WTMA, and GBRMPA also have

sufficient access to spatial tools to inform strategy development, but the capacity

to do higher-level analysis using such tools requires further development.

Regional participants emphasised that changes in political power, agenda and

the varied political cycles of the State and Federal Government also limit the

capacity of institutions to develop NRM strategies. This is because the ‘goal posts

in NRM are constantly shifting. You’re working in a 2-4 year cycle of what

government wants. They change their priorities every couple of years and what

they want to fund’ (Regional NGO). Moreover, funding is often targeted at

specific projects over a certain time period, rather than broader outcomes, which

has led to an implementation heavy and strategy-development light funding

system.

Although there is capacity to develop NRM strategies that use a diverse solutions

mix, current strategies for NRM in the region are based predominantly on

suasive or education-based instruments. Although WTMA and GBRMPA are

capable of using regulatory instruments, they also rely more on suasive

instruments based on the idea that ‘most people will change their behaviour if you

use carrots, and only a few need you to use a stick’ (Government Agency).


The connectivity that exists between institutions engaged in NRM strategy

development in the Wet Tropics is contingent on interpersonal relationships,

mandate and/or convenience, despite a high congruency of common interests.

While WTMA, Terrain NRM, and GBRMPA share an obvious interest in the

178

management of the region’s natural resources based on their mandates, the

number of NRM projects that they actively collaborate and coordinate on is

highly limited. Reef Rescue was repeatedly emphasised by participants as one of

the few examples of collaboration between these institutions, due to its

acknowledgement and use of institutional mandates and provision of sufficient

financial resources to incentivise and facilitate collaborative action. Reef Rescue

also clearly identifies the roles and responsibilities of the different institutions,

reducing conflict amongst them.

In a broad sense, developing region-wide strategies for NRM, is difficult because

‘it’s quite hard [for institutions] to work together. You get [institutions] who

are across purposes and you get competition for resources and duplication.

If you have good connectivity then you can get people to work together and

understand each other’s role in the system. I don’t think that’s clearly

defined [in the Wet Tropics]. There are too many overlaps in roles, which

leads to competition [rather than] collaboration, which means there aren’t

any incentives to collaborate’ (Regional NGO).

Where interpersonal relationships are stronger, there is a greater capacity to

deliver collaborative strategy development because the personal and informal

relationships provide some connectivity between institutions that currently does

not exist formally at the institutional scale. This is also true for all other planning

structures in the region. In the Wet Tropics,

‘we’ve got technical feasibility, process, application of expertise, knowledge

(gaining it or building it), adaptive processes, and linking to science. But,

dealing with the people factor and its influence on long-term outcomes and

legacy of programs is a problem every time’ (Government Agency).

Connectivity between local and regional institutions such as the Mulgrave

Landcare and Catchment Group and Terrain NRM is stronger than the

connectivity between regional NRM institutions and centralised government

agencies such Terrain NRM and DSDIP. This was argued to be because catchment

level groups and the region’s NRM institutions are all located within the region,

while government agencies may have representatives based in the region, their

179

primary decision-makers are usually based out of Brisbane or Canberra.

Centralised government decision-makers also tend to have less opportunity to

interact with local institutions compared with regional institutions.

Fragmentation, in combination with changes in political power, can at times limit

the alignment of visions, objectives strategies between government agencies and

regional institutions in the region according to regional participants. Changes in

political parties following elections regularly lead to shifting agendas and ‘goal

posts’ for NRM. Consequently, policies and strategies developed under the

previous government and agenda are often poorly aligned with the new

government and must be amended or replaced to improve alignment of regional

strategies with the new political paradigm. Alignment is, however, evident where

government programs fund specific regional projects or activities. Similarly,

there is a high level of alignment between the visions, objectives and strategies of

Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland, Torres Strait

(RDAFNQTS), FNQROC, Terrain NRM, and WTMA.


While sufficient information exists to assess the efficacy of some strategies in the

region, such as the efficacy of weed management at the local or property scale,

regional participants found that at the regional scale data limitations remain,

limiting assessment of strategies. There has been little attempt to assess the

efficacy of NRM strategies in the region due to lack of sufficient financial and

human resources, and a tendency to focus on implementation rather than

reflection or evaluation of previous strategies. Knowledge application is varied,

and often ‘the data is there, it’s just not always accessible or accessed if it is

accessible. Part of it is our fault. When we develop strategies, we don’t look at what

we already know’ (Government Agency). In many instances, regional participants

stated that there isn’t enough social or economic data to support a holistic

assessment of the efficacy of strategies, while there is often biophysical data

available. An example of this is the Reef Rescue program, which has a significant

body of biophysical data to support iterative strategy development.

180

Decision-support tools to support strategy development for NRM, such as GIS,

are underdeveloped in the Wet Tropics. While spatial analysis tools have been

used widely in the region, both in NRM and other subdomains, more complex

analytical tools available in the region are limited by the lack of individuals

capable of applying them. This area is still in its infancy, but is showing positive

signs of growth as the CSIRO, Terrain NRM, and FNQROC develop scenario

analysis and decision support tools as part of their current planning process.

7.2.4 Implementation

According to regional participants, the Wet Tropics’ implementation structures

could fail or succeed to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes. They

are currently limited by low levels of knowledge application to inform

implementation and a disconnect between strategy development and

implementation delivery systems. The conclusions regarding implementation

structures are summarised in Table 7.4, and are followed with further discussion

in the subsections below.

Table 7.4: Summary of conclusions regarding implementation structures in the Wet Tropics


Final Score (1-5)

Capacity: Capacity to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions, implementers’ access to financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

There is capacity to apply a broad range of tools/strategic solutions to achieve positive outcomes in the region, however the diversity of tools used is currently limited.

Market-based instruments are not widely used or well developed in the region.

Institutions in the region have demonstrated significant capacity to apply various suasive instruments.

Resource availability for NRM implementation has become more competitive and the number of grants available has decreased in recent years.

Past project successes indicate a high degree of capacity to develop and implement strategies at the local scale in the region

Although most regional scale institutions in the Wet Tropics largely have sufficient funds and other resources to do the job that they are contracted to do by the government, they are unable to do any additional work above and beyond their contractual requirements due to lack of resources.

Many local scale NRM institutions (including traditional owner groups) have limited capacity to garner financial resources to undertake NRM activities, despite having significant implementation capacities.

Corporate governance of NRM institutions in the region is generally strong, however improvement and review systems are highly variable across the region, with recent government changes decreasing the certainty and reliability of existing government structures in the region.

3 2.5

181


Final Score (1-5)


There is a disconnect between the policy and delivery systems in the Wet Tropics, with significant investment and engagement in the planning process, but difficulty operationalising the strategies collaboratively or in an integrated way.

There have been some local project successes that involved multiple solutions and institutions working collaboratively, however this is yet to be carried out at a regional scale.

Existing research brokerage arrangements are generally poor at supporting implementation activities, but are improving.

2 3

Knowledge: Research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation, use of local and traditional knowledge sets to inform implementation, management and retention of data sets concerning effective implementation

Generally there is limited research to inform improvement of implementation

Traditional and local knowledge sets are used in a limited way to inform implementation of strategies in the region.

The MERI system is currently unable to inform continuous improvement of implementation activities in the region.

Due to limited monitoring of projects in the past, few data sets detailing effective implementation have been retained in the region, however this is currently improving.

1.5 2


There is some capacity in the region’s institutions to implement apply a broad

range of strategic solutions or instruments to support NRM (e.g. education

programs, engagement programs, fee-for-service projects, financial incentives).

However, regional participants stated that the solutions mix is currently limited

suasive and fee-for-service instruments due to resource constraints and higher-

level funding structure requirements. Terrain NRM uses suasive instruments to

engage with stakeholders in many of their programs/projects, such as Reef

Rescue, threatened species conservation projects, and biodiversity projects.

Although WTMA and GBRMPA differ from other regional institutions in their

capacity to apply regulatory instruments, they also rely largely on suasive

instruments. There is capacity to use market-based instruments to support NRM,

however, they are not used in the region because ‘at this point it’s not really an

effective instrument’ (Government Agency).

182

At the local scale, ‘the drive to make things happen by technical and tactical

people… is exceptionally high. The amount of support they are given to do that is

exceptionally low’ (Government Agency). Local catchment groups who often have

significant skills, experience and knowledge in managing local issues. However,

they often have low levels of capacity to write or apply for grants, limiting their

financial resources and the viability of their projects. As regional institutions

such as Terrain NRM scale back their funding to core functions, the financial

support for such groups becomes further limited to fee-for-service projects or

grant-funded projects, despite strong will and implementation capacity.

Some of the regional participants suggest that implementation capacity in

regional institutions is somewhat low because of financial resource limitations

rather than human resource limitations. This is based on the argument that ‘once

you decide you want to do something or implement some sort of program, once the

funding is available, then the region is full of smart people who can pull together

strong teams to make things happen’ (Government Agency). Due to budgetary

cuts in 2012-2013 following the Queensland Government election, and changes

to the national NRM funding program (CfoC), NRM funding has become

increasingly competitive at the same time as the number of grants available

declined. These resource constraints have reduced connectivity due to increased

competition, rather than increased connectivity through partnerships. Currently,

‘groups are playing in the same space, …. doing the same things, but not talking to

each other and making the most of resources that both institutions have’ (Regional

NGO).

Multiple regional participants explained that government-funding cuts have led

to some of the institutions restructuring (Terrain NRM) or reducing staff

numbers (Terrain NRM and GBRMPA) and focusing only on core activities (due

to lack of funds to undertake additional projects that do not fit with national

funding priorities). Despite this, they said that the resources available to the

large regional NRM institutions (Terrain NRM, WTMA, and GBRMPA) are

sufficient to support their mandated role/s in the region. For example, the CEF

Stream 1 funding has provided Terrain NRM with sufficient resources to fulfill

their mandated role to plan and support NRM in the region. Conversely, such

183

funds will not support the implementation of the strategies within the modified

NRM plan, nor will they support ongoing and adaptive NRM planning in the

region in the future.

The region’s institutions also ‘have resources they can bring to the table (not just

financial resources), and we can achieve a lot just by making the most of those

combined resources. It’s a connectivity and resourcing issue’ (Regional NGO). Local

catchment level management institutions, on the other hand, often lack sufficient

financial resources, despite their generally high level of human (skills, and

experience) and knowledge resources for implementation activities.

Interviewees explained that corporate governance and improvement

arrangements are variable across the region. Terrain NRM uses the same

improvement framework (Vogel’s Performance Excellence Framework) as many

other regional NRM groups in Australia, and have restructured several times

since their inception to ensure efficiency and efficacy. WTMA and GBRMPA have

generally stable governance arrangements and maturing improvement systems.

Smaller scale management institutions (e.g. catchment groups) in the region

generally have weak corporate governance arrangements and improvement

systems, in part due to low numbers of volunteers with experience or skills in

business administration and corporate governance. They suggested that

regional-level institutions have a greater capacity to support broader

governance arrangements beyond their internal corporate governance

arrangements. Regional participants also explained that some local institutions

are less capable of contributing to broader governance arrangements in the

region, because their focus is necessarily limited to their immediate survival and

internal stability.


Fragmentation is also evident between structures in the region as ‘strategy

development and implementation are both undertaken by different players and the

two processes are currently highly disjointed’ (Government Agency). Sustaining

the Wet Tropics: A Regional Plan for Natural Resource Management 2004-2008

was developed as a comprehensive strategic plan, however it is considered ‘so

184

broad you can drive a bus around in it. In fact, any action/project could be justified

under it because it lacks specificity’ (Regional NGO). While connectivity could be

easily drawn between policies and implementation activities under the 2004

NRM plan, funding became the key driver of such activities, rather than strategic

logic. Several interviewees emphasised that because of this, implementation

activities were in fact not based on the priorities or objectives set out in the plan,

rather they were based on national funding priorities. They went on to explain

that many of the objectives set out within the plan were also unrealistic, or

unachievable due to capacity limitations, and their success could not be

determined due to lack of monitoring activities and infrastructure (e.g.

monitoring stations or equipment).

As the 2004 NRM plan was a static document, in that once the plan was

published the visions and objectives and strategies contained within it were ‘set

in stone’ (Regional NGO). This meant that the plan quickly became redundant as

new issues, events (e.g. cyclones) or emerging information affected NRM

approaches and strategies in the region following the plan’s publication. In the

years following its publication emerging issues (e.g. invasive species), funding

availability and changing national priorities and short political cycles became

more influential to delivery systems than the static plan. This is being addressed

by Terrain NRM, who are facilitating the current planning process, through the

development of more realistic and measurable objectives than were contained in

the 2004 NRM plan, and moving towards a more dynamic, web-based NRM plan

format.

Interviewees emphasised that collaborative implementation arrangements do

exist in the region and there are a number of success stories relating to specific

projects. Examples of this are biodiversity projects (CSIRO, WTMA, Terrain

NRM), cassowary conservation projects (Terrain NRM, WTMA, catchment and

Landcare groups, etc.) and larger projects such as Reef Rescue (Terrain NRM,

GBRMPA, catchment and Landcare groups, Landholders, etc). The success of such

projects is a result of several factors, including clear communication between

institutions, transparent and inclusive decision-making, sufficient resources,

185

well-defined roles and responsibilities, and collaboration between institutions to

achieve a common goal or outcome.

Some implementation partnerships in the region are the result of mandate (e.g.

WTMA and Biosecurity Qld), while others are based on financial or technical

necessity (e.g. Catchment Groups and Terrain NRM). Despite these partnerships,

interviewees suggested that there remains a degree of fragmentation between

the region’s NRM institutions and a tendency to work within silos rather than

collaboratively. They expanded on this and explained that there is some

argument that investment for NRM in the Wet Tropics has been planning heavy

and implementation light at times. Implementation is ‘piecemeal and

uncoordinated, and we tend to go back to planning and developing new strategies

instead of improving coordination of project delivery’ (Government Agency).

Regional participants described research brokerage arrangements to inform

implementation in the Wet Tropics as currently limited, but suggested that they

are developing through the CEF Stream 2 Knowledge Broker. Such research is

often communicated and distributed through interpersonal networks and

relationships, rather than formal brokerage arrangements. Despite this, they

suggest that much of the research relevant to implementation activities is

currently inaccessible (due to high fees to access articles in academic journals)

or poorly communicated for non-academic audiences. This is problematic

because knowledge that could be used to inform or improve management

activities cannot be applied in practice, limiting the adaptiveness and

responsiveness of NRM planning and activities. Connectivity of the research

sector and implementers may improve as the CEF Stream 2 knowledge broker

position develops and evolves.


Regional participants find it difficult to align research and NRM priorities for a

number of reasons. Firstly, some argued that academic researchers and natural

resource managers (end users) have varied and often conflicting objectives. For

example, academics are required to publish their work in academic journals with

often long-lag times between submission and publications. Alternately, others

186

explained that natural resource managers are focused on developing and

implementing strategies in relatively small time frames. They suggest that this

means that often research and implementation time frames are at odds with

each other, and by the time relevant research is published, one or several

strategies have already been implemented on-the-ground. Secondly, some

emphasised that funding availability in the research sector is not always well

aligned to practitioner priorities, and therefore are of limited value to end-users.

Finally, researcher interests often drive research direction, which may also not

be aligned with regional research needs.

Improving implementation activities is also difficult according to regional

participants. They explained that few of the region’s natural resources have been

monitored over time and the baseline condition for the majority of the resources

both prior to human influences and/or prior to the management interventions of

the last 20 years remain unknown. Few of the NRM activities and their outcomes

in the region for the last 20 years have been monitored (with the exception of

Reef Rescue). Interviewees explained that because of this, there is a limited body

of research available that is relevant to the efficacy of implementation activities,

however this body of literature is unable to support broad improvement to

implementation activities across the region. Such data is often poorly managed

and thus is unable to be drawn on by other institutions or researchers.

There is also ‘ a big disconnect between what happens in the realm of research and

what happens in reality in projects’ (Regional NGO). Interviewees suggested that

data regarding implementation activities also tends to be retained as

experiential knowledge in the heads of landholders and implementation actors

(such as volunteers in catchment groups), rather than written down or

systematically documented by institutions or researchers. They suggested that

this is highly problematic because experiential and historical knowledge is easily

lost through attrition of volunteers due to age if it has not been recorded, leading

to significant data loss over time.

Although the Australian Government’s Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and

Improvement (MERI) framework (Described in Chapter 3) is designed to

187

support adaptive decision-making, regional participants argue that it is currently

unable to inform improvement of implementation activities. This is because it

focuses almost entirely on outputs (e.g. how many hectares of weeds were

sprayed), rather than outcomes (e.g. improved ecosystem health). They also

emphasised that there have been some successes of researchers undertaking

work that supports or informs NRM implementation activities. For example,

researchers from the CSIRO and UQ have undertaken research regarding the

efficacy and specificity of feral pig baits in rainforest areas of the Wet Tropics

(Bengsen et al., 2011). However, interviewees explained that successful

examples of research informing implementation have often occurred ‘outside of

research hubs. It’s been a one-on-one conversation with researchers designing

projects that actually support what you’re doing. It’s been mostly opportunistic’

(Regional NGO). They suggest that interpersonal relationships between end-

users and researchers can be more effective at times in developing useful

research outputs to support implementers than the research hubs in the region.

Although there have been some attempts to include the region’s traditional

owners and traditional knowledge in the NRM planning process in the past,

regional participants believe that the use of traditional knowledge to support

implementation across the region is relatively low. They suggested that use of

traditional knowledge is higher in areas where traditional owners are

responsible for implementation and management activities. One interviewee

spoke to the barriers preventing the use of traditional knowledge in planning in

the Wet Tropics, emphasising that

‘there is still a huge disconnect. [Traditional knowledge] is still very

private… It’s been internalised in traditional institutions. Readily accessible

archival information resources, continuity of contact are both issues. But

people try. At a local level it’s done quite well, but as soon as you try to scale

it up, to get universal coverage or consent then it erodes quite quickly. A lot

has been achieved. We still don’t have spatially explicit data [based on

traditional knowledge] that has been synthesised or can be shared while

still maintaining confidentiality. There are also a lot of boundary and

188

division issues regarding availability of information that need addressing’

(Government Agency).

7.2.5 Monitoring, evaluation and review

Regional participants emphasised that the structures for monitoring, evaluation

and review for NRM are likely to fail to deliver their intended desired decision-

making outcomes in the Wet Tropics. The conclusions regarding monitoring,

evaluation and review structures are summarised in Table 7.5, and are followed

with further discussion in the subsections below.

Table 7.5: Summary of conclusions regarding monitoring, evaluation and review structures in the Wet Tropics


Final Score (1-5)

Capacity: Monitoring and evaluation capacity, collective monitoring alliances, evaluation capacities in the system, reporting capacities that enhance accountability

Although there is capacity in the system to do monitoring and evaluation, capacities have been traditionally limited in the system because it has generally been inadequately funded and consequently poorly mobilised in the region.

Collective monitoring alliances in the region exist, but tend to be on a project-by-project basis rather than widespread throughout the region. The exception to this is Reef Rescue, which has demonstrated significant success in bringing together multiple institutions to monitor conditions.

Evaluation capacity in the Wet Tropics is neither defined nor independent

Institutions in the region have a high capacity to report on their activities, however the information to support such reports in generally anecdotal rather than systematically collected through monitoring, which decreases the strength and reliability of such reports.

Accountability is generally low due to the lack of monitoring in the region.

3 2.5


Visions and objectives in the region are currently poorly informed by monitoring data of resource management conditions/outcomes following management

Limited impetus to monitor the processes and outcomes in the region, to inform evaluations of strategies and to inform future strategic decision-making.

MER frameworks continue to develop as institutional arrangements for planning evolve in the region.

1.5 2

Knowledge: Monitoring of social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system, retention of monitoring and

Integration of social, environmental and economic data has been limited in monitoring/evaluation/ reporting

Retention of monitoring and evaluation data has and continues to be generally poor in the Wet Tropics, however there is a strong impetus to improve monitoring in the new planning process.

Retention of monitoring data in the region is improving at an institutional and project level, but is yet to occur in all institutions or

1.5 2

189


Final Score (1-5)

evaluation data in the long-term

projects in the region.


Interviewees stated that the governance arrangements for NRM planning in the

Wet Tropics are currently not monitored, while monitoring of implementation

activities is piecemeal, inconsistent and generally poor. They suggest that there

is evidence of capacity to undertake comprehensive and long-term monitoring of

the conditions and management of some of the region’s natural resources

(mostly the Great Barrier Reef) or individual NRM projects, particularly by

CSIRO, GBRMPA, and WTMA. However, they strongly emphasised that

monitoring of the outcomes of NRM and planning activities across the region has

been limited. The primary example of effective and collaborative monitoring of

NRM in the Wet Tropics is Reef Rescue, which has a comprehensive and

collaborative monitoring program looking at the impacts of management

activities on the GBR.

Monitoring has been a relatively low priority for many of the region’s NRM

institutions according to regional participants, because ‘the reality is we don’t get

paid to do monitoring’ (Regional NGO) and institutions ‘just want to get on with

stuff. They don’t want to do monitoring. We need a pool of university students

wanting to do their honours year’ (Government Agency). The accountability of

institutions and their NRM activities is subsequently argued to be low, due to a

lack of monitoring of NRM and planning in the region.

Interviews raised concerns that monitoring remains weak in the region despite

requirements for NRM projects that are linked to Federal and State Government

funding programs to monitor and report on the activities undertaken (MERI). In

this sense, the region’s institutions ‘can do monitoring and measure how many

farmers we gave grants to, and [identify] the area of impact’ (Regional NGO).

However, many interviewees strongly emphasised that the MERI process does

not connect activities and outcomes, but is largely focused on outputs, limiting

the ability of decision-makers to understand if their activities are achieving

190

desired outcomes. Consequently, they suggested that monitoring is often focused

on ‘we said we would do X and then asking did we do X or not. We hardly ever ask

whether doing X made any damn difference and that’s something that needs to

occur across catchments’ (Government Agency). Moreover, existing monitoring

frameworks fail to adequately recognise that the ‘long term impacts of projects

[aren’t evident] in an 18 month or 2 year project. You don’t see impacts that

quickly’ (Regional NGO).


Regional participants described limited connectivity between monitoring and

objective systems for the region. They suggested that the lack of monitoring of

NRM projects and outcomes in the region, and the outputs focus of existing

government monitoring frameworks, limits the ability for decision-makers to

consider the efficacy of past implementation activities and strategic outcomes in

their development of objectives and strategies in the future. Interviews

explained that there is some impetus emerging for greater focus on developing

and applying monitoring and evaluation frameworks in the region. However,

they emphasised that such frameworks tend to be specific to individual

institutions or projects. Monitoring in these examples is usually undertaken by

an individual institution rather than by collaborative monitoring alliances.

Although ‘there is scope for a more integrated way of doing it, but we tend to fall

back into our silos’ (Government Agency). Monitoring and evaluation frameworks

are expected to emerge out of the current NRM planning process, but are yet to

be fully developed or applied.


Multiple interviewees reiterated that monitoring of social, economic, and

environmental conditions in the region is varied, and although ‘we have a lot of

stories, we’re not always good at telling them’ (Regional NGO). Regional

participants noted that some of the region’s natural resources and the outcomes

of their management are particularly well monitored (e.g. water quality and Reef

Rescue projects), while others are not monitored well or at all (e.g. regional

biodiversity, soil health, non-charismatic endangered/at risk species). Social and

economic data for the government areas that fall within the Wet Tropics are

191

collected through the national census every 5 years, and provides insight into

social and demographic change in the region over time.

A small body of research on the socio-economic status of the region is generated

12 monthly by region-based research consultancies such as Cummings

Economics. Interviewees in the research sector particularly emphasised that

there is also no mechanism, funding or mandate for synthesis of such

information for the region, leading to low levels of integration of silos of

information.

Interviewees reiterated that there is no data management system enabling broad

retention or synthesis of data relating to NRM in the Wet Tropics enabling

institutions to observe the impacts of their action across both the short and long-

term. This emphasises that ‘the challenge for us is to begin to tell the story

overtime’ (Regional NGO). Data retention in the region is improving over time, as

evidenced by the project-based monitoring and data management systems

developed by GBRMPA, WTMA, and CSIRO. There are several data management

systems that are used by local government such as ‘the national weeds tropical

eradication program. It’s a standout benchmarking program for eradication, with

an outstanding database and data collection. Some of the councils also have really

strong databases’ (Government Agency). Terrain NRM is developing a data

management system as part of the current NRM planning process.

7.3 Summary of results

Table 7.6 provides a summary of the results of this chapter and synthesises the

scores allocated by regional participants. Cumulatively regional participants

suggested that the structures for NRM planning in the Wet Tropics could fail or

succeed to deliver their intended decision-making outcomes.

They consider that this was due to a combination of fragmentation between

some institutions, low levels of decision-making capacity (despite high levels of

operational capacity emerging), and limited data availability to support decision-

making. This assessment of the system’s ability to deliver desired decision-

making outcomes was based on the majority of the region’s NRM planning

governance structures have high levels of decision-making capacity, sufficient

192

levels of connectivity exist between key institutions, and adequate knowledge

available to and applied by the region’s key NRM institutions to support their

core functions. Despite this, regional participants identified low levels of

institutional alignment as a significant constraint on improving NRM governance

arrangements and outcomes in the Wet Tropics. This will be discussed in

Chapter 8

Table 7.6: Summary of structural and functional scores for natural resource management planning governance in the Wet Tropics

Decision-making

Capacity

Connectivity Knowledge Use

Total (out of

15) Vision and Objective

Setting 4 3 3.5 10.5


3.5 3 2.5 9


3.5 2.5 3 9

Implementation 2.5 3 2 7.5 Monitoring,

Evaluation and Review

2.5 2 2 6.5

Total 16 13.5 13 - Average Score 3.2 2.7 2.6 8.5

Region’s Cumulative

Average Score

2.83

7.4 Conclusions

This chapter consisted of the results of Step Three of the GSA framework

application in the Wet Tropics based on the framework described in Chapter 2.

This chapter revealed that regional participants observe high levels of the

decision-making capacity and knowledge availability for NRM in the Wet

Tropics. The combination of these two traits is significant in the capacity of the

governance system to undertake NRM planning, which is currently sustained by

numerous State/Federal Government agencies and authorities, experienced and

highly skilled regional NGOs, and a strong regionally based research sector.

Overall, Regional participants identified a lack of alignment between institutions

throughout the strategic development and delivery processes for NRM in the

Wet Tropics as the primary barrier currently limiting the governance system’s

193

capacity to deliver its desired decision-making outcomes. The results contained

within this chapter and Chapter 6 will be discussed in Chapter 8.

194

Chapter 8: Discussion of results

8.1 Introduction

The analysis of NRM planning governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula

and the Wet Tropics NRM regions in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 revealed that the

two regions have different levels of systemic capacity to and likelihood of

delivering their desired decision-making outcomes. Cape York Peninsula’s NRM

planning governance system was found to be likely to fail to deliver its

intended desired decision-making outcomes. Meanwhile, the Wet Tropics’ NRM

planning governance system indicated a slightly greater degree of capacity to

deliver decision-making outcomes, and as a result could fail or succeed to

deliver its intended decision-making outcomes. This variability is discussed in

this chapter, with reference to the literature and key examples from the case

study regions. Based on this discussion, the chapter identifies priority areas for

governance reform in both case study regions.

This chapter also reflects on the application of the framework and discusses the

theoretical and practical dimensions and implications of this research. Finally,

the chapter extrapolates lessons for governance evaluation more broadly based

on the results and reflections of the application of the GSA framework in this

research. The discussion in this chapter seek to respond to the second, third, and

fourth research questions identified in Chapter 1 of this thesis:

1. Why use structural-functionalism to evaluate complex, multi-scalar

governance systems?;

2. How can structural-functionalism be applied to the evaluation of complex,

multi-scalar governance systems?; and

3. What lessons emerge from the assessment in Australian NRM governance

systems for governance evaluation more broadly?

8.2 Discussion of similarities and differences between case studies

The ubiquitous weakness of the structures and functions for NRM planning in

Cape York Peninsula is in stark contrast to the variable, but somewhat strong

governance structures and functions for NRM planning in the Wet Tropics.

Despite this obvious difference in the overall systemic capacity to deliver

195

decision-making outcomes between the two case studies, the structures and

functions of the two systems also share a number of similarities. These

differences, similarities, and probable reasoning for them are discussed below.

8.2.1 Influence of systemic maturity and context

Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 revealed that the maturity of the two governance

systems is a significant influence on the development of structures and functions,

and thus the overall systemic capacity to deliver desired decision-making

outcomes. There has been little discussion of the influence of the development or

maturity of governance systems or decision-making structures in the planning,

and governance literature. The maturity of systemic structures and functions has

also not been discussed by sociological, anthropological, or political science

proponents of structural-functionalism.

There has, however, been discussion surrounding the maturity of systems and

the impact on interoperability in the political sciences and information

technology disciplines (Chen et al., 2008; Chenoweth & Clarke, 2010; Valdes et

al., 2011). For example, Valdes et al. (2011, p.177) suggests that over time

information technology takes an ‘evolutionary improvement path from ad-hoc,

immature processes to disciplined, mature processes with improved quality and

effectiveness’. Assuming this statement is transferable and applicable in complex

planning systems, it suggests that governance structures and functions mature

over time, progressively increasing their likelihood and capacity to deliver

desired decision-making outcomes.

There has also been significant discussion in the planning and governance

literature of the influence of contextual factors, including the history of

institutional arrangements in a study area, on decision-making success (Healey,

2009; McLoughlin, 1969; Paavola et al., 2009). In fact, McLoughlin (1969)

emphasises that contextual factors can act as drivers, or barriers for change, but

also perpetuate the status quo.

This research found that the Wet Tropics is a more mature governance system

than Cape York Peninsula. Despite both regions having a history of NRM

planning, the overall systemic capacity to deliver desired decision-making

196

outcomes is different. Arguably, the historical context of planning and

paternalistic planning approaches in Cape York Peninsula has been a significant

constraint on the development of NRM planning structures. The five attempts at

NRM and land use planning for Cape York Peninsula in the last 20 years were

largely not regionally mediated or regionally based processes. In fact, most were

initiated and driven by institutions or government agencies external to the

region, based predominantly in Brisbane or Canberra (DSDIP, 2013; NHT, 2005).

This approach has historically disempowered local interests and perpetuated a

paternalistic view of the region’s uniqueness as needing to be ‘looked after’ or

protected by external decision-makers.

The impact of paternalistic and externally driven planning approaches remains

particularly evident in the underdeveloped (but emerging) structures

surrounding vision and objective setting and strategy development in Cape York

Peninsula. The emergent capacity of NRM planning structures in Cape York

Peninsula is as a result of a number of factors, including impetus and regional

institutional support for NRM and land use planning (see Appendix 10.1), recent

Australian Government investment in the NRM planning agenda in Australia’s

NRM regions (SEWPaC, 2013), and significant Federal and State Government

investment in building the capacity of the region’s landholders and Indigenous

communities to implement NRM projects as a form of economic development

(CYNRM, 2013b; CYSF, 2013a, 2013c; Memmott & McDougall, 2003; Pearson,

2005; Phillpot, 2005). These factors have enabled institutions in Cape York

Peninsula to begin to accrue sufficient social, financial and physical capital to

contribute towards the delivery of desired decision-making outcomes in the

region.

On the other hand, the Wet Tropics had more than 30 years of historical context

of NRM, NRM planning, and tripartisan support for NRM and NRM planning in

the Wet Tropics prior to the introduction of NRM groups in 2003 (McDonald &

Weston, 2004; O'Rourke & Memmott, 2005; WTMA, 2010b). This meant that

there was a strong foundation of institutional arrangements to support the 2004

and present NRM planning processes. In this way, the historical context for NRM

planning in the Wet Tropics acted as a driver and support mechanism, rather

197

than a constraint on the initial and ongoing development of structures and

functions to support regional NRM planning.

While the 2004 NRM planning process in the Wet Tropics had a limited

engagement framework, a more comprehensive and inclusive framework has

been developed for the current process, building on the lessons of the 2004

process. This history of structures capable of delivering desired planning

outcomes is also lacking in Cape York Peninsula, limiting past frameworks that

can be built on to support current NRM planning and stakeholder engagement.

The capacity of governance structures to make decisions for NRM in the Wet

Tropics is particularly high for vision and objective setting, research and

assessment, and strategy development for NRM in the region. Arguably, a result

of a combination of pre-existing decision-making capacity (due to previous

planning investment and accrued capital), and emerging leadership and agency

to address current NRM issues (Cavaye, 2005).

The noticeably weak structures and functions for implementation and

monitoring of NRM planning in both case study regions (Chapter 6 and Chapter

7) suggests that the systems are also being influenced by the same broader

contextual influences. These include higher-level funding structures and

associated capacity issues, and the separation of social, environmental, and

economic issues (and thus institutions) into management silos, rather than as

part of a collaborative management framework or alliance/s. The dichotomy of

the two case study regions suggests also that there is a strong relationship

between the strength of individual structural and functional components of

governance arrangements, and the capacity of structures to contribute towards

the delivery of overarching desired outcomes.

These findings further support the empirically derived arguments discussed in

Chapter 3 that the ‘great experiment’ of regionally devolved NRM responsibilities

in Australia has led to significant issues of accountability, legitimacy, and efficacy

(Abrahams, 2005; Curtis et al., 2014; Moore & Rockloff, 2006; Morrison & Lane,

2006; Paton et al., 2004; Wallington et al., 2008). These conclusions are also

supported by the findings of other applications of the GSA framework in

198

assessments of NRM governance to support management of the GBR (Dale et al.,

2013c), community based NRM (Dale et al., forthcoming), and greenhouse gas

abatement (Dale et al., 2013a). These studies also found that while strength of

NRM structures for vision and objective setting, research and assessment, and

strategy development are capable of delivering desired systemic outcomes, the

structures for implementation and monitoring structure in Australian NRM

related subdomains are often unable or unlikely to deliver the desired decision-

making outcomes due to functional weaknesses.

This finding regarding the influence of the systemic maturity is consistent with

arguments in structural-functional theory, planning theory, and systems theory

regarding the interconnectivity of structures and functions (or components)

within complex systems (Almond & Powell, 1966; Chettiparamb, 2006, 2014;

Fontes & Guardalabene, 1976; Forester, 2012; McCord, 1980; McLoughlin, 1969;

Ostrom, 1995; Skok, 1995). It suggests that policy makers across scales need to

be highly cognisant of the context within which the governance system and

arrangements exist and operate. It also suggests that a ‘one-size-fits-all’

approach to NRM and NRM planning in Australia is inappropriate due to the

variability of NRM region contexts and varying levels (and thus needs) of

development of NRM structures and functions within the 56 regions.

8.2.2 Institutional fragmentation: issues of participation, collaboration,

and power dynamics

NRM and planning scholars widely recognise the importance of participatory,

deliberative, and inclusive approaches in addressing complex issues involving a

plurality of stakeholder and institutional interests (Arnstein, 1969; Buchy &

Race, 2001; Curtis & Lockwood, 2000; Forester, 1999; Head, 2005; Innes &

Booher, 2004; Lane, 2005; OECD, 1995; Parkins & Mitchell, 2007; Reddel &

Woolcock, 2004). Innes and Booher (2004, p. 422) argue that participatory

approaches must be collaborative to be effective and ‘incorporate not only

citizens, but also organised interests, profit-making and non-profit organisations,

planners and public administrators’. Institutional fragmentation was evident in

both Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics case study governance systems,

199

with varying levels of inclusivity and collaboration across the NRM planning

structures.

In the Wet Tropics, although the formal and informal relationships between the

region’s institutions are somewhat fragmented, there is a strong underlying and

demonstrated capacity to mobilise effort and coordinate effort at the regional

scale when necessary. This suggests that the existing relationships between NRM

planning structures in the Wet Tropics, while fragmented, provide sufficient

levels of institutional capacity to enable the structures to deliver some the

system’s desired decision-making outcomes. It is also consistent with the

argument that institutional capacity develops and disperses through the

connections between structures (Innes & Booher, 2004). However, despite this,

the limited engagement of the State and Federal Governments in the NRM

planning structures in the Wet Tropics and Cape York Peninsula is further

diminishing the extant capacity and collaboration of structures who are actively

engaged in NRM planning.

In Cape York Peninsula, on the other hand, regional institutions engaged in NRM

planning and implementation are particularly fragmented following a long

history of dissonance of institutional agendas and varied interpersonal

relationships between the employees of some institutions in the region. As a

result of this discord, there is limited collaboration horizontally in the region,

leading to significant duplication of programs in Cape York Peninsula, without a

collective overarching vision or objectives. For example Balkanu and CYSF

(funded by Cape York NRM) are engaged in fire management in various, but

differing subregions in Cape York Peninsula. However, they do not have a

common fire plan, strategy or logic behind their approach, which has led to their

activities being highly fragmented and largely ineffective at reducing the spread

of weed or feral animals at the landscape scale. Further examples are evident in

knowledge management. For example, Cape York NRM and Balkanu are using

different methods and mechanisms to store and broker traditional knowledge

surrounding similar NRM issues.

200

The low levels of collaboration between institutions involved in NRM and NRM

planning in Cape York Peninsula is perhaps the most significant constraint on the

capacity of the system to deliver its desired decision-making and environmental

outcomes. While there were signs of improvement in the relationships between

institutions (e.g. the signing of a MOU between two of the key institutions in mid-

2014) across the time frame of this research, existing regional-scale institutional

relationships and the ongoing NRM planning process are not highly

collaborative, inclusive or participatory. As a result, many of the negative

implications of poorly executed or planned participatory approaches identified

in the literature (discussed in Chapter 3) are evident in Cape York Peninsula.

These include the reinforcement of unequal power dynamics (Morrison, 2007),

high levels of ambiguity in NRM problems and management solutions (Brugnach

et al., 2011), and the failure of restructured and devolved arrangements to

deliver significantly improved outcomes compared to top-down decision-making

models (Reed, 2008).

Structural-functionalism has been criticised for overemphasising the importance

and role of integration (or connectivity) of structures within systems and

underemphasising the role of individuals and agency (Giddens, 1979). In

contrast, many planning theorists recognise that well-designed deliberative

processes, and strong connectivity between decision-makers (including

individual planners and institutions) and stakeholders are critical factors of

social learning and addressing multidimensional problems (Armitage, 2005;

Booher & Innes, 2002; Forester, 1999, 2013; Harris, 2002; Healey, 1993; Innes,

1995; Jennings & Moore, 2000; Sager, 1994; Schusler et al., 2003). As both

perspectives were used to develop the GSA framework, it is perhaps

unsurprising that the assessment of both regions revealed institutional

fragmentation as a significant constraint on systemic structures in both regions.

Both structural-functional and planning perspectives support the emphasis of

connectivity in the GSA framework. As a result, applications of the GSA

framework to analyse decision-making and governance outcomes in complex

planning systems are consistent with extant perspectives and understandings of

planning systems. However, the GSA framework’s applicability, relevancy and

201

alignment with other conceptualisations of governance necessitates further

research. This means that future applications of the GSA framework in non-

planning governance systems need to consider the role of connectivity/

integration within the specific governance context in question.

8.3 Priorities for governance reform

A number of reforms are necessary to improve the functionality and quality of

governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics NRM

regions. The subsections below identify several key governance reforms for each

region that could address the issues raised above, and subsequently increase the

likelihood of the governance systems’ delivering their intended decision-making

outcomes.

8.3.1 Cape York Peninsula

The structures and functions for NRM planning in Cape York Peninsula are still

in their infancy and have emerged out of a highly contentious and politicised

historical context. Consequently, the governance system is still building the basic

structural and functional foundations to support sustainable and adaptive NRM

planning. While there has been significant progress in the development of

regional capacity to support NRM planning, there are a substantial number of

reforms necessary to improve the structures and functions of the system to the

point at which they can adequately support NRM planning and deliver intended

systemic decision-making outcomes. These reforms are discussed below.

8.3.1.1 Integrated policy approach

The social, economic, and environmental issues in Cape York are highly

interdependent. The Indigenous worldview suggests that social health and

environmental health are interwoven and poor health in one of these areas will

affect the health of the other (Asafu-Adjaye, 1996; Dockery, 2010; Venn &

Quiggin, 2007). Indigenous communities in the region are highly dependent on

social welfare because economic opportunities in the region are limited, leading

to high unemployment levels. NRM projects provide an opportunity particularly

for Traditional Owners to build marketable skills in land management practices,

202

and garner an income through fee-for-service work and/or long-term

employment as a ranger.

Despite the interdependency of social, economic, and environmental issues in

Cape York Peninsula being widely recognised by the region’s institutions, the

way in which they are currently funded does not encourage an integrated

management approach. Rather, the current national NRM funding model has

encouraged greater siloification of issues and management activities that is

evident in both case study regions. This is in contradiction to the strong support

in the NRM literature and evidence that suggests integrated approaches lead to

more effective and efficient outcomes in addressing NRM problems (Bellamy et

al., 1999a; Margerum & Born, 1995).

Economic development institutions, regional NRM institutions, social welfare

institutions, health institutions, and others are currently all funded to achieve

specific outcomes within their own respective silos. While in many cases

institutions have a degree of awareness about what other institutions in the

region are doing, their strategies are rarely (if ever) aligned, and there is very

little coordination of complementary strategies or activities.

Based on these factors, it is clear that an integrated approach to managing social,

economic, and environmental issues is essential to moving forwards in Cape

York Peninsula. The current silo-based approach to managing social, economic,

and environmental issues in Cape York Peninsula needs to be amended in a way

that encourages greater collaboration and coordination where appropriate to

reduce duplication, but also strategically address multiple rather than individual

issues across the region. This would involve amending higher-level funding

structures to more appropriately fund outcomes and regionally identified

priorities as opposed to fragmented projects or initiatives. It would also require

stronger bargaining and negotiation frameworks both within the region, but also

between regional institutions and external institutions. NRM would then become

embedded within a larger policy agenda and regional management approach,

driven by regional institutions and regional priorities. Regional participants

indicated that there is strong support for greater levels of integration between

203

silos of management, however low levels of available funding and leadership for

such an approach are significant barriers to implement such reform.

8.3.1.2 Establish a natural resource management roundtable for Cape York

Peninsula

In order to overcome the significant fragmentation of institutional connectivity

for NRM at the regional scale, a Cape York Peninsula NRM roundtable committee

should be formed. This roundtable should consist of any institutions involved in

NRM in Cape York Peninsula, and should meet semi-regularly (2-4 times per

year). Such a committee will require additional resourcing from State or Federal

Government funding bodies. MOUs between the participating institutions would

also recognise their roles, responsibilities and expectations of the panel. The

roundtable could also be used as a bargaining and negotiation mechanism in the

integrated policy approach discussed above.

The roundtable could serve multiple purposes. First and foremost, it could

provide a mechanism for the region’s institutions with an interest in NRM to

come together, to bargain and negotiate, and discuss strategic approaches and

desired outcomes. Secondly, it would build connectivity amongst the region’s

institutions, enabling higher levels of accountability, and enable greater

awareness and accessibility of capacities in the region. Finally, the roundtable

provides regional stakeholders with an opportunity to continue to build a more

unified voice regarding NRM issues and priorities as has occurred for land use

planning through the State Government’s regional advisory committee. This in

turn, will increase the capacity of the region to advocate for a Cape York

Peninsula led approach to planning and regionally identified priorities. The

roundtable is likely to be well received in the region and could be quickly taken

up as a result of the emerging connectivity between institutions in the region and

low transaction costs of such meetings

8.3.1.3 Further investment in framework development

In order to improve the equity, accountability, efficiency, efficacy, and

adaptability of governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula there needs to

be greater investment in the development of core structures to support decision-

204

making that are currently missing or underdeveloped. Frameworks for strategy

development, monitoring, evaluation and review, and bargaining and negotiation

such as the roundtable described above would significantly improve the capacity

of the governance system to deliver its desired decision-making outcomes.

However, lack of resources and no institutional mandate for their development

currently limits their advancement. Consequently, it is suggested Australian or

State Government NRM funding bodies should allocate additional resources to

regional institution/s for the specific purpose of developing and implementing

such frameworks. The distribution of this investment could be negotiated

through the panel described above. The MOUs also discussed above could also be

used to establish mandates, roles and responsibilities for the development and

implementation of the frameworks among regional institutions. Framework

development was emerging as a priority for the region’s institutions at the

completion of the fieldwork component of this research. As a result, it is highly

likely that the region’s decision-making frameworks have and will continue to

develop and mature.

8.3.1.4 Expanded knowledge broker position

Cape York NRM, Terrain NRM, and Northern Gulf NRM currently share the part

time CEF Stream 2 Wet Tropics knowledge broker. The strategic outputs of

Stream 2 divide research into silos such as infrastructure, industry,

environmental impacts and others, failing to integrate or broker knowledge in a

way that is useful to support NRM decision-making, which is highly integrated.

The knowledge broker is also only contracted to provide brokerage services to

support Cape York NRM’s planning and strategy development, and thus does not

engage with other institutions in the region that are involved in NRM and NRM

planning.

In order to improve the currently poor access, availability and application of

knowledge in the region it is suggested that there should be a knowledge broker

specific only to Cape York Peninsula. The proposed Cape York Peninsula

knowledge broker should be independent of any institution in the region, and be

able to work with all institutions involved in NRM. This will enable a more

integrated approach to brokerage across the region, and encourage regional

205

ownership of the knowledge broker, rather than limiting the relationship of the

knowledge broker to the designated NRM body. The Cape York knowledge

broker will also act as a mediator of different forms of knowledge, and facilitate

the integration of multiple types of knowledge to support NRM planning and

activities. This position could be paired with the emerging Cape York NRM Atlas

and provide greater support for NRM planning than the current CEF Stream 2

knowledge broker is currently able to provide.

8.3.2 Wet Tropics

Unlike Cape York Peninsula, the structures and functions for NRM planning in

the Wet Tropics are mature and have developed significantly in the last decade.

Although the strength of structures and functions in the system have fluctuated

over this time period, the system currently has a strong foundation of structures

and functions to support adaptive and sustainable NRM planning into the future.

However, for the system to continue to improve and to improve the strength of

structures and functions, several reforms are necessary. These reforms are

discussed below.

8.3.2.1 Strategy and effort alignment across scales

In order to overcome the poor alignment of national, state, and regional NRM

governance arrangements, several reforms are necessary. Alignment could be

improved if national and state NRM funding frameworks are restructured to

better support regional aspirations and priorities as was emerging out of NHT2,

prior to the introduction of CfoC. This could occur through a stronger

partnership between the Queensland Regional Groups Collective (who can

advocate for regional NRM priorities in Queensland), and state and national

decision-makers. This strengthened partnership could ensure the aspirations

and priorities of NRM regions such as the Wet Tropics are considered in national

and state policy development and funding allocation. The lack of leadership for

NRM planning could also be addressed through the development of an

independent national commission for NRM, as suggested by (Lane & Robinson,

2009).

206

The fragmentation of NRM delivery systems in the region would benefit greatly

from a two-pronged approach. First, the establishment of a Wet Tropics NRM

committee that includes the major NRM decision-makers and implementers in

the region would provide a mechanism not only for negotiation, but also

coordination and collaboration. This committee would provide an opportunity

for diversification of the currently limited solutions mix for NRM, drawing on

institutions’ varied capacities and mandates, while also ensuring regional

institutional interests are considered in strategy development. This will enable:

1. greater coordination, coherency, efficiency and efficacy of outcome-

oriented projects across the region,

2. dissemination of emerging information,

3. increased integration of strategic and delivery systems; and

4. advocacy for NRM priorities in the region.

Secondly, rather than the current fee-for-service project delivery and funding

model, the Federal Government and NRM institutions across the region should

focus on projects that are based on regionally negotiated objectives. The

likelihood of such a recommendation being taken up in the region is particularly

high as ongoing funding constraints necessitate and incentivize institutional

collaboration.

8.3.2.2 Enhanced knowledge brokerage and collaboration frameworks

The Wet Tropics has a particularly strong, and regionally focused research sector

that has established a solid foundation of knowledge to inform NRM. However,

there remain gaps between researchers and end-users. In order to address this,

several reforms are suggested. First, in order to increase the integration of social,

economic, biophysical, and cultural research in the region, a full time, region

specific knowledge broker/s (as opposed to the current part time knowledge

broker) is necessary. The knowledge broker’s role should be broadened from its

current climate focus, to a more integrated approach that seeks to develop

greater connectivity between researchers from multiple disciplines (not just

biophysical) and end users.

207

A second reform stemming from this is the integration of the knowledge broker

with monitoring and evaluation frameworks, ensuring enhanced data

management and synthesis over time. Additionally, research that is industry-

relevant and useful to end-users should be incentivised both financially and

institutionally. This would ensure that research would be driven by the needs of

end-users, rather than by an individual researcher’s passion or the regionally

abstract priorities of funding bodies. Such a reform is likely to be well received

and easily implemented through existing formal and informal governance

arrangements.

8.3.2.3 Monitoring and reporting of natural resource management activities and

outcomes

Monitoring of NRM activities broadly across the region is almost non-existent,

with only a small number of specific projects in the Wet Tropics currently

involving monitoring beyond measurable outputs. Although MERI provides

important information to funding bodies regarding expenditure and outputs, it is

currently unable to support strategic or adaptive decision-making for NRM. The

region’s institutions need to establish or apply monitoring and evaluation

frameworks that are more robust, pragmatic, and regionally consistent than the

existing MERI or SOE reporting mechanisms. This would enable implementers

and strategy developers to determine the efficacy of their projects, programs,

and on-ground methods, while also, to the best of their ability, identifying

whether their actions/strategy led to the intended change in the condition of the

natural resource/s.

The monitoring frameworks suggested above could be further supported

through the creation of a region or statewide data base to store and manage

monitoring data. This data would then be accessible by other institutions both

within and external to the region, enabling institutions to build on the successes

of others, while identifying ineffective or inefficient strategies prior to

investment or implementation. This database should be web-based, and written

in plain language to increase its accessibility and usefulness. The database then

acts as the proverbial fence between two farmers, enabling NRM institutions in

the Wet Tropics, but also in other NRM regions to engage in social learning. This

208

would assist in building the accountability of institutions, the efficacy and

efficiency of projects and strategies, and the adaptability of strategies. A

significant barrier to implementing this reform is low levels of State and Federal

Government funding and support for monitoring activities.

8.4 Discussion of the Governance Systems Analysis Framework

The following sections discuss the theoretical and practical aspects of applying

the GSA framework and identify key lessons that can be taken from its

application to inform governance evaluation practice more broadly.

8.4.1 Analysing complex governance systems using a structural-functional

approach

The GSA framework applies a structural-functional approach to analyse complex,

real-world planning governance systems. This research demonstrates that taking

a more practical rather than theoretical approach to structural-functionalism,

and combining those concepts of structural-functionalism with empirically

grounded concepts of planning, complexity, systems and governance can

overcome many of the recognised shortcomings of structural-functionalism

(Dale et al., forthcoming).

The evidence used in this thesis’ application of the GSA framework is entirely

drawn from observations of, and the knowledge and experiences of experts

based within the case study regions. This approach refutes the critique of

structural-functionalism’s abstractness (Alexander, 1998; Alexander & Colomy,

1990; Almond & Powell, 1966; Giddens, 1979) and simplistic representation of

complex systems (Colomy, 1986), and emphasises that structural-functional

approaches can in fact be highly empirical and account for complexity. The

diversity and plurality of expert perspectives drawn on to inform the

assessments further strengthened the accuracy of its representation of the

complex interactions of NRM planning structures and functions in the Wet

Tropics and Cape York Peninsula. The expert validation of the researcher’s initial

GSA assessment demonstrated this claim, as it yielded only a limited number of

changes in both case study regions. Consequently, it can be inferred that the

framework’s evidence and conclusions realistically and relatively accurately

209

portrayed the system and its capacity to deliver desired decision-making

outcomes.

The planning structures used to guide discussion in the GSA framework appear

to suggest a linear and simplistic planning process, opening it to the many

criticisms of the rational planning paradigm (Clark, 1972; Luhmann, 1982;

Parsons, 1951). However, they are used practically rather than literally, meaning

they are applied as flags for discussion and not implying that planning processes

are linear or simple. The findings contained in Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 further

support the argument by (Alexander, 2000; Altschuler, 1965; Davidoff, 1965)

that the steps of the planning process are recognisable by practitioners and can

be used in a practical context to analyse policy-making processes, such as NRM

planning.

The GSA framework overcomes many of the criticisms of the rational planning

paradigm by combining the structures of the planning process with the less

tangible, and more complex functional concepts. The practical approach added

greater depth and nuance to the analysis of the planning systems than would

have been possible if the structures, strategic outputs, or functions had

individually been the only focal point of the analysis.

Taking a structural-functional approach to analysing NRM planning governance

systems enabled comprehensive examination of not only decision-making

outcomes, but also the interactions of structures and functions and their

influence on decision-making outcomes. The application of the GSA framework

in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 led to the affirmation that application or assessments

of society based on structural-functionalism present a static model of society or

systems, as described in Chapter 4. This further emphasised the limits of

structural-functional approaches in their capacity to account for transformation

or change within systems (Colomy, 1986). Some of the changes suggested during

the expert validation of the assessment were the result of changes to the

system’s overall capacity to deliver desired decision-making outcomes in the

time between the initial assessment and the validation process. While the final

assessments presented in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 were considered accurate at

210

the time of their completion in May 2014, the evidence and conclusions

contained within them are likely to become more inaccurate as the structures

and functions in the regions change over time.

The static nature of structural-functionalism was not considered highly

problematic in this research as the GSA framework was intended as a

longitudinal evaluative instrument, enabling comparisons of governance

assessments across time. This means that the GSA framework could be applied in

the case studies regularly or following changes to the governance system to

analyse whether and how the system’s overall capacity to deliver desired

outcomes has changed since the earlier assessment/s. The first assessment of the

case study governance systems using the GSA provides a robust baseline, while

future assessments could provide an account of systemic changes. This also

corroborates Chilcott’s (Chilcott, 1998; Fontes & Guardalabene, 1976; Harper,

2011) assertion that practical approaches to structural-functionalism can enable

self-reference and reflection of experts within the system on conflict and change

to the structures and functions.

Early structural-functional approaches, developed by theorists such as Spencer

and Durkheim, tended to ignore or downplay the role of agency in complex

systems (1998). However, the collaborative methodological approach enabled

participants to discuss the impacts of various influences of agency (e.g.

leadership, individual motivations, ethics, history, etc.) on the system’s processes

and outcomes. This suggests that in addition to being a tool for self-reference, the

GSA framework is capable of considering the role and impact of individuals and

institutions across scales on both the structures and functions of complex

planning systems.

8.4.2 Applying the Governance Systems Analysis framework

A structural-functional approach for evaluating complex governance systems

was described in Chapter 4 and applied in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. While the

GSA framework was applied as a comprehensive evaluative framework in this

research, planners, analysts, community organisations could use it, and any

other stakeholders based on their needs, time frames and available funding. It

211

could be used to support relatively cheap and quick rapid assessment or as a

descriptive tool to describe or benchmark a planning governance system or a

more comprehensive, data-rich evaluation of the planning governance system

and its health. The results of a rapid appraisal or more comprehensive

structural-functional assessment of a planning system provide planners and

policy makers with an evidence base on which to argue for greater resourcing,

better aligning institutional priorities, securing partners and making strategic

changes to the existing decision-making arrangements.

It is suggested that the GSA framework described in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4

could be applied in a number of contexts and be customised to the needs of a

system. This is because it compares ubiquitous functional traits of governance

systems with contextual structural elements. Consequently, the framework could

be customised based on the domain or subdomain and governance system being

analysed and the structures that are specific to that system. The approach

described in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4 could be adjusted to fit with budgetary and

time constraints, and be applied by institutions of any size or position within a

governance system. This was particularly useful in the context of this research,

which had a limited budget and time frame in which to undertake fieldwork. The

framework could be applied across or within policy silos or scales.

As applied in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, the GSA framework enabled examination

of multiple and interconnected complex arrangements between institutions

using a collective participatory approach. This was crucial in the NRM sub-

domain where past evaluative models have failed to lead to vastly improved

processes or outcomes.

Cape York NRM and Terrain NRM, like many Australian NRM bodies, use Vogel’s

NRM Excellence framework to monitor and evaluate their governance

arrangements. While this is useful at the organisational scale, it is largely limited

to an individual institution, and does not inform the actions or decisions of other

institutions or agencies engaged in the region. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is

currently no framework enabling institutions to analyse the broad and

multiscalar governance arrangements that affect NRM outcomes at the regional

212

scale. Therefore, while reforms can be applied, their efficacy is likely to be

limited if decision-makers are unable to systematically identify the systemic

strengths and weaknesses of the governance arrangements in the first place.

This thesis has explored structural-functional approaches to evaluating

governance systems and developed the proposed GSA framework to fill this gap.

The results described in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 strongly suggest that the

structural and functional interactions in complex, non-hierarchical governance

systems, such as NRM planning systems, can be analysed using the GSA

framework and thus evaluative approaches based on structural-functionalism.

Following the application of the framework it became clear that an accurate

evaluation of multiple governance systems could be undertaken using limited

resources and time. The GSA framework was applied in the two case studies by

one researcher spending a total of 14 weeks in the regions across a two-year

period with transaction costs under $15,000. The researcher spent a total of

eight weeks observing and interviewing experts and institutions involved in

NRM in Cape York Peninsula, compared with a total of six weeks observing and

interviewing in the Wet Tropics.

Perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the GSA framework is that its

application could be tailored to the needs and resources of the governance

systems system. The framework has been applied both as a rapid assessment

Bellamy et al. (1999c, p. 33), or as is the case in this research, as a more

comprehensive assessment tool (Chapter 6 and Chapter 7). This suggests that

resource and time poor institutions (as is the case with most NRM bodies), could

benefit from using the GSA to support more informed decision-making, without

the need to sacrifice significant amounts of already limited resources.

The varied time spent in and level of engagement of regional participants in the

two regions influenced the accuracy of the assessment. There was a slightly

higher degree of engagement and initial interest in the research from

stakeholders in Cape York Peninsula, compared with stakeholders in the Wet

Tropics. Despite this, both regions had a near 100% response rate once experts

were approached regarding their participation in the research. The difference in

213

time and degree of stakeholder engagement and interest may have contributed

to the degree to which the initial scores were modified following the semi-

structured validation interviews.

My lack of previous dealings with the region’s institutions prior to this research

was both a strength and weakness to this project. The participants saw me as

relatively objective due to my lack of allegiance to any one institution. I believe

that my relative objectivity encouraged the participants to be more candid with

their explanations and discussions than they would have potentially been if I

were aligned with a specific institution or agenda in the region.

The lack of pre-existing relationships was also a challenge in gaining access to

the region initially and required a significant investment in building

relationships and trust between myself and individual stakeholders in both

regions before more in-depth discussions could occur. While these issues were

addressed in this research through snowballing participant identification, and

additional time spent in the region, the research could have been more

effectively applied by an objective institution/s or individual/s with existing

relationships and trust in the regions.

The successful application of the GSA in two particularly diverse case study

regions in this research also suggests that it could be applied in governance

systems with varied contexts, different structures and planning ideologies. Cape

York Peninsula’s NRM governance arrangements are highly politicised and

informal, while the Wet Tropics governance arrangements are much more

formalised and less politically volatile. The results suggest that the GSA

framework could be applied both in highly structured governance systems and

less structured or developing governance systems.

The GSA could be applied to analyse and support governance reform in domains

and sub-domains beyond NRM planning or the case studies explored in this

thesis because it draws on theoretically robust and practice-grounded ideas of

governance and decision-making. The GSA framework’s applicability in other

sub-domains has also been demonstrated in its application to analyse

214

governance arrangements surrounding the GBR (Dale et al., 2013c), and carbon

sequestration (Dale et al., 2013c).

The GSA framework recognises the importance of context in planning, while

drawing on empirically, and theoretically supported concepts of planning

processes and policy-making that are easily recognisable by practitioners (Dale

et al., 2013a). The use of plain English was also critical in the framework’s

usefulness beyond academic or bureaucratic circles. The combination of these

factors mean that the GSA framework can be applied and understood by

practitioners across scales, irrespective of specialised training or theoretical

knowledge.

Regional participants reacted positively towards the GSA framework and its

results. A number of the regional participants who were involved in this research

indicated that the GSA assessment matrix (See Chapter 10) had provided them

with evidence to support regional-scale governance reform. They explained to

me that the GSA matrix had served as a ‘conversation starter’, and enabled them

to begin discussions with other individuals and institutions surrounding current

strengths and weaknesses of the governance system/s. Despite maintaining

confidentiality, throughout the application of the GSA framework I discovered

that many of the regional participants became aware of others who were

involved in the research through their discussions. This outcome indicates that

the GSA framework and its results are not only accessible to practitioners, but

can serve as a catalyst for broader systemic reform.

8.4.3 Lessons for governance evaluation more broadly

Three broader lessons emerged for governance evaluation out of this study. The

first lesson to emerge from Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 is that taking a

collaborative and participatory approach to analysing governance systems can

not only develop a richer narrative of the case study than a solely desktop

analysis, but also increase buy in to the process and ownership of the results by

system participants. A desktop analysis was used initially to identify key

structural and functional components of the system. However, it became clear

215

through the desktop analysis process that publicly available information rarely

reveals a significant amount about the dynamics of institutional relationships

and the strength of structural and functional systemic components. Initial

discussions with participants from Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropics

regions underlined the need for such information to inform governance reform.

Conversely, early discussions also revealed that regional participants were

concerned about the image of themselves and their institution.

The second lesson that emerged from this research was that building

relationships with regional participants over time was significant to the accuracy

and depth of the results. As the relationships strengthened over time, regional

participants became more willing to engage in relatively open and honest

dialogue regarding the governance system. As discussed above, the difference in

the accuracy of scores between the Cape York Peninsula and Wet Tropics

assessment is an indication of the importance of developing strong relationships

and spending time observing in the governance system in addition to interviews.

Moreover, the role of the researcher as a synthesiser, rather than keeper of

regional knowledge should be emphasised in governance assessments to

increase participant ownership of the results. While there may be contention in

the governance system (as was the case particularly in Cape York Peninsula), the

use of semi-structured interviews enabled a collaborative discussion across the

system without focusing on personal politics or requiring regional participants

to meet face to face.

The third lesson that surfaced from the study of governance in Cape York

Peninsula and the Wet Tropics case study regions was that power should not be

ignored in any study of governance or planning. Power inequities were prevalent

in both case studies, and were evident in comments made by regional

participants during the semi-structured interviews. The results of the study

could have been easily biased if it was applied by non-objective

individuals/institutions in the region, or if the diversity of regional participants

was limited. The governance systems studied in this research were multi-scalar

and highly political, meaning that to avoid bias, participants needed to represent

different scales, networks, and institutions. Having a diversity of participants

216

contribute to an evaluation of a governance system reduces potential bias

towards one perspective or agenda in the assessment of each region and ensures

a plurality of values are represented in the results.

In applying this, the content of the assessment is a synthesis of the experiences,

observations, and knowledge of the system by participants from multiple sectors

and scales, rather than of one institution or program. The results in Chapter 6,

and Chapter 7, also demonstrate that focusing on broader and substantive

structural and functional issues supports institutions to look beyond local

politics and ‘blame games’ and discuss regional issues strategically and

collectively.

8.5 Conclusions

This chapter reflected on the GSA framework and its application in the Cape York

Peninsula and the Wet Tropics NRM regions. In doing this, the chapter identified

similarities and differences in the results for both case study regions, enabling a

discussion of the nuances and multidimensionality of the two systems. Based on

the strengths and weaknesses evident in the case study regions, priorities for

governance reform were identified. The chapter also discussed how a

theoretically robust, but practically focused structural-functional approach was

taken to analyse the governance arrangements in the two case studies. The

accuracy of the two assessments was discussed, leading to the conclusion that

the GSA framework is an example of how structural-functional approaches can

be used to analyse complex governance systems. Finally, the chapter used the

NRM case studies to identify three general lessons for systemic governance

evaluation practice. They include:

1. taking a collaborative and participatory approach may increase the

richness of data because of increased participant buy-in and ownership

of the process and results;

2. building relationships between the researcher and participants

significantly increases the amount of information willing to be shared,

and thus the accuracy and breadth of the assessment; and

217

3. engaging with a diverse array of participants reduces the impact of

power dynamics on the accuracy of an assessment.

Chapter 9 provides a summary, synthesis, and conclusion to this thesis and will

set out the responses to the research questions answered in this thesis.

218

Chapter 9: Conclusions

9.1 Introduction

This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the key empirical and

theoretical findings and conclusions of this research. The chapter sequentially

addresses each of the four research questions, drawing on the content of the

thesis chapters to support the responses. In doing this, the chapter summarises

how this research met the research objectives described in Chapter 1 based on

the theoretical framework from Chapter 4, and the methods set out in Chapter 2.

Responses to the research questions set out in Chapter 1 are also summarised in

this chapter, drawing on evidence from Chapter 6, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8. The

chapter concludes with the identification of future directions for research based

on the findings of this thesis.

9.2 Summary of research problem

There is a strong body of scientific evidence indicating that environmental

degradation of many natural resources in Australia is ongoing despite significant

investment in planning and management in recent decades (DEHP, 2011;

National Water Commission, 2011; SEWPaC, 2011a; WTMA, 2011)(discussed in

Chapter 3). In addition to this, there is a plethora of legislation, policies, plans,

and programs focused on preventing and reducing degradation of natural

resources across the country (e.g. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999) (DEHP, 2011; GRBMPA, 2014; SEWPaC, 2011a; WTMA,

2011)(Chapter 6).

Notwithstanding this mélange of policies, programs, plans, and strategies across

scales, NRM practitioners and government funding bodies are currently poorly

equipped to evaluate the efficacy and performance of the complex and multi-

scalar, multi-institutional governance arrangements for NRM in Australia. The

relationship between governance arrangements and NRM planning outcomes in

complex governance systems remains poorly understood, despite discussions of

governance in the environmental management literature emerging in the last

decade (DSDIP, 2014a; GBRMPA, 1994; LandcareAustralia, 1991; Queensland

Government, 2013, 2014; SEWPaC, 2009, 2013; Vella et al., 2013).

219

9.3 Summary of research aims and objectives

Responding to the problem identified in Chapter 1 and reiterated above, this

thesis explored the complex relationships between planning and governance and

their impact on outcomes. This was supported by a secondary exploration of the

utility of structural-functional theory to examine and evaluate governance and

planning systems. It sought to build on the works of Bouwen and Taillieu (2004),

Almond and Powell (1966), Althaus et al. (2007), Buchanan and Tollison (1984),

Chettiparamb (2014), Dale and Bellamy (1998), Forester (2013), and Neuman

(2012).

The thesis was focused on Australian NRM planning as the evaluation context

and was guided by three broad objectives:

1. Review the planning, policy, structural-functionalism and governance

literature to understand existing conceptualisations of and approaches to

evaluating complex systems and policy making.

2. Identify a framework to analyse multi-scalar governance systems based on

the sociological theory of structural-functionalism.

3. Test the utility of the framework in two case studies.

As a result of these objectives being met, the following sections subsequently

address the research questions of this thesis.

9.4 Key research conclusions

The following subsections respond to the four research questions set out in

Chapter 1 of this thesis, and summarise the key findings of the research.

9.4.1 What is the relationship between governance system structure and

function, and NRM planning outcomes?

A core conclusion of this research was that where governance structures have

stronger functional characteristics, they are more likely to deliver their intended

decision-making outcomes, as supported by the discussion in Chapter 8. The

results in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 further indicate that different parts of a

system may be varied in their capacity to deliver desired decision-making

outcomes. As a result, while some structural elements of the system may be on a

220

knife’s edge and could fail or succeed to deliver their intended decision-

making outcomes, the system may be overall unable to deliver its intended

decision-making outcomes. Similarly, Chapter 6 found that where structures and

functions are in their infancy, they are also unlikely to deliver their intended

decision-making outcomes.

The thesis found that overall the Wet Tropics NRM planning governance system

was mostly likely to succeed to deliver its intended decision-making outcomes

largely due to the strong functional traits of systemic structures (Chapter 7).

Alternately, Cape York Peninsula’s NRM planning governance system was poorly

functioning and currently unlikely to deliver its intended decision-making

outcomes due to both weak structures and functions in the system (Chapter 6).

However, this thesis found that current levels of capacity to deliver desired

outcomes in the Wet Tropics region are particularly strong in developing plans

and strategies, but weak in implementation and monitoring. Despite ongoing

environmental degradation, Rydin (2012) suggests that the governance

arrangements surrounding implementation of the objectives within the policy

instruments are currently insufficient to deliver meaningful on-ground

outcomes. Thus, in order to ameliorate ongoing and emerging issues of

environmental degradation in both regions, greater attention to the capacity of

the system’s structures to undertake decision-making and the strength of their

functions is needed to support more effective, and enduring governance and

environmental outcomes (Chapter 6 and Chapter 7).

9.4.2 Why use structural-functionalism to evaluate complex, multi-scalar

governance systems?

Structural-functionalism is a particularly strong and logical foundation (rather

than grand theory) for evaluation of complex governance systems because it

considers not only decision-making outcomes, but also the interactions of

structures and functions within the system and their influence on decision-

making outcomes. In doing this, structural-functionalism as an evaluative lens

enables decision-makers to identify which components of a governance system

are limiting the success of planning, and then focus their attention on improving

and reforming those areas (as demonstrated in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7). As a

221

result, the GSA framework fills a significant gap in existing evaluative

frameworks used in practice to evaluate the success of NRM planning

governance systems (See Chapter 1 and Chapter 3).

While a number of empirically and theoretically grounded evaluative

frameworks have been developed to analyse complex governance systems, their

uptake in practice has been limited (Burns, 2006; Hill & Hupe, 2006; Kenward et

al., 2011; Ostrom, 2009b; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Wallington et al., 2008). This

suggests issues of accessibility, relevancy, and practicality with existing

evaluative frameworks. In combination with complementary systems,

governance and planning theories and concepts (i.e. the steps of the planning

process/policy cycle, deliberative planning spaces, institutional capacity, etc.),

structural-functionalism is transformed from an obscure and abstract

sociological theory to a useful and practical evaluative lens for planning systems.

While the approach to structural-functionalism in this research is described as

‘practical’, the theoretical underpinnings of structural-functionalism are not

abandoned or ignored. Rather, the theoretical nuances of structural-

functionalism were considered contextually within governance systems and

understandings of planning. For example, the structural-functional approach

applied in this research takes a Parsonian perspective on the definition of

functions, but Mertonian perspective on the necessity, and interactions of

functions and their affect on systemic outcomes. Similarly, while the GSA is

grounded on the core idea of structural-functionalism regarding systemic

interdependency, it adopts a probabilistic understanding of interdependency

based on the works of Almond and Powell (1966). These concepts were then

cross referenced and reinforced by parallel ideas drawn from planning theory,

ensuring the structural-approach used in this research was theoretically robust

and practically relevant to analyse complex planning governance systems.

9.4.3 How can structural-functional approaches be applied to evaluate complex,

multiscalar governance systems?

The results described in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 strongly suggest that the

strength of structures and functions in complex, non-hierarchical governance

222

systems, such as NRM planning systems, can be analysed using the GSA

framework and thus structural-functional evaluative approaches (Chapter 4).

The GSA framework used structural-functional principles to comprehensively

analyse the interactions of structures and functions in two case study

governance systems. This research has demonstrated that taking a more

practical, rather than theoretical approach to structural-functionalism, and

combining those concepts of structural-functionalism with empirically grounded

concepts of planning, complexity, systems and governance can overcome many

of the recognised shortcomings of structural-functionalism (Brodie et al., 2012;

Carroll et al., 2012; Grech et al., 2013). In addition to being a tool for self-

reference, the GSA framework demonstrated that structural-functional

approaches to systemic governance evaluation are capable of considering the

role and impact of individuals and institutions across scales on both the

structures and functions.

9.4.4 What lessons emerge from the assessment in Australian natural resource

management governance systems for governance systems more broadly?

Three general lessons for systemic governance evaluation practice were

extrapolated from this study in Chapter 9. They include:

1. taking a collaborative and participatory approach may increase the

richness of data because of increased participant buy-in and ownership

of the process and results;

2. building relationships between the researcher and participants

significantly increases the amount of information willing to be shared,

and thus the accuracy and breadth of the assessment; and

3. engaging with a diverse array of participants reduces the impact of

power dynamics on the accuracy of an assessment.

The consideration of these three factors in this research led to progressively

greater accuracy of the assessment as it evolved from initial observations and

conversations, to the final semi-structured interviews used to validate the

assessment’s evidence and conclusions. I suggest that these lessons should be

considered in any evaluation of complex and politicised governance systems and

223

may improve the usefulness and validity of the research through increased

participant engagement and ownership.

9.5 Future research directions

As a result of this thesis, further research could be conducted to test the

applicability and usefulness of the GSA framework and structural-functional

approaches in other contexts. This thesis has demonstrated that the GSA

framework can be applied in an Australian NRM planning context. Further

research could examine the applicability of the GSA framework in an

international NRM planning case study or a non-NRM study area. For example,

the GSA framework could be applied to analyse the capacity of the welfare

system to deliver desired outcomes.

An international case study could determine whether the GSA framework can be

used to assess and compare governance systems with drastically different

structures. Similarly, the practicalities of the GSA framework and structural-

functional approaches could be tested in more or less complex governance

systems. For example, the framework could be applied in a system with more

bureaucracy and rigid structures (e.g. Local Government development

assessment) than the NRM planning governance systems examined in this thesis.

This research focused on highly dynamic and non-centralised decision-making

systems using a Parsonian approach to structural-functionalism. Thus, there is

scope for further exploration of the utility and relevancy of both Mertonian and

Parsonian structural-functional to analyse planning systems with varied degrees

of centralisation.

This research sought to comprehensively analyse two Australian NRM planning

governance systems using the GSA framework. Future research could test the

limitations of scale on the framework. The framework could be used to analyse a

larger proportion of the 56 NRM regions across Australia and feed into a

cumulative national assessment of NRM planning governance. A national

assessment of NRM regions could provide national NRM policy makers with

greater insight into the effects of their policy making on the capacity of

governance systems to deliver desired decision-making outcomes.

224

9.6 Research Limitations

As discussed in Chapter 2, this research has several limitations. The first

limitation of the research is the relatively low number (15) of final semi-

structured interviews undertaken to validate the GSA framework results in both

regions. A second limitation of this research is any potential bias. Although every

effort was made throughout the research to talk with and interview experts from

a variety of scales, institutions, and positions relevant to regional NRM planning,

bias is still possible. However, the diversity of data sources and groundtruthing

with multiple regional participants using the Delphi technique allowed the

researcher to triangulate the collected data, reducing bias in the final assessment

and increasing the reliability of the data. There is also a risk that the regional

experts and their opinions were not representative of the organisations working

in the region or of the situation within region/s. In order to reduce bias in the

assessment, efforts were made to engage with experts with diverse backgrounds,

knowledge, alliances and experiences in the region/s.

A further limitation of this research is that the GSA framework has only been

tested in the NRM planning policy silo, and although it may be useful in other

policy silos, it is yet to be tested in such contexts. Consequently, the results and

conclusions from this research can only be extrapolated to a point for their

relevancy and applicability to other complex systems. This suggests an

opportunity for future research into the applicability and usefulness of the GSA

framework and practical structural-functional approaches in other, non-NRM,

governance systems.

225

References

ABARES. (2011). Australian climate and agriculture monthly update. Canberra:

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

Abbott, A. (1997). Of Time and Space: The Contemporary Relevance of the

Chicago School. Social Forces, 75(4), 1149-1182

Abrahams, H. (2005). Devolution Enhances Integration. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 12, 57-61. ABS. (2010). Land Management Practices in the Great Barrier Reef Catchments: Wet Tropics NRM region, 10/9/12, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4619.0.55.001Main+Features52008-09

Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and its

Application to Social Policy and Public Health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Agforce. (2013). Reef Rescue: Grazing and Grains Reef Rescue Partners, 8/10/13, from http://www.agforceqld.org.au/index.php?tgtPage=industry&page_id=270

Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of

Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development, 27(4),

629-649

Aguilera, R., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). Codes of Good Governance Worldwide:

What is the Trigger? Organization Studies, 25(3), 415-443.

Alexander, E. (1998). Neofunctionalism and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Alexander, E. (2000). Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-Postmodernist Perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 242-256.

Alexander, J., & Colomy, P. (1990). Neofunctionalism: Reconstructing a theoretical tradition. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Frontiers of social theory: The new syntheses (pp. 33-67). New York: Columbia University Press.

Allan, C., & Curtis, A. (2003). Regional Scale Adaptive Management: Lessons from the North East Salinity Strategy (NESS). Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 76-84.

Allen, P. (1997). Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems: Models of

Complexity. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4619.0.55.001Main+Features52008-09


http://www.agforceqld.org.au/index.php?tgtPage=industry&page_id=270


226

Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77-99.

Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002). Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory. London: Routledge.

Almond, G., & Coleman, J. (1960). The Politics of Developing Areas: Princeton University Press.

Almond, G., & Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2007). The Australian Policy Handbook (4th ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Altschuler, A. (1965). The Goals of Comprehensive Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(3), 186-195.

ANAO. (1997). Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment Programs Audit Report 36. Canberra: The Australian National Audit Office

ANAO. (2008). Regional Delivery Model for the National Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Audit Report 21. Canberra: The Australian National Audit Office.

Andersson, K., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences, 41, 71-93.

Armitage, D. (2005). Adaptive Capacity and Community-based Natural Resource

Management. Environmental Management, 35(6), 703-715.

Arnoldi, J. (2001). Niklas Luhmann: An Introduction. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(1), 1-13.

Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of

Planners Journal, 35(4), 216-224. Asafu-Adjaye, J. (1996). Traditional production activities and resource

sustainability: The case of indigenous societies in Cape York Peninsula, Australia. International Journal of Social Economics, 23(4/5/6), 125-135.

Asian Development Bank. (2013). 3 in 4 Asia-Pacific Nations Facing Water Security Threat - Study, 7/3/14

Australian Government. (2014). National Landcare Programme: Natural resource management, 2/9/14, from http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/nrm/

Balkanu. (2010a). Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation: Cape York Agenda, 6/7/12, from

http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/nrm/

227

http://www.balkanu.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=16

Balkanu. (2010b). Carbon Fire Abatement Project: Cape York Peninsula. Cairns: Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation.

Balkanu. (2013). Balkanu: About Us Retrieved 9/9/13, from http://www.balkanu.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=31

Banfield, E. (1955). Note on conceptual scheme. In M. Meyerson & E. Banfield (Eds.), Politics, Planning and the Public Interest. New York: Free Press.

Barrett, P. (2003). Better practice public sector governance. Canberra: ANAO.

Barrett, R. (2012, 1/8/12). LNP promises to develop Cape York as wild rivers laws buried, The Australian.

Barton, J., Emery, M., Flood, R., Selsky, J., & Wolstenholme, E. (2004). A Maturing

of Systems Thinking? Evidence from Three Perspectives. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(1), 3-12.

Baum, H. (1977). Toward a Post-Industrial Planning Theory. Policy Sciences, 8, 401-421.

Baum, H. (1996). Why the Rational Paradigm Persists: Tales from the Field. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, 127-135.

Bellamy, J., & Johnson, A. (2000). Integrated Resource Management: Moving from Rhetoric to Practice in Australian Agriculture. Environmental Management, 25(3), 265-280.

Bellamy, J., McDonald, G., Syme, G., & Butterworth, J. (1999a). Evaluating Integrated Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 337-353.

Bellamy, J., McDonald, G., Syme, G., & Walker, D. (1999b). Evaluating Natural Resource Management Policy Initiatives. In J. Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7: Synthesis of Findings (Vol. 1). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

Bellamy, J., Ross, H., Ewing, S., & Meppem, T. (2002). Integrated Catchment Management: Learning from the Australian Experience for the Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

Bellamy, J., Smith, T., Taylor, B., & Walker, M. (2005). Regional natural resource management planning arrangements: Evaluating through the regional lense. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Bellamy, J., Walker, B., McDonald, G., & Syme, G. (1999c). Tracking Progress in Natural Resource Management: A systems approach to evaluation. In J.





228

Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7 (Vol. 1). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

Bellamy, J., Walker, D., McDonald, G., & Syme, G. (2001). A systems approach to the evaluation of natural resource management initiatives. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 407-423.

Bengsen, A., Leung, L., Lapidge, S., & Gordon, I. (2011). Target-specificity of feral pig baits under different conditions in a tropical rainforest. Wildlife Research, 38(5), 370-379.

Bevir, M., Rhodes, R., & Weller, P. (2003). Traditions of Governance: Interpreting the Changing Role of the Public Sector. Public Administration, 81(1), 1-17.

Blaikie, P. (2006). Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development, 34(11), 1942-1957.

Bodin, O., & Crona, B. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19, 366-374.

Bodin, O., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social Networks in Natural Resource

Management: What Is There to Learn from a Structural Perspective? Ecology and Society, 11(2).

Bohnet, I., & Smith, D. (2007). Planning future landscapes in the Wet Tropics of

Australia: A social-ecological framework. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2), 137-152.

Bolton, R. (2005). Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action and the Theory of

Social Capital. Paper presented at the Association of American Geographers, Denver, Colorado.

Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., & Potts, S. (2013). Ecological intensification: harnessing

ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(4), 230-238.

Booher, D., & Innes, J. (2002). Network Power in Collaborative Planning. Journal

of Planning Education and Research, 21, 221-236. Borrini-Feyerband, G. (1996). Collaborative management of protected areas:

Tailoring the approach to the context. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Bouwen, R., & Taillieu, T. (2004). Multi-party Collaboration as Social Learning for Interdependence: Developing Relational Knowing for Sustainable Natural Resource Management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 137-153.

229

Braithwaite, J., Coglianese, C., & Levi-Faur, D. (2007). Can regulation and governance make a difference? Regulation and Governance, 1, 1-7.

Broderick, K. (2005). Communities in Catchments: Implications for Natural Resource Management. Geographical Research, 43(3), 286-296.

Brodie, J., Kroon, F., Schaffelke, B., Wolanski, E., Lewis, S., Devlin, M., . . . Davis, A.

(2012). Terrestrial pollutant runoff to the Great Barrier Reef: An update of issues, priorities and management responses. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Online.

Brosius, J., Lowenhaupt-Tsing, A., & Zerner, C. (1998). Representing

Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 157-168.

Brown, A. (2007). Federalism, Regionalism and the Reshaping of Australian

Governance. In A. Brown & J. Bellamy (Eds.), Federalism and Regionalism in Australia: New Approaches, New Institutions? (pp. 11-32). Canberra: Australian National University E Press.

Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Henriksen, H., & van der Keur, P. (2011). More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 78-84.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Buchanan, J., & Tollison, R. (1984). The Theory of Public Choice - II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Buchy, M., & Race, D. (2001). The Twists and Turns of Community Participation in Natural Resource Management in Australia: What is Missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 293-308.

Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24, 875-902.

Bulmer, S. (1994). The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach. Journal of Public Policy, 13(4), 351-380.

Burns, D. (2006). Evaluation in Complex Governance Arenas: The Potential of Large System Action Research. In B. Williams & I. Imam (Eds.), Systems Concepts in Evaluation: An Expert Anthology (pp. 181-196). Point Reyes, CA.: Edge Press.

230

Byrne, D. (1997). ‘Chaotic Places or Complex Places – Cities in a Post Industrial Era’,. In S. Westwood & J. Williams (Eds.), Imagining Cities (pp. 50-70). London: Routledge.

Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences - An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Byrne, D. (2003). Complexity Theory and Planning Theory: A Necessary Encounter. Planning Theory, 2(3), 171-178.

Campbell, A. (1996). Regionalism, regionalisation and natural resource management CRES Working Paper. Canberra: Australian National University.

Campbell, H. (2012). Planning to Change the World: Between Knowledge and Action Lies Synthesis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 135-146.

Campbell, R., Mapstone, B., & Smith, A. (2001). Evaluating Large-scale Experimental Designs for Management of Coral Trout on the Great Barrier Reef. Ecological Applications, 11(6), 1763-1777.

Campbell, T. (2006). Devolved Natural Resource Management as a Means of Empowering the Poor: Rhetoric or Reality? Trocaire Development Review, 1, 117-133.

Carmody, J. (2011). Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area: Tour Guide

Handbook: Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF).

Carney, M. (Writer) & M. Colvin (Director). (2012). Environmentalists and miners debate future of Cape York, PM. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Carroll, C., Waters, D., Vardy, S., Silburn, D., Attard, S., Thorburn, P., . . . Clark, A. (2012). A paddock to reef monitoring and modelling framework for the Great Barrier Reef: Paddock and catchment component. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 136-149.

Cash, D., Adger, N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., . . . Young, O. (2006). Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society, 11(2).

Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., . . . Mitchell, R. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14).

Cash, D., & Moser, S. (2000). Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change, 10, 109-120.

231

Cavaye, J. (2005). Development of capacity assessment methodology for NRM regional arrangements - literature review. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., & Vernadat, F. (2008). Architecture for enterprise integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in Industry, 59(7), 647-659.

Chenoweth, E., & Clarke, S. (2010). All terrorism is Local: Resources, Nested Institutions, and Governane for Urban Homeland Security in the American Federal System. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 495-507.

Chester, G., & Driml, S. (2012). The Potential Economic Benefits of Protecting and Presenting Cape York. Cairns: EcoSustainAbility.

Chettiparamb, A. (2006). Metaphors in Complexity Theory and Planning. Planning Theory, 5(1), 71-91

Chettiparamb, A. (2014). Complexity theory and planning: Examining 'fractals' for organising policy domains in planning practice. Planning Theory, 13(1), 5-25.

Chilcott, J. (1998). Structural-functionalism as a Heuristic Device. Anthropology

and Education Quarterly, 29(1), 103-111. Cilliers, P. (2000). Complexity and Post Modernism: Understanding Complex

Systems. London: Routledge.

Clark, T. (1972). Structural-Functionalism, Exchange Theory, and the New Political Economy: Institutionalization As a Theoretical Linkage. Sociological Inquiry, 42(3-4), 275-298.

Clayton, H., Dovers, S., & Harris, P. (2011). NRM Literature Review: Document II. Paper presented at the HC Coombs Policy Forum, Australian National University, Canberra.

Clement, F. (2009). Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a "politicised" institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sciences, 43, 129-156.

Colomy, P. (1986). Recent Developments in the Functionalist Approach to Change. Sociological Focus, 19, 139-158.

Conley, A., & Moote, M. (2003). Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 371-386.

Connick, S., & Innes, J. (2003). Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(2), 177-197.

232

Cornwall, A. (1995). Towards participatory practice: PRA and the participatory process. In K. deKoning (Ed.), Participation and Health. London: Zed Books.

Costanza, R., & Greer, J. (1995). The Chesapeake Bay and Its Watershed: A Model for Sustainable Ecosystem Management? In L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling & S. Light (Eds.), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions (pp. 169-213). New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomas, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 14(4), 1-38.

Craib, I. (2011). Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge.

Crisp, J., Pelletier, D., Duffield, C., Adams, A., & Nagy, S. (1997). The Delphi Method? Nursing Research, 46(2), 116-118.

Cummings, B. (2010). The Cairns Economy: The Coming Bounce Back. Cairns: Cummings Economics.

Cummings, B. (2012a). The Cairns Economy - Recent Trends and Prospects. Cairns: Cummings Economics.

Cummings, B. (2012b). Value of Mining Activity in Far North Queensland Now up to $1bn. Cairns: Cummings Economics.

Curtis, A., & Lockwood, M. (2000). Landcare and Catchment Management in Australia: Lessons for State-Sponsored Community Participation. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 61-73.

Curtis, A., Robertson, A., & Race, D. (1998). Lessons from Recent Evaluations of

Natural Resource Management Programs in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 5(2), 109-119.

Curtis, A., Ross, H., Marshall, G., Baldwin, C., Cavaye, J., Freeman, C., . . . Syme, G. (2014). The great experiment with devolved NRM governance: lessons from community engagement in Australia and New Zealand since the 1980s. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(2), 175-199.

CYI. (2007). From Hand Out to Hand Up: Cape York Reform Project - Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge Design Recommendations. Cairns: Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership.

CYI. (2013). Cape York Institute: About Us, from http://cyi.org.au/about-us

CYNRM. (2011). Caring for our Country - Beyond 2013: Response by Cape York Natural Resource Management Ltd. (Regional Natural Resource Management Groups for Cape York): Cape York NRM.

CYNRM. (2013a). Cape York Natural Resource Management: About Us Retrieved 9/9/13, from http://www.capeyorknrm.com.au/about.html

http://cyi.org.au/about-us

http://www.capeyorknrm.com.au/about.html

233

CYNRM. (2013b). Projects and Case studies: Community Projects, 9/9/13, from http://www.capeyorknrm.com.au/projects.html

CYPLUS. (1995). Stage 1 Overview Reports - Thematic Report 1 of 3 Natural Resources and Ecology. In E. S. a. Services (Ed.), Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (CYPLUS). Brisbane: Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development, and Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.

CYSF. (2010). About Cape York Sustainable Futures, 29/10/12, from http://www.cypda.com.au/about/cysf.html

CYSF. (2012). The Cape York Fire Management Project: Cape York Fire Program, 9/4/13, from http://www.cysf.com.au/programs/35-the-cape-york-fire-management-project.html

CYSF. (2013a). Cape York Fire and Biodiversity Program, 11/9/13, from http://www.cysf.com.au/cysf-projects/32-cape-york-fire-a-biodiversity-project.html

CYSF. (2013b). Cape York Sustainable Futures Projects, 9/913, from http://www.cysf.com.au/cysf-projects.html

CYSF. (2013c). Cape York Turtle Conservation Program Retrieved 11/9/13, from http://www.cysf.com.au/cysf-projects/38-the-turtle-nest-predation-monitoring-project.html

DAFF, & SEWPaC. (2011a). Caring For Our Country: What is Natural Resource Management Retrieved 16/3/12, from http://www.nrm.gov.au/nrm/index.html

DAFF, & SEWPaC. (2011b). Wet Tropics NRM region, 5/9/12, from http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/nrm/regions/qld-wetr.html

DAFF, & SEWPaC. (2013). Caring for our Country 2013-2018, 16/9/13, from http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/caring/overview.html

Dahl, A. (1989). Traditional environmental knowledge and resource management in New Caledonia. In R. Johannes (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge: A collection of essays. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, World Conservation Union.

Daily, C., Dalton, D., & Canella, A. (2003). Corporate Governance: Decades of Dialogue and Data. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371-382.

Dale, A. (2013). Governance Challenges for Northern Australia. Cairns: The Cairns Institute.

Dale, A., & Bellamy, J. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an Australian Review. Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.

http://www.capeyorknrm.com.au/projects.html

http://www.cypda.com.au/about/cysf.html

http://www.cysf.com.au/programs/35-the-cape-york-fire-management-project.html


http://www.cysf.com.au/cysf-projects/32-cape-york-fire-a-biodiversity-project.html


http://www.cysf.com.au/cysf-projects.html

http://www.cysf.com.au/cysf-projects/38-the-turtle-nest-predation-monitoring-project.html


http://www.nrm.gov.au/nrm/index.html

http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/nrm/regions/qld-wetr.html

http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/caring/overview.html

234

Dale, A., & Bellamy, J. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an Australian Review. Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.

Dale, A., McKee, J., Vella, K., & Potts, R. (2013a). Carbon, biodiversity and regional natural resource planning: towards high impact next generation plans. Australian Planner.

Dale, A., Vella, K., & Potts, R. (2013b). Governance Systems Analysis: A Framework for Reforming Governance Systems. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3(3), 162-187.

Dale, A., Vella, K., Pressey, R., Brodie, J., Yorkston, H., & Potts, R. (2013c). A method for risk analysis across governance systems: a Great Barrier Reef case study. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 1-16.

Dale, A., Vella, K., Ryan, S., Broderick, K., Hill, R., Potts, R., . . . Brewer, T. (forthcoming). National-scale governance of Australia's community based NRM domains: An opportunity for reform. Australian Geographer, X(X), x-x.

Dalton, L. (1986). Why the Rational Planning Paradigm Persists: The Resistance of Professional Education and Practice to Alternative Forms of Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 5, 147-153.

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.

Davidson, J., Lockwood, M., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2006). Governance Principles for Regional Natural Resource Management Pathways to good practice in regional NRM governance: University of Tasmania.

Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L., Quinlan, A., Peterson, G., Wilkinson, C., . . . Porter, L. (2012). Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? “Reframing” Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(2), 299-333.

DCCEE. (2012). The Clean Energy Future Plan and the CFI, 5/4/13, from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-initiative/handbook/cef.aspx

Dean, M. (2003). Culture governance and individualisation. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and politcal communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

DEHP. (2011). State of the Environment Queensland 2011. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-initiative/handbook/cef.aspx


235

DEHP. (2012). Cape York Peninsula Bioregional Management Plan: Scoping Paper. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP).

Department of Agriculture. (2013). Reef Rescue: Overview, 3/3/14, from http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/reef-rescue/

Department of Environment and Resource Management. (2011). Queensland Regional Resource Management Framework. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Resource Management.

DERM. (2011). Case Study: Bananas - Nurturing the soil and neighbouring wetlands on a banana farm in the wet tropics. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Resource Management.

DEWHA. (2009). NRM MERI framework: Australian Government natural resource management monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and improvement framework. Canberra: Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts.

DIA. (2012). Land Facts, 11/7/12, from http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Land/

Dietz, T., Rosa, E., & York, R. (2009). Environmentall Efficient Well-Being: Rethinking Sustainability as the Relationship between Human Well-being and Environmental Impacts. Human Ecology Review, 16(1), 114-123.

DIICCSRTE. (2012a). NRM Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research, 5/9/13, from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/grants/nrm-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation-research

DIICCSRTE. (2012b). NRM Fund: Regional Natural Resource Management Planning for Climate Change Fund, 5/9/13, from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/land-sector-measures/nrm-fund

DIICCSRTE. (2012c). Stream 2 - NRM Fund, 18/9/13, from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/land-sector-measures/nrm-fund/stream-2

Dingwerth, K., & Pattberg, P. (2003). Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics. Global Governance, 12(2), 185-203.

DIP. (2009). Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. Cairns: Department of Infrastructure and Planning.

DNRM. (2014). Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Investment Program 2013-2018, 23/10/14, from http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/land/accessing-using-land/natural-resource-management/nrm-investment-program

Dockery, A. (2010). Culture and Wellbeing: The Case of Indigenous Australians. Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 315-332.

http://www.nrm.gov.au/funding/reef-rescue/

http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Land/

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/grants/nrm-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation-research


http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/land-sector-measures/nrm-fund


http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/land-sector-measures/nrm-fund/stream-2


http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/land/accessing-using-land/natural-resource-management/nrm-investment-program


236

Doornbos, M. (2003). "Good Governance": The Metamorphosis of a Policy Metaphor. Journal of International Affairs, 57(1), 3-17.

Dorcey, A. (1986). Bargaining in the governance of Pacific Coastal Resources:

Research and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dovers, S. (2001). Institutions for Sustainability: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies: Australian National University.

Dovers, S., Norton, T., & Handmer, J. (1996). Uncertainty, ecology, sustainability and policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 1143-1167.

DPI. (2010). Aboriginal Land: Native Title, 11/7/12, from

http://www.lpma.nsw.gov.au/crown_lands/aboriginal_land

Dredge, D., Hales, R., & Jamal, T. (2013). Community Case Study Research: Researcher Operacy, Embeddedness and Making Research Matter. Tourism Analysis, 18, 29-43.

DSDIP. (2012). Regional planning in Cape York. Brisbane: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

DSDIP. (2013). Cape York Regional Plan: Draft for Consultation. Brisbane: Department of State Development, Infrastructure, and Planning.

DSDIP. (2014a). RegionsQ Framework. Brisbane: Department of State Development, Infrastructure, and Planning.

DSDIP. (2014b). State planning regulatory provisions, 20/5/14, from http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/codes-policies-and-regulatory-provisions/state-planning-regulatory-provisions.html

Eckerberg, K., & Joas, M. (2004). Multi-level Environmental Governance: a concept under stress? Local Environment, 9(5), 405-412.

Eisenstadt, S. (1990). Functional Analysis in Anthropology and Sociology: An interpretative Essay. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 243-260.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29

Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: a theory of societal and politcal processes. New York: Free Press.

Even-Zohar, I. (1979). Polysystem Theory. Poetics Today, 1(1-2), 287-310. Ewing, S. (1999). Landcare and Community-led Watershed Management in

Victoria, Australia. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35(3).


http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/codes-policies-and-regulatory-provisions/state-planning-regulatory-provisions.html


237

Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64, 47-60.

Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1995). False Forest History, Complicity Social Analysis:

Rethinking Some West African Environmental Narratives. World Development, 23(6), 1023-1035.

Faludi, A. (1973). A Reader in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Farrelly, M. (2005). Regionalisation of Environmental Management: A Case Study of the National Heritage Trust, South Australia. Geographical Research, 43(4), 393-405.

Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach.

Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy.

Finer, S. (1971). Comparative Government. London: Penguin.

Fisher, J. (2010). Systems Theory and Structural Functionalism. In J. Ishiyama & M. Breuning (Eds.), 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 71-80). Los Angeles: Sage.

FNQNRM. (2004). Sustaining the Wet Tropics: A Regional Plan for Natural Resource Management 2004-2008. Innisfail: FNQ NRM Ltd and Rainforest CRC.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267.

Fontes, N., & Guardalabene, N. (1976). Structural-functionalism: An Introduction

to the Literature. Human Communication Research, 2(3), 299-310. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes Cambridge: MIT Press.

Forester, J. (2012). Learning to Improve Practice: Lessons from Practice Stories and Practitioners' Own Discourse Analyses (or Why Only the Loons Show Up). Planning Theory and Practice, 13(1), 11-26.

Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism:

Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5-22.

Foster, K., & Barnes, W. (2012). Reframing Regional Governance for Research

and Practice. Urban Affairs Review, 48(2), 272-283.

238

Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the political domain: from knowledge to action. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Friedmann, J. (1996). Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An Overview. In S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza & R. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers Centre for Urban Policy Research

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is Governance. Governance, 26(3), 347-368.

Gallopin, G. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16, 293-303.

GBRMPA. (1981). Nomination of the Great Barrier Reef by the Commonwealth of Australia for the inclusion in the World Heritage List. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

GBRMPA. (1994). The Great Barrier Reef: Keeping it Great - A 25 year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GBRMPA. (2011). About the Reef: How the Reef is managed, 27/9/12, from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/how-the-reefs-managed

Genskow, K., & Wood, D. (2011). Improving Voluntary Environmental Management Programs: Facilitating Learning and Adaptation. Environmental Management, 47, 907-916.

Ghazoul, J., Butler, R., Mateo-Vega, J., & Koh, L. (2010). REDD: A reckoning of

environmental and development implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(7), 396-402.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration: University of California Press.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos - Making a New Science. London: Abacus.

Goldschmidt, W. (1966). Comparaitve Functionalism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gooch, M., & Warburton, J. (2009). Building and Managing Resilience in Community-based NRM groups: An Australian Case Study. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 158-171.

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003a). Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century. Ottawa: Institute on Governance.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/how-the-reefs-managed

239

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003b). Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century Policy Brief No. 15. Ottawa, Canada: Institute on Governance.

GRBMPA. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Grech, A., Bos, M., Brodie, J., Coles, R., Dale, A., Gilbert, R., . . . Smith, A. (2013). Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 75, 8-20.

Green, D., & Preston, B. (2010). Climate Change in Cape York. Cairns: CSIRO.

Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S. (2009). The Dictionary of Human Geography. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gribbin, J. (2004). Deep Simplicity, Chaos, Complexity and the Emergence of Life. London: Allen Lane.

Griffith, R., Davidson, J., & Lockwood, M. (2009). NRM Governance for change: Revisiting 'good' governance through an adaptive lens. Canberra: Land and Water Australia.

Groth, A. (1970). Structural Functionalism and Political Development: Three Problems. The Western Political Quarterly, 23(3), 485-499.

Gruber, J. (2010). Key Principles of Community-Based Natural Resource Management: A Synthesis and Interpretation of Identified Approaches for Managing the Commons. Environmental management, 45, 52-66.

Gunder, M. (2010). Making Planning Theory Matter: A Lacanian Encounter with Phronesis. International Planning Studies, 15(1), 37-51.

Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2009). Planning in Ten Words or Less: A Lacanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning. Padstow, Cornwall: TJ International Ltd.

Gunderson, L., Peterson, G., & Holling, C. S. (2008). Practicing Adaptive Management in Complex Social-Ecological Systems. In J. Norberg & G. Cumming (Eds.), Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future (pp. 224-245). New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

Gunningham, N. (2009). The New Collaborative Environmental Governance: The Localization of Regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), 145-166.

Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System

(Vol. 2). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hajjar, R., Kozak, R., & Innes, J. (2012). Is Decentralization Leading to 'Real' Decision-Making Power for Forest-dependent Communities? Case Studies from Mexico and Brazil. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 1-12.

240

Hajkowicz, S. (2009). The evolution of Australia's natural resource management programs: Towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy, 26, 471-478.

Harper, D. (2011). Structural-Functionalism: Grand Theory or Methodology.

Leicester: University of Leicester.

Harris, B. (1967). The Limits of Science and Humanism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33(5), 324-335.

Harris, N. (2002). Collaborative Planning: From Theoretical Foundations to Practice Forms. In P. Allmendinger & M. Twedwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory (pp. 21-43). London: Routledge.

Harris, N. (2011). Discipline, Surveillance, Control: A Foucaultian Perspective on the Enforcement of Planning Regulations. Planning Theory and Practice, 12(1), 57-76.

Hart, V., & Whatman, S. (1998). Decolonising the concept of knowledge. Paper

presented at the HERDSA: Annual International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

Hasson, F., & Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique

research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695-1704. Hay, I. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (2nd ed.).

Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Head, B. (2005). Participation or co-governance? Challenges for regional natural resource management. In J. Martin & R. Eversole (Eds.), Participation and Governance in Regional Development. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Head, B., & Ryan, N. (2004). Can Co-governance Work? Regional Natural Resource Management in Queensland, Australia. Society and Economy, 26(2-3), 361-382.

Healey, P. (1992). A planner's day: knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of American Planning Association, 58(1), 9-20.

Healey, P. (1993). Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp. 233-252). London: Duke University Press.

Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101-123.

Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Oxon: Routledge.

241

Healey, P. (2009). The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, 277-292.

Healey, P. (2013). Circuits of Knowledge and Techniques: The Transnational Flow of Planning Ideas and Practices. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1510-1526.

Heleno, R., Garcia, C., Jordano, P., Traveset, A., Gomez, J., Bluthgen, N., . . . Olesen, J. (2014). Ecological networks: delving into the architecture of biodiversity. Biology Letters, 10(1).

Helm, P. (1971). Manifest and Latent Functions. The Philosophical Quarterly, 21(82), 51-60.

Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2006). Analysing policy processes as multiple governance: accountability in social policy. Policy and Politics, 34(3), 557-573.

Hill, R., Williams, K., Pert, P., Robinson, C., Dale, A., Westcott, D., . . . O'Malley, T. (2010). Adaptive community-based biodiversity conservation in Australia's tropical rainforests. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 73-82.

Hillier, J. (1993). To boldly go where no planners have ever... Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11(1), 89-113.

Hillier, J. (2011). Strategic navigation across multiple planes: Towards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning. Town Planning Review, 82(5), 503-527.

Hoggarth, L., & Comfort, H. (2010). A Practical Guide to Outcome Evaluation. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.

Holling, C. S. (1995). What Barriers? What Bridges? In L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling & S. Light (Eds.), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions (pp. 1-34). New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

Hollingsworth, J., & Lindberg, L. (1985). The governance of the American economy: The role of markets, clans, hierarchies and associated behavior. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum.

Holmes, J. (2011a). Contesting the Future of Cape York Peninsula. Australian Geographer, 42(1), 53-68.

Holmes, J. (2011b). Land Tenures as Policy Instruments: Transitions on Cape York Peninsula. Geographical Research, 49(2), 217-233.

Holmes, J. (2012). Cape York Peninsula, Australia: A frontier region undergoing a multifunctional transition with indigenous engagement. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 252-265.

242

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems (2nd ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.

Hundloe, T. (2008). From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability. Docklands, Victoria: JoJo Publishing.

Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Wellbeing, 9, 1-12.

Ignjic, S. (2001). Cultural Tourism in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: A

Strategic Overview for Rainforest Bama. Cairns: Rainforest CRC.

Imperial, M. (1999). Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem Management: The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management, 24(4), 449-465.

Innes, J. (1995). Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183-190.

Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2003). Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Baltimore.

Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the

21st Century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.

IUCN. (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development: IUCN.

Jacobs, B., Brown, P., Nelson, R., Leith, P., Tracey, J., McNamara, L., . . . Mitchell, S. (2010). Assessing the capacity to manage natural resources in NSW State of the catchments 2010 - Capacity to manage natural resources: Technical report series. Sydney: NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

Janssen, W., & Goldsworthy, P. (1996). Multidisciplinary Research for Natural Resource Management: Conceptual and Practical Implications. Agricultural Systems, 51, 259-279.

Jarratt, J. (2008). Tourism Industry: Cairns Regional Council, 5/9/12, from http://janjarratt.com/hansard.php?id=29

Jarvie, I. (1964). The Revolution in Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Jennings, S., & Moore, S. (2000). The Rhetoric behind Regionalization in Australian Natural Resource Management: Myth, Reality and Moving Forward. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2, 177-191.

http://janjarratt.com/hansard.php?id=29

243

Johannes, R. (1978). Words of the lagoon: Fishing and marine law in the Palau district of Micronesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Johnson, A., Shrubsole, D., & Merrin, M. (1996). Integrated Catchment Management in northern Australia: From concept to implementation. Land Use Policy, 13(4), 303-316.

Johnson, A., & Walker, D. (2000). Science, Communication and Stakeholder Participation for Integrated Natural Resource Management. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 7, 82-90.

Joshi, D. (2013). Decentralisation of public service delivery in the Central Himalayas: The myth of community participation. Policy and Society, 32(1), 23-32.

Kalu, K. (2011). Institution-building not nation-building: a structural-functional

model. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(1), 119-137.

Kellert, S., Mehta, J., Ebbin, S., & Lichtenfeld, L. (2000). Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric and Reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 705-715.

Kemp, R., & Parto, S. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: moving

from theory to practice. Internatinal Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1), 12-30

Kenward, R., Whittingham, M., Arampatzis, S., Manos, B., Hahn, T., Terry, A., . . . Rutz, C. (2011). Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability and biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(13).

Kim, S., & Nancarrow, K. (2013). Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney has 'no interest' in

World Heritage nomination for Cape York, 12/11/13, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/seeney-has-no-interest-in-world-heritage-nomination-cape-york/4965596

Klimenko, V., & Evans, R. (2009). Bauxite mining operations at Weipa, Cape York:

a case study Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce and CSIRO.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Koontz, T., & Thomas, C. (2006). What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 111-121.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/seeney-has-no-interest-in-world-heritage-nomination-cape-york/4965596


244

Kroon, F., Robinson, C., & Dale, A. (2009). Integrating knowledge to inform water planning in the Tully-Murray basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60, 1183-1188.

LandcareAustralia. (1991). Decade of Landcare Plan. Canberra: Landcare Australia.

Lane, M. (2001). Affirming New Directions in Planning Theory: Comanagement of Protected Areas. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 657-671.

Lane, M. (2005). Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283-299.

Lane, M. (2006). Critical issues in regional natural resource management. Canberra: Australian State of Environment Committee and Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Lane, M., McDonald, G., & Morrison, T. (2004). Decentralisation and Environmental Management in Australia: A comment on the Presciptions of The Wentworth Group. Australian Geographical Studies, 42(1), 103-115.

Lane, M., & Robinson, C. (2009). Institutional complexity and environmental management: the challenge of integration and the promise of large-scale collaboration. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 16, 16-24.

Lane, M., Robinson, C., & Taylor, B. (2009). Contested Country: Local and Regional

Natural Resource Management in Australia. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.

Larsen, L., & Pannell, S. (2006). Developing the Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan. Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQNRM.

Lawrence, G. (2005). Promoting sustainable development: the question of governance. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 11, 147-176.

Lemos, M., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 31, 297-325.

Leys, A., & Vanclay, J. (2011). Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy, 28, 574-584.

LGAT. (2014). NRM funding, 23/10/14, from http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=464

Lin, N. (1999). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of 'Muddling Through'. Public Administration Review, 19, 79-88.

http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=464

245

Lobry-de-Bruyn, L. (2012). The value of a boundary organization in mediating knowledge on sustainable farming systems. Paper presented at the 16th Australian Agronomy Conference, University of New England, Armidale.

Lockie, S., & Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 1-11.

Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestial protected areas: A

framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 754-766.

Lockwood, M., & Davidson, J. (2010). Environmental governance and the hybrid

regime of Australian natural resource management. Geoforum, 41, 388-398.

Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2010).

Governance Principles for Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 23, 986-1001.

Lord, A. (2014). Towards a non-theoretical understanding of planning. Planning

Theory, 13(1), 26-43.

Luhmann, N. (1982). The World Society as a Social System. International Journal of General Systems, 8(3), 131-138.

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social System. Stanford Stanford University Press.

Mackinson, S. (2001). Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge: An Example in Fisheries Science. Environmental Management, 27(4), 533-545.

Maclean, A., & Chappell, M. (2013). Managing the Outstanding Universal Value of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: The Manager's Perspective (pp. 76-81). Cairns: WTMA.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mannheim, K. (1929). Ideology and utopia. New York: Harcourt.

Mapstone, B., Davies, C., Little, L., Punt, A., Smith, A., Pantus, F., . . . Mcdonald, A. (2004). The Effects of Line Fishing on the Great Barrier Reef and Evaluations of Alternative Potential Management Strategies. Townsville: CRC Reef Research Centre.

Margerum, R. (1995). Integrated Watershed Management: Comparing Selected Experiences in the U.S and Australia. Water Resources Update, 100, 36-47.

Margerum, R., & Born, S. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from Theory to Practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(3), 371-388.

246

Marsh, D. (2008). Understanding British Government: Analysing Competing Models. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10(2), 251-268.

Martin, P., Tarr, S., & Lockie, S. (1992). Participatory environmental management in New South Wales: Policy and practice. In G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay & B. Furze (Eds.), Agriculture, environment and society: contemporary issues for Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Mathison, S. (2005). Encyclopedia of Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Mayntz, R. (2003). New Challenges to Governance Theory. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and politcal communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mazziotti, D. (1982). The underlying assumptions of advocacy planning: pluralism and reform. In C. Paris (Ed.), Critical readings in planning theory (Vol. 207-227). Oxford: Pergamon.

McBride, T. (2008). Environmenal Planning and Assessment Act 1979 News Flash. Sydney: Crisp Legal.

McCord, E. (1980). Structural-functionalism and the Network Idea: Towards an Integrated Methodology. Social Networks, 2, 371-383.

McDavid, J., & Hawthorn, L. (2006). Program Evaluation & Performance Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

McDonald, G. (1989). Rural resource land use planning decisions by bargaining. Journal of Rural Studies, 5, 325-355.

McDonald, G., & Weston, N. (2004). Sustaining the Wet Tropics: A Regional Plan for Natural Resource Management: Background Report (Vol. 1). Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQ NRM Ltd.

McGinnis, M. (2005). Costs and Challenges of Polycentric Governance. Paper presented at the Workshop on Analyzing Problems of Polycentric Governance in the Growing EU, Humboldt University, Berlin.

McGranahan, G., Balkn, D., & Anderson, B. (2007). The rising tide: assessing the

risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization 19(1), 17-37.

McGrath, C. (2011). Synopsis of the Queensland Environmental Legal System (5th ed.). Canberra: Environmental Law Publishing.

McKenna, H. (1994). The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 1221-1225.

247

McLoughlin, J. (1969). Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach. London: Faber and Faber.

Memmott, P., & McDougall, S. (2003). Holding Title and Managing Land in Cape York: Indigenous Land Management and Native Title. Perth: National Native Title Tribunal, Cape York Land Council and Aboriginal Environments Research Centre.

Merton, R. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe: Free Press.

Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research: Sage.

Mimura, N. (1999). Vulnerability of island countries in the South Pacific to sea level rise and climate change. Climate Research, 12(August), 137-143.

Mitchell, B., & Hollick, M. (1993). Integrated Catchment Management in Western Australia: Transition from Concept to Implementation. Environmental Management, 17(6), 735-743.

Mitchell, M., Griffith, R., Ryan, P., Walkerden, G., Walker, B., Brown, V., & Robinson, S. (2014). Applying Resilience Thinking to Natural Resource Management through a "Planning-By-Doing" Framework. Society and Natural Resources, 27(3), 299-314.

Moore, S., & Rockloff, S. (2006). Organizing Regionally for Natural Resource Management in Australia: Reflections on Agency and Government. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(3), 259-277.

Morrison, T. (2007). Multiscalar Governance and Regional Environmental Management in Australia. Space and Polity, 11(3), 227-241.

Morrison, T. (2009). Lessons from the Australian experiment 2002-08: the road

ahead for regional governance. In M. Lane, C. Robinson & B. Taylor (Eds.), Contested Country: Local and Regional Natural Resources Management in Australia. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.

Morrison, T., & Lane, M. (2006). The convergence of regional governance discourses in rural Australia: Enduring challenges and constructive suggestions. Rural Society, 16(3), 341-357.

Morrison, T., McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Peterson, A., & Schmidt, P. (2010). Back to the Future? Planning for environmental outcomes and the new Caring for our Country program. Australian Geographer, 41(4), 521-538.

Morton, S., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lindenmayer, D., Olson, M., Hughes, L.,

McCulloch, M., . . . Woinarski, J. (2009). The big ecological questions inhibiting effective environmental management in Australia. Austral Ecology, 34, 1-9.

248

Mucke, P., Welle, T., Birkmann, J., Rhyner, J., Witting, M., Wolfertz, J., . . . Radtke, K. (2012). World Risk Report 2012: Focus: Environmental degradation and disasters. Germany: United Nations University, and the Nature Conservancy.

Muller, J. (1992). From survey to strategy: twentieth century developments in western planning method. Planning Perspectives, 7, 125-155.

Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of

social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325-344.

Murphy, M., Black, N., Lamping, D., Mckee, C., Sanderson, C., & Askham, J. (1998). Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment, 2(3).

Nanda, V. (2006). The "Good Governance" Concept Revisited. The ANNALS of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603, 269-283.

National Water Commission. (2011). National Water Planning Report Card 2011. Canberra: National Water Commission.

Neuman, M. (2012). The Image of the Institution: A Cognitive Theory of Institutional Change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 139-156.

Neuman, W. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

NHT. (2000). Mid-term Review of the Natural Heritage Trust: The Response. Canberra: Environment Australia.

NHT. (2005). Cape York Natural Resource Management Plan: Final Draft. Cooktown: Cape York Peninsula Landcare.

Nilsson, J., Sutton, S., & Tobin, R. (2010). A Community Survey of Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef. Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, James Cook University.

O'Reilly, K. (2009). Key Concepts in Ethnography. London: Sage Publications

O'Rourke, T., & Memmott, P. (2005). Sustaining Indigenous Cultural Tourism: Aboriginal Pathways, Cultural Centres and Dwellings in the Queensland Wet Tropics. Brisbane: Sustainable Tourism CRC.

OECD. (1995). Participatory Development and Good Governance. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2004). Principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD.

OESR. (2012a). Population and Dwelling Profile: Cairns Regional Council, 5/9/12, from http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/profiles/pop-housing-profiles-lga/pop-housing-profile-cairns.pdf

http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/profiles/pop-housing-profiles-lga/pop-housing-profile-cairns.pdf


249

OESR. (2012b). Queensland Regional Profiles: Cape York Region. Brisbane: Office of Economic and Statistical Resarch.

OESR. (2012c). Queensland Regional Profiles: Wet Tropics Region. Brisbane: Office of Economic and Statistical Research.

Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2001). Local Ecological Knowledge and Institutional Dynamics for Ecosystem Management: A Study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4, 85-104.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75-90.

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The

Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolutions of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1995). Designing complexity to govern complexity. In S. Hanna & Munasinghe (Eds.), Property Rights and the Environment. Washington DC: Beijer International and World Bank.

Ostrom, E. (2000). Reformulating the Commons. Swiss Political Science Review, 6(1), 29-52.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2008). Polycentric systems as one approach for solving collective-action problems: Social Science Research Network.

Ostrom, E. (2009a). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325, 419-422.

Ostrom, E. (2009b). Understanding Institutional Diversity: Princeton Press.

Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory, 49, 353-369.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C., Norgaard, R., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284, 278-282.

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C., & Warren, R. (1961). The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831-842.

Owen, J. (2006). Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches (3rd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

250

Paavola, J. (2007). Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecological Economics, 63, 93-103.

Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., & Kluvankova-Oravska. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 148-158.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Towards sustainability in the water sector: the importance of human actors and processes of social learning. Aquatic Sciences, 64, 394-411.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354-365.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007).

Social learning and water resource management. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Pahl-Wostl, C., & Hare, M. (2004). Processes of Social Learning in Integrated

Resources Management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 193-206.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., & Knieper, C. (2010). Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 571-581.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science and Policy, 23, 24-34.

Palomo, I., Martin-Lopez, B., Lopez-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2011). Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Donana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 1-23.

Parkins, J., & Mitchell, R. (2007). Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 529-540.

Parsons, T. (1939). The professions and social structure. Social Forces, 17, 457-468.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. London: Routledege.

Paton, S., Curtis, A., McDonald, G., & Woods, M. (2004). Regional natural resource management: is it sustainable. Journal of Environmental Management, 9, 205-217.

Patton, M. (1982). Practical Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

251

Pearson, N. (2005). The Cape York Agenda Viewpoint. Canberra: Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership.

Pert, P. (2013). Participatory development of a new interactive tool for capturing social and ecological dynamism in conservation prioritization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 114, 80-91.

Pert, P., Bruce, C., Butler, J., Metcalfe, D., Webster, T., & Goosem, S. (2010a). A Prototype Report Card for the Status and Trends of Biodiversity, Soils,and Landscapes in the Wet Tropics. Cairns: DEWHA, RRRC, Terrain NRM, CSIRO, WTMA.

Pert, P., Hill, R., Williams, K., Harding, E., O'Malley, T., Grace, R., . . . Butler, J. (2010b). Scenarios for Community-based Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation: a case study from the Wet Tropics, Queensland, Australia. Australian Geographer, 42(3), 285-306.

Phillpot, R. (2005). The 'Gammon Economy' of Cape York: Lessons for National Building in Pacific Island Communities. Paper presented at the Oceania Development Network Pacific Conference on Growth and Development, University of Papua New Guinea.

Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). Charting the New Territory of Adaptive Co-

management: A Delphi Study. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23, 707-725.

Purcell, M. (2013). A new land: Deleuze and Guattari and planning. Planning

Theory and Practice, 14(1), 20-38. QAS. (2000). Enhancing the Capacity of Cape York Communities to Prevent and

Respond to Health Care Emergencies and Injuries: Queensland Abulance Service: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Coordination Unit.

Queensland Government. (2013). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013. Brisbane: Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

Queensland Government. (2014). About Reef Plan, 21/2/14, from http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about.aspx

Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1935). On the Concept of Function in Social Science. American Anthropologist, 37(3), 394-402.

Rammel, C., Stagl, S., & Wilfing, H. (2007). Managing complex adaptive systems - A co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource management. Ecological Economics, 63, 9-21.

Rapport, D., Constanza, R., & McMichael, A. (1998). Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13(10), 397-402.

http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about.aspx

252

Raymond, C., Fazey, I., Reed, M., Stringer, L., Robinson, G., & Evely, A. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1766-1777.

RCRC. (2005). Caring for Country and Culture: The Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan. Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQ NRM.

RCRC. (2006). Wet Tropics NRM Series, 20/9/13, from http://www.rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au/nrmplans.htm

RCRC, & FNQNRM. (2005). Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan: Caring for Country and Culture Cairns: Rainforest CRC, FNQ NRM.

RDAFNQTS. (2012). Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland and Torres Strait: About RDA, 4/7/12, from http://rdafnqts.org.au/index.php/about

Reddel, T., & Woolcock, G. (2004). From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 75-87.

Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A

literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417-2431. Reed, M., Evely, A., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., . . . Stringer, L. (2010).

What is Social Learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), online.

Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., . . . Stringer, L. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933-1949.

Rhodes, R. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652-667.

Rhodes, R. (2007). Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization

Studies, 28(8), 1243-1264.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

Robins, L., & Dovers, S. (2007a). Community-based NRM boards of management:

are they up to the task? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14, 111-122.

Robins, L., & Dovers, S. (2007b). NRM Regions in Australia: the 'Haves' and the

'Have Nots'. Geographical Research, 45(3), 273-290.

http://www.rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au/nrmplans.htm


http://rdafnqts.org.au/index.php/about

253

Robins, L., & Kanowski, P. (2011). 'Crying for our Country': eight ways in which 'Caring for our Country' has undermined Australia's regional model for natural resource management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 18(2), 88-108.

Robinson, C., Eberhard, R., Wallington, T., & Lane, M. (2010). Using knowledge to

make collaborative policy-level decisions in Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Brisbane: CSIRO, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship.

Ronneberg, E. (2008). Pacific Climate Change Fact Sheet. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

Rosenau, J., & Czempiel, E.-O. (1992). Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RRRC. (2011). Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program, 27/9/12, from http://www.rrrc.org.au/about/contact.html

Rydin, Y. (2012). Using Actor Network Theory to understand planning practice: Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development. Planning Theory, 12(1), 23-45.

Sager, T. (1994). Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Schusler, T., Decker, D., & Pfeffer, M. (2003). Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 309-323.

Sewell, W. (1992). A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.

American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. SEWPaC. (2008a). Cape York Peninsula bioregion. Canberra: Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC).

SEWPaC. (2008b). Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions, 4/9/12, from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nrm-regions-map.html

SEWPaC. (2009). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, 27/9/12, from http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/pollution/reef/

SEWPaC. (2010). EPBC Act: Frequently Asked Questions Fact Sheet. Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/epbc-act-fact-sheet.pdf.

SEWPaC. (2011a). Australia: State of the Environment 2011. Canberra: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities.

http://www.rrrc.org.au/about/contact.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nrm-regions-map.html


http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/pollution/reef/

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/epbc-act-fact-sheet.pdf


254

SEWPaC. (2011b). Ecologically sustainable development, 4/2/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/about/esd/index.html

SEWPaC. (2011c). State of the Environment (SoE) reporting Retrieved 28/3/12, from http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/index.html

SEWPaC. (2012a). About State of the Environment (SOE) reporting, 22/4/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/about.html

SEWPaC. (2012b). Bilateral Agreements, 5/2/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/bilateral/index.html

SEWPaC. (2012c). Principles for the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund (The Principles), 18/9/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/publications/pubs/regional-fund-principles.pdf

SEWPaC. (2013). Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund (Stream 1), 18/9/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/about.html

Skok, J. (1995). Policy Issue Networks and the Public Policy Cycle: A Structural-Functional Framework for Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 55(4).

Smith, B. (2003a). A complex balance: Mediating sustainable development in Cape York Peninsula. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 4(2), 99-115.

Smith, B. (2003b). Whither 'certainty'? Coexistence, change and land rights in

northern Queensland. Anthropological Forum, 13(1), 27-48. Smith, B. (2005). 'We got our own management': local knowledge, government

and development in Cape York Peninsula. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 4-15.

Smith, S., & Hamon, R. (2012). Exploring Family Theories (3rd ed.): Oxford

University Press.

Smyth, D. (2004). Case Study No. 4 - Developing an Aboriginal Plan for the Wet Tropics NRM Region in North Queensland. In D. Smyth, S. Szabo & M. George (Eds.), Case Studies in Indigenous Engagement in Natural Resource Management in Australia. Canberra: Smyth and Bahrt Consultants.

SNRMO. (2014). State NRM Program grants, 23/10/14, from http://www.nrm.wa.gov.au/grants/state-nrm-program.aspx

Sobaih, A., Ritchie, C., & Jones, E. (2011). Consulting the oracle? Applications of

modified Delphi technique to qualitative research in the hospitality

http://www.environment.gov.au/about/esd/index.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/index.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/about.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/bilateral/index.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/publications/pubs/regional-fund-principles.pdf


http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/about.html


http://www.nrm.wa.gov.au/grants/state-nrm-program.aspx

255

industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(6), 886-906.

Spence, I. (2010). The EPBC Act: toward extinction or evolution? The Australian Pipeliner, April, 76-77.

Spencer, H. (1899). The Principles of Sociology. New York: Appleton and Company.

SSCRRAT. (2010). Inquiry into Natural Resource Management and Conservation Challenges. Canberra: Parliament of Australia Senate.

Stapledon, G. (1995). Institutional Shareholders and Corporate Governance. Otago Law Review, 9(1), 177-179.

Stoker, G. (2002). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17-28.

Strenger, C. (2004). The Corporate Governance Scorecard: a tool for the implementation of corporate governance. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Corporate Governance, Birmingham.

Syme, S., Butterworth, J., & Nancarrow, B. (1999). National Whole Catchment

Management: A Review and Analysis of Processes. In J. Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7: Institutional Arrangements for ICM in Queensland (Vol. 2). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

TAI. (1996). Measuring Community Capacity Building: A Workbook-in-Progres for Rural Communities. Washington DC: The Aspen Institute: Rural Economic Policy Program.

Tamazian, A., Chousa, J., & Vadlamannati, K. (2009). Does higher economic and financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246-253.

Taylor, B. (2012). Regionalism as resistance: Governance and identity in Western

Australia's Wheatbelt. Geoforum, 43(3), 507-517.

Tennent, R., & Lockie, S. (2012). Vale Landcare: the rise and decline of community-based natural resource management in rural Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(4), 572-587.

Terrain NRM. (2005). The Wet Tropics Natural Resources Region. Innisfail: Terrain Natural Resource Management.

Thomas, M. (2010). What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure? European Journal of Development Research, 22(1), 31-54.

TQ. (2012). Tropical North Queensland Regional Snapshot, 5/9/12, from http://www.tq.com.au/fms/tq_corporate/research/destinationsresearch/tropical_north_qld/12 March Regional Snapshot TNQ.PDF

http://www.tq.com.au/fms/tq_corporate/research/destinationsresearch/tropical_north_qld/12%20March%20Regional%20Snapshot%20TNQ.PDF


256

TSCRC. (2010). Northern Australian Fire Information 9/4/13, from http://www.firenorth.org.au/nafi2/about/about.htm

UN. (1972). Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Stockhholm: United Nations Environment Programme.

UN. (1992a). Agenda 21. Paper presented at the Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro.

UN. (1992b). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Paper presented at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro.

UNDP. (1997). Good governance for sustainable human development Retrieved 14/3/12, from http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htm

UNESCAP. (2012). What is Good Governance? , 16/10/12, from http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

UNESCO. (2013). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization: World Heritage Committee.

Urry, J. (2000). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.

Valdes, G., Solar, M., Astudillo, H., Iribarren, M., Concha, G., & Visconti, M. (2011). Conception, development and implementation of an e-Government maturity model in public agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 176-187.

Van Assche, K., & Verschraegen, G. (2008). The Limits of Planning: Niklas Luhmann's Systems Theory and the Analysis of Planning and Planning Ambitions. Planning Theory, 7(3), 263-283.

Veal, A. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.). Essex, England: FT Prentice Hall.

Vella, K., Dale, A., Cottrell, A., Pert, P., Stevenson, B., Boon, H., . . . Gooch, M. (2011). Towards more effective adaptive planning: Measuring and reporting social resilience in vulnerable coastal communities facing climate change in tropical Queensland. Paper presented at the 3rd World Planning Schools Congress, Perth.

Vella, K., Sipe, N., Dale, A., & Taylor, B. (2013). Linking Emissions Trading to Natural Resource Management (NRM): Are NRM Plans in Queensland, Australia up to the Challenge? Land Use Policy, X(x), X-X.

Vella, K., Sipe, N., Dale, A., & Taylor, B. (forthcoming). Not Learning Form the

Past: NRM Governance and the Role of Second Generation Plans. X(x), x-x.

http://www.firenorth.org.au/nafi2/about/about.htm

http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htm

http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp


257

Venn, T., & Quiggin, J. (2007). Accomodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics, 61, 334-344.

Vogel, N. (2008). Performance Excellence Guide for Regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) Organisations (2nd ed.). Toowoomba.

Vogel, N. (2011). Analysis of Performance Excellence Evaluations of Regional Natural Resource Management Organisations. Canberra: Australian Knowledge Management Group P/L.

Vogel, N. (2013). Performance Excellence Reviews of Regional NRM Organisations: Analysis of Findings 2011-2013: AKM Group.

Walker, D., & Bellamy, J. (1999). Information Needs for Integrated Catchment Management: A Case Stdy of the Herbert River ICM Process. In J. Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7: Synthesis of Findings (Vol. 1). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world economy: essays by Immanuel Wallerstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallington, T., & Lawrence, G. (2008). Making democracy matter: Responsibility and effective environmental governance in regional Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 277-290.

Wallington, T., Lawrence, G., & Loechel, B. (2008). Reflections on the Legitimacy

of Regional Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australia's Experiment in Natural Resource Management. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 10(1), 1-30.

Walter Turnbull. (2005). Evaluation of Current Governance Arrangements to Support Regional Investment under the NHT and NAP. Canberra: Australian Government.

Wensing, E. (2008). Caring for our Country: The new national NRM program. Australian Planner, 45(2), 22-23.

Whelan, J., & Oliver, P. (2005). Regional Community-based Planning: The

Challenge of Participatory Environmental Governance. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 12(3), 126-135.

Whittemore, A. (2014). Practitioners Theorize, Too: Reaffirming Planning Theory

in a Survey of Practitioners' Theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, online.

WikProjects. (2010). Developing long-term sustainable indigenous governacne on the Cape. Cairns: Wik Projects Ltd.

Wilkinson, C. (2011). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning Theory, 11(2), 148-169.

258

Willems, S., & Baumert, K. (2003). Institutional Capacity and Climate Actions. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Global and Structural Policies Division.

Williamson, O. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.

Winer, M., Murphy, H., & Ludwick, H. (2012). Ecological Conflicts in the Cape York

Peninsula: The Complex Nature of the Black-Green Divide. Paper presented at the ISEE Conference 2012: Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Wood, C. (1992). Strategic environmental assessment in Australia and New

Zealand. Project Appraisal, 7(3), 143-149. Woodhill, A. (2004). Dialogue and transboundary water resources management:

towards a framework for facilitating social learning. In S. Langaas & J. Timmerman (Eds.), The role and use of information in European transboundary river basin management. London: IWA Publishing.

WTAPPT. (2005). Caring for Country and Culture: The Wet Tropics Aboriginal Culture and Natural Resource Management Plan. Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQNRM.

WTMA. (2010a). Management Partnerships, 2/10/12, from http://www.wettropics.gov.au/management-partners

WTMA. (2010b). Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: History of Listing, 19/9/12, from http://www.wettropics.gov.au/history-of-listing

WTMA. (2011). Annual Report and State of the Wet Tropics Report 2010-2011. Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA).

WTMA. (2012). Wet Tropics: Underlying Pressures, 10/9/12, from http://www.wettropics.gov.au/development-pressures

Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

Young, O. (1997). Rights, Rules, and Resources in World Affairs. In O. Young (Ed.), Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Yousuf, M. (2007). Using Experts' Opinions Through Delphi Technique. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(4).

Zafrin, S., & Rosier, J. (2011). Queensland's Coastal Management: Indicators to

Measure Coastal Governance Outcomes. Paper presented at the Queensland Coastal Conference, Cairns.

http://www.wettropics.gov.au/management-partners

http://www.wettropics.gov.au/history-of-listing

http://www.wettropics.gov.au/development-pressures

259

Zattoni, A., & Cuomo, F. (2008). Why Adopt Codes of Good Governance? A Comparison of Institutional and Efficiency Perspectives. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(1), 1-15.

ABARES. (2011). Australian climate and agriculture monthly update. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.

Abbott, A. (1997). Of Time and Space: The Contemporary Relevance of the

Chicago School. Social Forces, 75(4), 1149-1182. Abrahams, H. (2005). Devolution Enhances Integration. Australasian Journal of

Environmental Management, 12, 57-61. ABS. (2010). Land Management Practices in the Great Barrier Reef Catchments:

Wet Tropics NRM region, 10/9/12, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/4619.0.55.001Main+Features52008-09

Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi Method and its

Application to Social Policy and Public Health. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Agforce. (2013). Reef Rescue: Grazing and Grains Reef Rescue Partners, 8/10/13,

from http://www.agforceqld.org.au/index.php?tgtPage=industry&page_id=270

Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. (1999). Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of

Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629-649.

Aguilera, R., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). Codes of Good Governance Worldwide: What is the Trigger? Organization Studies, 25(3), 415-443.

Alexander, E. (1998). Neofunctionalism and after. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Alexander, E. (2000). Rationality Revisited: Planning Paradigms in a Post-

Postmodernist Perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 242-256.

Alexander, J., & Colomy, P. (1990). Neofunctionalism: Reconstructing a theoretical tradition. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Frontiers of social theory: The new syntheses (pp. 33-67). New York: Columbia University Press.

Allan, C., & Curtis, A. (2003). Regional Scale Adaptive Management: Lessons from

the North East Salinity Strategy (NESS). Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 10, 76-84.

Allen, P. (1997). Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems: Models of Complexity. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Science.





260

Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory.

Planning Theory, 1(1), 77-99. Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2002). Planning Futures: New Directions

for Planning Theory. London: Routledge.

Almond, G., & Coleman, J. (1960). The Politics of Developing Areas: Princeton

University Press.

Almond, G., & Powell, G. B. (1966). Comparative Politics: A Developmental

Approach. Boston: Little Brown and Company.

Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2007). The Australian Policy Handbook (4th

ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Altschuler, A. (1965). The Goals of Comprehensive Planning. Journal of the

American Institute of Planners, 31(3), 186-195. ANAO. (1997). Commonwealth Natural Resource Management and Environment

Programs Audit Report 36. Canberra: The Australian National Audit Office.

ANAO. (2008). Regional Delivery Model for the National Heritage Trust and the

National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Audit Report 21. Canberra: The Australian National Audit Office.

Andersson, K., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes

from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences, 41, 71-93. Armitage, D. (2005). Adaptive Capacity and Community-based Natural Resource

Management. Environmental Management, 35(6), 703-715. Arnoldi, J. (2001). Niklas Luhmann: An Introduction. Theory, Culture & Society,

18(1), 1-13. Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of

Planners Journal, 35(4), 216-224. Asafu-Adjaye, J. (1996). Traditional production activities and resource

sustainability: The case of indigenous societies in Cape York Peninsula, Australia. International Journal of Social Economics, 23(4/5/6), 125-135.

Asian Development Bank. (2013). 3 in 4 Asia-Pacific Nations Facing Water Security Threat - Study, 7/3/14

Australian Government. (2014). National Landcare Programme: Natural resource management, 2/9/14, from http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/nrm/

http://www.nrm.gov.au/about/nrm/

261

Balkanu. (2010a). Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation: Cape York Agenda, 6/7/12, from http://www.balkanu.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=16

Balkanu. (2010b). Carbon Fire Abatement Project: Cape York Peninsula. Cairns:

Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation.

Balkanu. (2013). Balkanu: About Us Retrieved 9/9/13, from


Banfield, E. (1955). Note on conceptual scheme. In M. Meyerson & E. Banfield

(Eds.), Politics, Planning and the Public Interest. New York: Free Press.

Barrett, P. (2003). Better practice public sector governance. Canberra: ANAO.

Barrett, R. (2012, 1/8/12). LNP promises to develop Cape York as wild rivers

laws buried, The Australian. Barton, J., Emery, M., Flood, R., Selsky, J., & Wolstenholme, E. (2004). A Maturing

of Systems Thinking? Evidence from Three Perspectives. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(1), 3-12.

Baum, H. (1977). Toward a Post-Industrial Planning Theory. Policy Sciences, 8, 401-421.

Baum, H. (1996). Why the Rational Paradigm Persists: Tales from the Field. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15, 127-135.

Bellamy, J., & Johnson, A. (2000). Integrated Resource Management: Moving from Rhetoric to Practice in Australian Agriculture. Environmental Management, 25(3), 265-280.

Bellamy, J., McDonald, G., Syme, G., & Butterworth, J. (1999a). Evaluating Integrated Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 337-353.

Bellamy, J., McDonald, G., Syme, G., & Walker, D. (1999b). Evaluating Natural Resource Management Policy Initiatives. In J. Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7: Synthesis of Findings (Vol. 1). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

Bellamy, J., Ross, H., Ewing, S., & Meppem, T. (2002). Integrated Catchment

Management: Learning from the Australian Experience for the Murray-Darling Basin. Canberra: CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.





262

Bellamy, J., Smith, T., Taylor, B., & Walker, M. (2005). Regional natural resource management planning arrangements: Evaluating through the regional lense. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Bellamy, J., Walker, B., McDonald, G., & Syme, G. (1999c). Tracking Progress in

Natural Resource Management: A systems approach to evaluation. In J. Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7 (Vol. 1). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

Bellamy, J., Walker, D., McDonald, G., & Syme, G. (2001). A systems approach to

the evaluation of natural resource management initiatives. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 407-423.

Bengsen, A., Leung, L., Lapidge, S., & Gordon, I. (2011). Target-specificity of feral pig baits under different conditions in a tropical rainforest. Wildlife Research, 38(5), 370-379.

Bevir, M., Rhodes, R., & Weller, P. (2003). Traditions of Governance: Interpreting the Changing Role of the Public Sector. Public Administration, 81(1), 1-17.

Blaikie, P. (2006). Is Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development, 34(11), 1942-1957.

Bodin, O., & Crona, B. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19, 366-374.

Bodin, O., Crona, B., & Ernstson, H. (2006). Social Networks in Natural Resource Management: What Is There to Learn from a Structural Perspective? Ecology and Society, 11(2).

Bohnet, I., & Smith, D. (2007). Planning future landscapes in the Wet Tropics of Australia: A social-ecological framework. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80(1-2), 137-152.

Bolton, R. (2005). Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action and the Theory of Social Capital. Paper presented at the Association of American Geographers, Denver, Colorado.

Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., & Potts, S. (2013). Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(4), 230-238.

Booher, D., & Innes, J. (2002). Network Power in Collaborative Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 221-236.

Borrini-Feyerband, G. (1996). Collaborative management of protected areas: Tailoring the approach to the context. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Bouwen, R., & Taillieu, T. (2004). Multi-party Collaboration as Social Learning for

Interdependence: Developing Relational Knowing for Sustainable Natural Resource Management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 137-153.

263

Braithwaite, J., Coglianese, C., & Levi-Faur, D. (2007). Can regulation and governance make a difference? Regulation and Governance, 1, 1-7.

Broderick, K. (2005). Communities in Catchments: Implications for Natural Resource Management. Geographical Research, 43(3), 286-296.

Brodie, J., Kroon, F., Schaffelke, B., Wolanski, E., Lewis, S., Devlin, M., . . . Davis, A. (2012). Terrestrial pollutant runoff to the Great Barrier Reef: An update of issues, priorities and management responses. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Online.

Brosius, J., Lowenhaupt-Tsing, A., & Zerner, C. (1998). Representing Communities: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 11, 157-168.

Brown, A. (2007). Federalism, Regionalism and the Reshaping of Australian Governance. In A. Brown & J. Bellamy (Eds.), Federalism and Regionalism in Australia: New Approaches, New Institutions? (pp. 11-32). Canberra: Australian National University E Press.

Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Henriksen, H., & van der Keur, P. (2011). More is not

always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 78-84.

Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development.

Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Buchanan, J., & Tollison, R. (1984). The Theory of Public Choice - II. Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press.

Buchy, M., & Race, D. (2001). The Twists and Turns of Community Participation

in Natural Resource Management in Australia: What is Missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), 293-308.

Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24, 875-902.

Bulmer, S. (1994). The Governance of the European Union: A New Institutionalist Approach. Journal of Public Policy, 13(4), 351-380.

Burns, D. (2006). Evaluation in Complex Governance Arenas: The Potential of Large System Action Research. In B. Williams & I. Imam (Eds.), Systems Concepts in Evaluation: An Expert Anthology (pp. 181-196). Point Reyes, CA.: Edge Press.

264

Byrne, D. (1997). ‘Chaotic Places or Complex Places – Cities in a Post Industrial Era’,. In S. Westwood & J. Williams (Eds.), Imagining Cities (pp. 50-70). London: Routledge.

Byrne, D. (1998). Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences - An Introduction.

London: Routledge.

Byrne, D. (2003). Complexity Theory and Planning Theory: A Necessary

Encounter. Planning Theory, 2(3), 171-178. Campbell, A. (1996). Regionalism, regionalisation and natural resource

management CRES Working Paper. Canberra: Australian National University.

Campbell, H. (2012). Planning to Change the World: Between Knowledge and

Action Lies Synthesis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 135-146.

Campbell, R., Mapstone, B., & Smith, A. (2001). Evaluating Large-scale Experimental Designs for Management of Coral Trout on the Great Barrier Reef. Ecological Applications, 11(6), 1763-1777.

Campbell, T. (2006). Devolved Natural Resource Management as a Means of Empowering the Poor: Rhetoric or Reality? Trocaire Development Review, 1, 117-133.

Carmody, J. (2011). Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area: Tour Guide Handbook: Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF).

Carney, M. (Writer) & M. Colvin (Director). (2012). Environmentalists and

miners debate future of Cape York, PM. Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Carroll, C., Waters, D., Vardy, S., Silburn, D., Attard, S., Thorburn, P., . . . Clark, A.

(2012). A paddock to reef monitoring and modelling framework for the Great Barrier Reef: Paddock and catchment component. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 136-149.

Cash, D., Adger, N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., . . . Young, O. (2006). Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society, 11(2).

Cash, D., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N., Eckley, N., Guston, D., . . . Mitchell, R. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14).

Cash, D., & Moser, S. (2000). Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change, 10, 109-120.

Cavaye, J. (2005). Development of capacity assessment methodology for NRM regional arrangements - literature review. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

265

Chen, D., Doumeingts, G., & Vernadat, F. (2008). Architecture for enterprise

integration and interoperability: Past, present and future. Computers in Industry, 59(7), 647-659.

Chenoweth, E., & Clarke, S. (2010). All terrorism is Local: Resources, Nested Institutions, and Governane for Urban Homeland Security in the American Federal System. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 495-507.

Chester, G., & Driml, S. (2012). The Potential Economic Benefits of Protecting and Presenting Cape York. Cairns: EcoSustainAbility.

Chettiparamb, A. (2006). Metaphors in Complexity Theory and Planning.

Planning Theory, 5(1), 71-91. Chettiparamb, A. (2014). Complexity theory and planning: Examining 'fractals'

for organising policy domains in planning practice. Planning Theory, 13(1), 5-25.

Chilcott, J. (1998). Structural-functionalism as a Heuristic Device. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(1), 103-111.

Cilliers, P. (2000). Complexity and Post Modernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.

Clark, T. (1972). Structural-Functionalism, Exchange Theory, and the New

Political Economy: Institutionalization As a Theoretical Linkage. Sociological Inquiry, 42(3-4), 275-298.

Clayton, H., Dovers, S., & Harris, P. (2011). NRM Literature Review: Document II. Paper presented at the HC Coombs Policy Forum, Australian National University, Canberra.

Clement, F. (2009). Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a "politicised" institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sciences, 43, 129-156.

Colomy, P. (1986). Recent Developments in the Functionalist Approach to Change. Sociological Focus, 19, 139-158.

Conley, A., & Moote, M. (2003). Evaluating Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 371-386.

Connick, S., & Innes, J. (2003). Outcomes of Collaborative Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to Evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46(2), 177-197.

Cornwall, A. (1995). Towards participatory practice: PRA and the participatory process. In K. deKoning (Ed.), Participation and Health. London: Zed Books.

Costanza, R., & Greer, J. (1995). The Chesapeake Bay and Its Watershed: A Model

for Sustainable Ecosystem Management? In L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling & S. Light (Eds.), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions (pp. 169-213). New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

266

Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomas, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 14(4), 1-38.

Craib, I. (2011). Anthony Giddens. London: Routledge.

Crisp, J., Pelletier, D., Duffield, C., Adams, A., & Nagy, S. (1997). The Delphi

Method? Nursing Research, 46(2), 116-118. Cummings, B. (2010). The Cairns Economy: The Coming Bounce Back. Cairns:

Cummings Economics.

Cummings, B. (2012a). The Cairns Economy - Recent Trends and Prospects.

Cairns: Cummings Economics.

Cummings, B. (2012b). Value of Mining Activity in Far North Queensland Now up

to $1bn. Cairns: Cummings Economics.

Curtis, A., & Lockwood, M. (2000). Landcare and Catchment Management in

Australia: Lessons for State-Sponsored Community Participation. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 61-73.

Curtis, A., Robertson, A., & Race, D. (1998). Lessons from Recent Evaluations of Natural Resource Management Programs in Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, 5(2), 109-119.

Curtis, A., Ross, H., Marshall, G., Baldwin, C., Cavaye, J., Freeman, C., . . . Syme, G. (2014). The great experiment with devolved NRM governance: lessons from community engagement in Australia and New Zealand since the 1980s. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(2), 175-199.

CYI. (2007). From Hand Out to Hand Up: Cape York Reform Project - Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge Design Recommendations. Cairns: Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership.

CYI. (2013). Cape York Institute: About Us, from http://cyi.org.au/about-us

CYNRM. (2011). Caring for our Country - Beyond 2013: Response by Cape York

Natural Resource Management Ltd. (Regional Natural Resource Management Groups for Cape York): Cape York NRM.

CYNRM. (2013a). Cape York Natural Resource Management: About Us Retrieved

9/9/13, from http://www.capeyorknrm.com.au/about.html

CYNRM. (2013b). Projects and Case studies: Community Projects, 9/9/13, from


http://cyi.org.au/about-us

http://www.capeyorknrm.com.au/about.html


267

CYPLUS. (1995). Stage 1 Overview Reports - Thematic Report 1 of 3 Natural Resources and Ecology. In E. S. a. Services (Ed.), Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (CYPLUS). Brisbane: Department of the Premier, Economic and Trade Development, and Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.

CYSF. (2010). About Cape York Sustainable Futures, 29/10/12, from


CYSF. (2012). The Cape York Fire Management Project: Cape York Fire Program,

9/4/13, from http://www.cysf.com.au/programs/35-the-cape-york-fire-management-project.html

CYSF. (2013a). Cape York Fire and Biodiversity Program, 11/9/13, from


CYSF. (2013b). Cape York Sustainable Futures Projects, 9/913, from


CYSF. (2013c). Cape York Turtle Conservation Program Retrieved 11/9/13,

from http://www.cysf.com.au/cysf-projects/38-the-turtle-nest-predation-monitoring-project.html

DAFF, & SEWPaC. (2011a). Caring For Our Country: What is Natural Resource

Management Retrieved 16/3/12, from http://www.nrm.gov.au/nrm/index.html

DAFF, & SEWPaC. (2011b). Wet Tropics NRM region, 5/9/12, from


DAFF, & SEWPaC. (2013). Caring for our Country 2013-2018, 16/9/13, from


Dahl, A. (1989). Traditional environmental knowledge and resource

management in New Caledonia. In R. Johannes (Ed.), Traditional ecological knowledge: A collection of essays. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, World Conservation Union.

Daily, C., Dalton, D., & Canella, A. (2003). Corporate Governance: Decades of

Dialogue and Data. The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371-382.









http://www.nrm.gov.au/nrm/index.html



268

Dale, A. (2013). Governance Challenges for Northern Australia. Cairns: The Cairns Institute.

Dale, A., & Bellamy, J. (1998). Regional Resource Use Planning in Rangelands: an

Australian Review. Canberra: Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.

Dale, A., McKee, J., Vella, K., & Potts, R. (2013a). Carbon, biodiversity and regional

natural resource planning: towards high impact next generation plans. Australian Planner.

Dale, A., Vella, K., & Potts, R. (2013b). Governance Systems Analysis: A Framework for Reforming Governance Systems. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3(3), 162-187.

Dale, A., Vella, K., Pressey, R., Brodie, J., Yorkston, H., & Potts, R. (2013c). A method for risk analysis across governance systems: a Great Barrier Reef case study. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 1-16.

Dale, A., Vella, K., Ryan, S., Broderick, K., Hill, R., Potts, R., . . . Brewer, T. (forthcoming). National-scale governance of Australia's community based NRM domains: An opportunity for reform. Australian Geographer, X(X), x-x.

Dalton, L. (1986). Why the Rational Planning Paradigm Persists: The Resistance of Professional Education and Practice to Alternative Forms of Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 5, 147-153.

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 31(4), 331-338.

Davidson, J., Lockwood, M., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2006). Governance Principles for Regional Natural Resource Management Pathways to good practice in regional NRM governance: University of Tasmania.

Davoudi, S., Shaw, K., Haider, L., Quinlan, A., Peterson, G., Wilkinson, C., . . . Porter,

L. (2012). Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? “Reframing” Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does it Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(2), 299-333.

DCCEE. (2012). The Clean Energy Future Plan and the CFI, 5/4/13, from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-initiative/handbook/cef.aspx

Dean, M. (2003). Culture governance and individualisation. In H. Bang (Ed.),

Governance as social and politcal communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.



269

DEHP. (2011). State of the Environment Queensland 2011. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

DEHP. (2012). Cape York Peninsula Bioregional Management Plan: Scoping

Paper. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP).

Department of Agriculture. (2013). Reef Rescue: Overview, 3/3/14, from


Department of Environment and Resource Management. (2011). Queensland

Regional Resource Management Framework. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Resource Management.

DERM. (2011). Case Study: Bananas - Nurturing the soil and neighbouring

wetlands on a banana farm in the wet tropics. Brisbane: Department of Environment and Resource Management.

DEWHA. (2009). NRM MERI framework: Australian Government natural

resource management monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and improvement framework. Canberra: Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts.

DIA. (2012). Land Facts, 11/7/12, from http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Land/

Dietz, T., Rosa, E., & York, R. (2009). Environmentall Efficient Well-Being:

Rethinking Sustainability as the Relationship between Human Well-being and Environmental Impacts. Human Ecology Review, 16(1), 114-123.

DIICCSRTE. (2012a). NRM Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research, 5/9/13, from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/grants/nrm-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation-research

DIICCSRTE. (2012b). NRM Fund: Regional Natural Resource Management

Planning for Climate Change Fund, 5/9/13, from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/land-sector-measures/nrm-fund

DIICCSRTE. (2012c). Stream 2 - NRM Fund, 18/9/13, from



http://www.dia.wa.gov.au/en/Land/







270

Dingwerth, K., & Pattberg, P. (2003). Global Governance as a Perspective on World Politics. Global Governance, 12(2), 185-203.

DIP. (2009). Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031. Cairns: Department of Infrastructure and Planning.

DNRM. (2014). Queensland Regional Natural Resource Management Investment

Program 2013-2018, 23/10/14, from http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/land/accessing-using-land/natural-resource-management/nrm-investment-program

Dockery, A. (2010). Culture and Wellbeing: The Case of Indigenous Australians.

Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 315-332. Doornbos, M. (2003). "Good Governance": The Metamorphosis of a Policy

Metaphor. Journal of International Affairs, 57(1), 3-17. Dorcey, A. (1986). Bargaining in the governance of Pacific Coastal Resources:

Research and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dovers, S. (2001). Institutions for Sustainability: Centre for Resource and

Environmental Studies: Australian National University.

Dovers, S., Norton, T., & Handmer, J. (1996). Uncertainty, ecology, sustainability

and policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 1143-1167. DPI. (2010). Aboriginal Land: Native Title, 11/7/12, from


Dredge, D., Hales, R., & Jamal, T. (2013). Community Case Study Research:

Researcher Operacy, Embeddedness and Making Research Matter. Tourism Analysis, 18, 29-43.

DSDIP. (2012). Regional planning in Cape York. Brisbane: Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

DSDIP. (2013). Cape York Regional Plan: Draft for Consultation. Brisbane:

Department of State Development, Infrastructure, and Planning.

DSDIP. (2014a). RegionsQ Framework. Brisbane: Department of State

Development, Infrastructure, and Planning.

DSDIP. (2014b). State planning regulatory provisions, 20/5/14, from


Eckerberg, K., & Joas, M. (2004). Multi-level Environmental Governance: a

concept under stress? Local Environment, 9(5), 405-412.






271

Eisenstadt, S. (1990). Functional Analysis in Anthropology and Sociology: An interpretative Essay. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 243-260.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2011). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.

Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society: a theory of societal and politcal processes. New York: Free Press.

Even-Zohar, I. (1979). Polysystem Theory. Poetics Today, 1(1-2), 287-310. Ewing, S. (1999). Landcare and Community-led Watershed Management in

Victoria, Australia. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35(3).

Failing, L., Gregory, R., & Harstone, M. (2007). Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach. Ecological Economics, 64, 47-60.

Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1995). False Forest History, Complicity Social Analysis: Rethinking Some West African Environmental Narratives. World Development, 23(6), 1023-1035.

Faludi, A. (1973). A Reader in Planning Theory. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Farrelly, M. (2005). Regionalisation of Environmental Management: A Case Study

of the National Heritage Trust, South Australia. Geographical Research, 43(4), 393-405.

Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability: Science Practice and Policy.

Finer, S. (1971). Comparative Government. London: Penguin.

Fisher, J. (2010). Systems Theory and Structural Functionalism. In J. Ishiyama &

M. Breuning (Eds.), 21st Century Political Science: A Reference Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 71-80). Los Angeles: Sage.

FNQNRM. (2004). Sustaining the Wet Tropics: A Regional Plan for Natural

Resource Management 2004-2008. Innisfail: FNQ NRM Ltd and Rainforest CRC.

Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological

systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253-267. Fontes, N., & Guardalabene, N. (1976). Structural-functionalism: An Introduction

to the Literature. Human Communication Research, 2(3), 299-310. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory

Planning Processes Cambridge: MIT Press.

272

Forester, J. (2012). Learning to Improve Practice: Lessons from Practice Stories

and Practitioners' Own Discourse Analyses (or Why Only the Loons Show Up). Planning Theory and Practice, 13(1), 11-26.

Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5-22.

Foster, K., & Barnes, W. (2012). Reframing Regional Governance for Research and Practice. Urban Affairs Review, 48(2), 272-283.

Friedmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the political domain: from knowledge to action.

Cambridge: Blackwell.

Friedmann, J. (1996). Two Centuries of Planning Theory: An Overview. In S. J.

Mandelbaum, L. Mazza & R. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers Centre for Urban Policy Research

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is Governance. Governance, 26(3), 347-368. Gallopin, G. (2006). Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive

capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16, 293-303. GBRMPA. (1981). Nomination of the Great Barrier Reef by the Commonwealth of

Australia for the inclusion in the World Heritage List. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

GBRMPA. (1994). The Great Barrier Reef: Keeping it Great - A 25 year Strategic

Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

GBRMPA. (2011). About the Reef: How the Reef is managed, 27/9/12, from


Genskow, K., & Wood, D. (2011). Improving Voluntary Environmental

Management Programs: Facilitating Learning and Adaptation. Environmental Management, 47, 907-916.

Ghazoul, J., Butler, R., Mateo-Vega, J., & Koh, L. (2010). REDD: A reckoning of environmental and development implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(7), 396-402.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.


273

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration: University of California Press.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos - Making a New Science. London: Abacus.

Goldschmidt, W. (1966). Comparaitve Functionalism. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Gooch, M., & Warburton, J. (2009). Building and Managing Resilience in

Community-based NRM groups: An Australian Case Study. Society and Natural Resources, 22, 158-171.

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003a). Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century. Ottawa: Institute on Governance.

Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003b). Principles for Good Governance in

the 21st Century Policy Brief No. 15. Ottawa, Canada: Institute on Governance.

GRBMPA. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014. Townsville: Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Grech, A., Bos, M., Brodie, J., Coles, R., Dale, A., Gilbert, R., . . . Smith, A. (2013).

Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 75, 8-20.

Green, D., & Preston, B. (2010). Climate Change in Cape York. Cairns: CSIRO.

Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S. (2009). The

Dictionary of Human Geography. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gribbin, J. (2004). Deep Simplicity, Chaos, Complexity and the Emergence of Life.

London: Allen Lane.

Griffith, R., Davidson, J., & Lockwood, M. (2009). NRM Governance for change:

Revisiting 'good' governance through an adaptive lens. Canberra: Land and Water Australia.

Groth, A. (1970). Structural Functionalism and Political Development: Three

Problems. The Western Political Quarterly, 23(3), 485-499. Gruber, J. (2010). Key Principles of Community-Based Natural Resource

Management: A Synthesis and Interpretation of Identified Approaches for Managing the Commons. Environmental management, 45, 52-66.

274

Gunder, M. (2010). Making Planning Theory Matter: A Lacanian Encounter with Phronesis. International Planning Studies, 15(1), 37-51.

Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2009). Planning in Ten Words or Less: A Lacanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning. Padstow, Cornwall: TJ International Ltd.

Gunderson, L., Peterson, G., & Holling, C. S. (2008). Practicing Adaptive

Management in Complex Social-Ecological Systems. In J. Norberg & G. Cumming (Eds.), Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future (pp. 224-245). New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

Gunningham, N. (2009). The New Collaborative Environmental Governance: The

Localization of Regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), 145-166. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System

(Vol. 2). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hajjar, R., Kozak, R., & Innes, J. (2012). Is Decentralization Leading to 'Real'

Decision-Making Power for Forest-dependent Communities? Case Studies from Mexico and Brazil. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 1-12.

Hajkowicz, S. (2009). The evolution of Australia's natural resource management programs: Towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy, 26, 471-478.

Harper, D. (2011). Structural-Functionalism: Grand Theory or Methodology. Leicester: University of Leicester.

Harris, B. (1967). The Limits of Science and Humanism in Planning. Journal of the

American Institute of Planners, 33(5), 324-335. Harris, N. (2002). Collaborative Planning: From Theoretical Foundations to

Practice Forms. In P. Allmendinger & M. Twedwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning Futures: New Directions for Planning Theory (pp. 21-43). London: Routledge.

Harris, N. (2011). Discipline, Surveillance, Control: A Foucaultian Perspective on

the Enforcement of Planning Regulations. Planning Theory and Practice, 12(1), 57-76.

Hart, V., & Whatman, S. (1998). Decolonising the concept of knowledge. Paper presented at the HERDSA: Annual International Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.

Hasson, F., & Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695-1704.

Hay, I. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

275

Head, B. (2005). Participation or co-governance? Challenges for regional natural resource management. In J. Martin & R. Eversole (Eds.), Participation and Governance in Regional Development. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Head, B., & Ryan, N. (2004). Can Co-governance Work? Regional Natural

Resource Management in Queensland, Australia. Society and Economy, 26(2-3), 361-382.

Healey, P. (1992). A planner's day: knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of American Planning Association, 58(1), 9-20.

Healey, P. (1993). Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp. 233-252). London: Duke University Press.

Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in Perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2),

101-123. Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a relational

planning for our times. Oxon: Routledge.

Healey, P. (2009). The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 28, 277-292. Healey, P. (2013). Circuits of Knowledge and Techniques: The Transnational

Flow of Planning Ideas and Practices. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1510-1526.

Heleno, R., Garcia, C., Jordano, P., Traveset, A., Gomez, J., Bluthgen, N., . . . Olesen, J. (2014). Ecological networks: delving into the architecture of biodiversity. Biology Letters, 10(1).

Helm, P. (1971). Manifest and Latent Functions. The Philosophical Quarterly, 21(82), 51-60.

Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2006). Analysing policy processes as multiple governance: accountability in social policy. Policy and Politics, 34(3), 557-573.

Hill, R., Williams, K., Pert, P., Robinson, C., Dale, A., Westcott, D., . . . O'Malley, T. (2010). Adaptive community-based biodiversity conservation in Australia's tropical rainforests. Environmental Conservation, 37(1), 73-82.

Hillier, J. (1993). To boldly go where no planners have ever... Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11(1), 89-113.

Hillier, J. (2011). Strategic navigation across multiple planes: Towards a Deleuzean-inspired methodology for strategic spatial planning. Town Planning Review, 82(5), 503-527.

Hoggarth, L., & Comfort, H. (2010). A Practical Guide to Outcome Evaluation. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual

Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.

276

Holling, C. S. (1995). What Barriers? What Bridges? In L. Gunderson, C. S. Holling & S. Light (Eds.), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions (pp. 1-34). New York, New York: Columbia University Press.

Hollingsworth, J., & Lindberg, L. (1985). The governance of the American

economy: The role of markets, clans, hierarchies and associated behavior. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum.

Holmes, J. (2011a). Contesting the Future of Cape York Peninsula. Australian

Geographer, 42(1), 53-68. Holmes, J. (2011b). Land Tenures as Policy Instruments: Transitions on Cape

York Peninsula. Geographical Research, 49(2), 217-233. Holmes, J. (2012). Cape York Peninsula, Australia: A frontier region undergoing a

multifunctional transition with indigenous engagement. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 252-265.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems (2nd ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of

Consensus. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8. Hundloe, T. (2008). From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability. Docklands,

Victoria: JoJo Publishing.

Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or method? A

critical review of qualitative case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Wellbeing, 9, 1-12.

Ignjic, S. (2001). Cultural Tourism in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: A Strategic Overview for Rainforest Bama. Cairns: Rainforest CRC.

Imperial, M. (1999). Institutional Analysis and Ecosystem Management: The

Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Environmental Management, 24(4), 449-465.

Innes, J. (1995). Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive Practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(3), 183-190.

Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2003). Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Baltimore.

Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2004). Reframing Public Participation: Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419-436.

IUCN. (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development: IUCN.

Jacobs, B., Brown, P., Nelson, R., Leith, P., Tracey, J., McNamara, L., . . . Mitchell, S.

(2010). Assessing the capacity to manage natural resources in NSW State

277

of the catchments 2010 - Capacity to manage natural resources: Technical report series. Sydney: NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

Janssen, W., & Goldsworthy, P. (1996). Multidisciplinary Research for Natural

Resource Management: Conceptual and Practical Implications. Agricultural Systems, 51, 259-279.

Jarratt, J. (2008). Tourism Industry: Cairns Regional Council, 5/9/12, from http://janjarratt.com/hansard.php?id=29

Jarvie, I. (1964). The Revolution in Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan

Paul.

Jennings, S., & Moore, S. (2000). The Rhetoric behind Regionalization in

Australian Natural Resource Management: Myth, Reality and Moving Forward. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 2, 177-191.

Johannes, R. (1978). Words of the lagoon: Fishing and marine law in the Palau district of Micronesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Johnson, A., Shrubsole, D., & Merrin, M. (1996). Integrated Catchment

Management in northern Australia: From concept to implementation. Land Use Policy, 13(4), 303-316.

Johnson, A., & Walker, D. (2000). Science, Communication and Stakeholder Participation for Integrated Natural Resource Management. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 7, 82-90.

Joshi, D. (2013). Decentralisation of public service delivery in the Central Himalayas: The myth of community participation. Policy and Society, 32(1), 23-32.

Kalu, K. (2011). Institution-building not nation-building: a structural-functional model. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(1), 119-137.

Kellert, S., Mehta, J., Ebbin, S., & Lichtenfeld, L. (2000). Community Natural Resource Management: Promise, Rhetoric and Reality. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 705-715.

Kemp, R., & Parto, S. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice. Internatinal Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1), 12-30

Kenward, R., Whittingham, M., Arampatzis, S., Manos, B., Hahn, T., Terry, A., . . . Rutz, C. (2011). Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability and biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(13).

Kim, S., & Nancarrow, K. (2013). Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney has 'no interest' in World Heritage nomination for Cape York, 12/11/13, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-18/seeney-has-no-interest-in-world-heritage-nomination-cape-york/4965596

http://janjarratt.com/hansard.php?id=29



278

Klimenko, V., & Evans, R. (2009). Bauxite mining operations at Weipa, Cape York: a case study Northern Australia Land and Water Science Review Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce and CSIRO.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions.

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Koontz, T., & Thomas, C. (2006). What Do We Know and Need to Know about the

Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 111-121.

Kroon, F., Robinson, C., & Dale, A. (2009). Integrating knowledge to inform water planning in the Tully-Murray basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60, 1183-1188.

LandcareAustralia. (1991). Decade of Landcare Plan. Canberra: Landcare Australia.

Lane, M. (2001). Affirming New Directions in Planning Theory: Comanagement of

Protected Areas. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 657-671. Lane, M. (2005). Public Participation in Planning: an intellectual history.

Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283-299. Lane, M. (2006). Critical issues in regional natural resource management.

Canberra: Australian State of Environment Committee and Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Lane, M., McDonald, G., & Morrison, T. (2004). Decentralisation and

Environmental Management in Australia: A comment on the Presciptions of The Wentworth Group. Australian Geographical Studies, 42(1), 103-115.

Lane, M., & Robinson, C. (2009). Institutional complexity and environmental management: the challenge of integration and the promise of large-scale collaboration. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 16, 16-24.

Lane, M., Robinson, C., & Taylor, B. (2009). Contested Country: Local and Regional Natural Resource Management in Australia. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.

Larsen, L., & Pannell, S. (2006). Developing the Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural

and Natural Resource Management Plan. Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQNRM.

Lawrence, G. (2005). Promoting sustainable development: the question of

governance. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 11, 147-176.

Lemos, M., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 31, 297-325.

279

Leys, A., & Vanclay, J. (2011). Social learning: A knowledge and capacity building approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy, 28, 574-584.

LGAT. (2014). NRM funding, 23/10/14, from http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=464

Lin, N. (1999). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections, 22(1),

28-51. Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of 'Muddling Through'. Public Administration

Review, 19, 79-88. Lobry-de-Bruyn, L. (2012). The value of a boundary organization in mediating

knowledge on sustainable farming systems. Paper presented at the 16th Australian Agronomy Conference, University of New England, Armidale.

Lockie, S., & Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 1-11.

Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 754-766.

Lockwood, M., & Davidson, J. (2010). Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian natural resource management. Geoforum, 41, 388-398.

Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2010). Governance Principles for Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 23, 986-1001.

Lord, A. (2014). Towards a non-theoretical understanding of planning. Planning Theory, 13(1), 26-43.

Luhmann, N. (1982). The World Society as a Social System. International Journal of General Systems, 8(3), 131-138.

Luhmann, N. (1995). Social System. Stanford Stanford University Press.

Mackinson, S. (2001). Integrating Local and Scientific Knowledge: An Example in

Fisheries Science. Environmental Management, 27(4), 533-545. Maclean, A., & Chappell, M. (2013). Managing the Outstanding Universal Value of

the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: The Manager's Perspective (pp. 76-81). Cairns: WTMA.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native

enterprise and adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Mannheim, K. (1929). Ideology and utopia. New York: Harcourt.

Mapstone, B., Davies, C., Little, L., Punt, A., Smith, A., Pantus, F., . . . Mcdonald, A.

(2004). The Effects of Line Fishing on the Great Barrier Reef and

http://www.lgat.tas.gov.au/page.aspx?u=464

280

Evaluations of Alternative Potential Management Strategies. Townsville: CRC Reef Research Centre.

Margerum, R. (1995). Integrated Watershed Management: Comparing Selected

Experiences in the U.S and Australia. Water Resources Update, 100, 36-47.

Margerum, R., & Born, S. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from Theory to Practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(3), 371-388.

Marsh, D. (2008). Understanding British Government: Analysing Competing Models. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 10(2), 251-268.

Martin, P., Tarr, S., & Lockie, S. (1992). Participatory environmental management in New South Wales: Policy and practice. In G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay & B. Furze (Eds.), Agriculture, environment and society: contemporary issues for Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Mathison, S. (2005). Encyclopedia of Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Mayntz, R. (2003). New Challenges to Governance Theory. In H. Bang (Ed.),

Governance as social and politcal communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Mazziotti, D. (1982). The underlying assumptions of advocacy planning:

pluralism and reform. In C. Paris (Ed.), Critical readings in planning theory (Vol. 207-227). Oxford: Pergamon.

McBride, T. (2008). Environmenal Planning and Assessment Act 1979 News

Flash. Sydney: Crisp Legal.

McCord, E. (1980). Structural-functionalism and the Network Idea: Towards an

Integrated Methodology. Social Networks, 2, 371-383. McDavid, J., & Hawthorn, L. (2006). Program Evaluation & Performance

Measurement: An Introduction to Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

McDonald, G. (1989). Rural resource land use planning decisions by bargaining.

Journal of Rural Studies, 5, 325-355. McDonald, G., & Weston, N. (2004). Sustaining the Wet Tropics: A Regional Plan

for Natural Resource Management: Background Report (Vol. 1). Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQ NRM Ltd.

281

McGinnis, M. (2005). Costs and Challenges of Polycentric Governance. Paper presented at the Workshop on Analyzing Problems of Polycentric Governance in the Growing EU, Humboldt University, Berlin.

McGranahan, G., Balkn, D., & Anderson, B. (2007). The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization 19(1), 17-37.

McGrath, C. (2011). Synopsis of the Queensland Environmental Legal System (5th ed.). Canberra: Environmental Law Publishing.

McKenna, H. (1994). The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for

nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 1221-1225. McLoughlin, J. (1969). Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach.

London: Faber and Faber.

Memmott, P., & McDougall, S. (2003). Holding Title and Managing Land in Cape

York: Indigenous Land Management and Native Title. Perth: National Native Title Tribunal, Cape York Land Council and Aboriginal Environments Research Centre.

Merton, R. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe: Free Press.

Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research:

Sage.

Mimura, N. (1999). Vulnerability of island countries in the South Pacific to sea

level rise and climate change. Climate Research, 12(August), 137-143. Mitchell, B., & Hollick, M. (1993). Integrated Catchment Management in Western

Australia: Transition from Concept to Implementation. Environmental Management, 17(6), 735-743.

Mitchell, M., Griffith, R., Ryan, P., Walkerden, G., Walker, B., Brown, V., & Robinson, S. (2014). Applying Resilience Thinking to Natural Resource Management through a "Planning-By-Doing" Framework. Society and Natural Resources, 27(3), 299-314.

Moore, S., & Rockloff, S. (2006). Organizing Regionally for Natural Resource Management in Australia: Reflections on Agency and Government. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 8(3), 259-277.

Morrison, T. (2007). Multiscalar Governance and Regional Environmental Management in Australia. Space and Polity, 11(3), 227-241.

Morrison, T. (2009). Lessons from the Australian experiment 2002-08: the road ahead for regional governance. In M. Lane, C. Robinson & B. Taylor (Eds.), Contested Country: Local and Regional Natural Resources Management in Australia. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.

282

Morrison, T., & Lane, M. (2006). The convergence of regional governance discourses in rural Australia: Enduring challenges and constructive suggestions. Rural Society, 16(3), 341-357.

Morrison, T., McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Peterson, A., & Schmidt, P. (2010). Back to the Future? Planning for environmental outcomes and the new Caring for our Country program. Australian Geographer, 41(4), 521-538.

Morton, S., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lindenmayer, D., Olson, M., Hughes, L., McCulloch, M., . . . Woinarski, J. (2009). The big ecological questions inhibiting effective environmental management in Australia. Austral Ecology, 34, 1-9.

Mucke, P., Welle, T., Birkmann, J., Rhyner, J., Witting, M., Wolfertz, J., . . . Radtke, K. (2012). World Risk Report 2012: Focus: Environmental degradation and disasters. Germany: United Nations University, and the Nature Conservancy.

Muller, J. (1992). From survey to strategy: twentieth century developments in

western planning method. Planning Perspectives, 7, 125-155. Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of

social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325-344.

Murphy, M., Black, N., Lamping, D., Mckee, C., Sanderson, C., & Askham, J. (1998). Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment, 2(3).

Nanda, V. (2006). The "Good Governance" Concept Revisited. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603, 269-283.

National Water Commission. (2011). National Water Planning Report Card 2011. Canberra: National Water Commission.

Neuman, M. (2012). The Image of the Institution: A Cognitive Theory of

Institutional Change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 78(2), 139-156.

Neuman, W. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

NHT. (2000). Mid-term Review of the Natural Heritage Trust: The Response.

Canberra: Environment Australia.

NHT. (2005). Cape York Natural Resource Management Plan: Final Draft.

Cooktown: Cape York Peninsula Landcare.

Nilsson, J., Sutton, S., & Tobin, R. (2010). A Community Survey of Climate Change

and the Great Barrier Reef. Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, James Cook University.

O'Reilly, K. (2009). Key Concepts in Ethnography. London: Sage Publications

283

O'Rourke, T., & Memmott, P. (2005). Sustaining Indigenous Cultural Tourism:

Aboriginal Pathways, Cultural Centres and Dwellings in the Queensland Wet Tropics. Brisbane: Sustainable Tourism CRC.

OECD. (1995). Participatory Development and Good Governance. Paris:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2004). Principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD.

OESR. (2012a). Population and Dwelling Profile: Cairns Regional Council,

5/9/12, from http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/profiles/pop-housing-profiles-lga/pop-housing-profile-cairns.pdf

OESR. (2012b). Queensland Regional Profiles: Cape York Region. Brisbane: Office

of Economic and Statistical Resarch.

OESR. (2012c). Queensland Regional Profiles: Wet Tropics Region. Brisbane:

Office of Economic and Statistical Research.

Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2001). Local Ecological Knowledge and Institutional

Dynamics for Ecosystem Management: A Study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4, 85-104.

Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75-90.

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2005). On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolutions of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (1995). Designing complexity to govern complexity. In S. Hanna &

Munasinghe (Eds.), Property Rights and the Environment. Washington DC: Beijer International and World Bank.

Ostrom, E. (2000). Reformulating the Commons. Swiss Political Science Review,

6(1), 29-52. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.



284

Ostrom, E. (2008). Polycentric systems as one approach for solving collective-action problems: Social Science Research Network.

Ostrom, E. (2009a). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-

Ecological Systems. Science, 325, 419-422. Ostrom, E. (2009b). Understanding Institutional Diversity: Princeton Press.

Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we

wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory, 49, 353-369.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C., Norgaard, R., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science, 284, 278-282.

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C., & Warren, R. (1961). The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831-842.

Owen, J. (2006). Program Evaluation: Forms and Approaches (3rd ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Paavola, J. (2007). Institutions and environmental governance: a

reconceptualization. Ecological Economics, 63, 93-103. Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., & Kluvankova-Oravska. (2009). Interplay of actors,

scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 148-158.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Towards sustainability in the water sector: the importance of human actors and processes of social learning. Aquatic Sciences, 64, 394-411.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354-365.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., & Taillieu, T. (2007). Social learning and water resource management. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Pahl-Wostl, C., & Hare, M. (2004). Processes of Social Learning in Integrated Resources Management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 193-206.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., & Knieper, C. (2010). Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 571-581.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science and Policy, 23, 24-34.

Palomo, I., Martin-Lopez, B., Lopez-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2011). Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Donana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 1-23.

285

Parkins, J., & Mitchell, R. (2007). Public Participation as Public Debate: A Deliberative Turn in Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 529-540.

Parsons, T. (1939). The professions and social structure. Social Forces, 17, 457-468.

Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. London: Routledege.

Paton, S., Curtis, A., McDonald, G., & Woods, M. (2004). Regional natural resource

management: is it sustainable. Journal of Environmental Management, 9, 205-217.

Patton, M. (1982). Practical Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Pearson, N. (2005). The Cape York Agenda Viewpoint. Canberra: Cape York

Institute for Policy and Leadership.

Pert, P. (2013). Participatory development of a new interactive tool for capturing

social and ecological dynamism in conservation prioritization. Landscape and Urban Planning, 114, 80-91.

Pert, P., Bruce, C., Butler, J., Metcalfe, D., Webster, T., & Goosem, S. (2010a). A Prototype Report Card for the Status and Trends of Biodiversity, Soils,and Landscapes in the Wet Tropics. Cairns: DEWHA, RRRC, Terrain NRM, CSIRO, WTMA.

Pert, P., Hill, R., Williams, K., Harding, E., O'Malley, T., Grace, R., . . . Butler, J.

(2010b). Scenarios for Community-based Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation: a case study from the Wet Tropics, Queensland, Australia. Australian Geographer, 42(3), 285-306.

Phillpot, R. (2005). The 'Gammon Economy' of Cape York: Lessons for National Building in Pacific Island Communities. Paper presented at the Oceania Development Network Pacific Conference on Growth and Development, University of Papua New Guinea.

Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). Charting the New Territory of Adaptive Co-management: A Delphi Study. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. (2002). Do Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23, 707-725.

Purcell, M. (2013). A new land: Deleuze and Guattari and planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 14(1), 20-38.

QAS. (2000). Enhancing the Capacity of Cape York Communities to Prevent and Respond to Health Care Emergencies and Injuries: Queensland Abulance Service: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Coordination Unit.

Queensland Government. (2013). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013.

Brisbane: Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

286

Queensland Government. (2014). About Reef Plan, 21/2/14, from http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about.aspx

Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1935). On the Concept of Function in Social Science.

American Anthropologist, 37(3), 394-402. Rammel, C., Stagl, S., & Wilfing, H. (2007). Managing complex adaptive systems -

A co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource management. Ecological Economics, 63, 9-21.

Rapport, D., Constanza, R., & McMichael, A. (1998). Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 13(10), 397-402.

Raymond, C., Fazey, I., Reed, M., Stringer, L., Robinson, G., & Evely, A. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1766-1777.

RCRC. (2005). Caring for Country and Culture: The Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan. Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQ NRM.

RCRC. (2006). Wet Tropics NRM Series, 20/9/13, from http://www.rainforest-

crc.jcu.edu.au/nrmplans.htm

RCRC, & FNQNRM. (2005). Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource

Management Plan: Caring for Country and Culture Cairns: Rainforest CRC, FNQ NRM.

RDAFNQTS. (2012). Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland and

Torres Strait: About RDA, 4/7/12, from http://rdafnqts.org.au/index.php/about

Reddel, T., & Woolcock, G. (2004). From consultation to participatory

governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 75-87.

Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417-2431.

Reed, M., Evely, A., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., . . . Stringer, L. (2010). What is Social Learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), online.

Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., . . . Stringer, L. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933-1949.

Rhodes, R. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, XLIV, 652-667.

Rhodes, R. (2007). Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization Studies, 28(8), 1243-1264.

Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.

http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about.aspx



http://rdafnqts.org.au/index.php/about

287

Robins, L., & Dovers, S. (2007a). Community-based NRM boards of management: are they up to the task? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14, 111-122.

Robins, L., & Dovers, S. (2007b). NRM Regions in Australia: the 'Haves' and the 'Have Nots'. Geographical Research, 45(3), 273-290.

Robins, L., & Kanowski, P. (2011). 'Crying for our Country': eight ways in which 'Caring for our Country' has undermined Australia's regional model for natural resource management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 18(2), 88-108.

Robinson, C., Eberhard, R., Wallington, T., & Lane, M. (2010). Using knowledge to make collaborative policy-level decisions in Australia's Great Barrier Reef. Brisbane: CSIRO, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship.

Ronneberg, E. (2008). Pacific Climate Change Fact Sheet. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat

of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

Rosenau, J., & Czempiel, E.-O. (1992). Governance without Government: Order and

Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

RRRC. (2011). Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program, 27/9/12, from


Rydin, Y. (2012). Using Actor Network Theory to understand planning practice:

Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development. Planning Theory, 12(1), 23-45.

Sager, T. (1994). Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Schusler, T., Decker, D., & Pfeffer, M. (2003). Social Learning for Collaborative

Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 309-323.

Sewell, W. (1992). A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29.

SEWPaC. (2008a). Cape York Peninsula bioregion. Canberra: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC).

SEWPaC. (2008b). Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions, 4/9/12, from


SEWPaC. (2009). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, 27/9/12, from






288

SEWPaC. (2010). EPBC Act: Frequently Asked Questions Fact Sheet. Canberra: Australian Government Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/epbc-act-fact-sheet.pdf.

SEWPaC. (2011a). Australia: State of the Environment 2011. Canberra:

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities.

SEWPaC. (2011b). Ecologically sustainable development, 4/2/13, from


SEWPaC. (2011c). State of the Environment (SoE) reporting Retrieved 28/3/12,

from http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/index.html

SEWPaC. (2012a). About State of the Environment (SOE) reporting, 22/4/13,

from http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/about.html

SEWPaC. (2012b). Bilateral Agreements, 5/2/13, from


SEWPaC. (2012c). Principles for the Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change

Fund (The Principles), 18/9/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/publications/pubs/regional-fund-principles.pdf

SEWPaC. (2013). Regional NRM Planning for Climate Change Fund (Stream 1),

18/9/13, from http://www.environment.gov.au/cleanenergyfuture/regional-fund/about.html

Skok, J. (1995). Policy Issue Networks and the Public Policy Cycle: A Structural-

Functional Framework for Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 55(4).

Smith, B. (2003a). A complex balance: Mediating sustainable development in Cape York Peninsula. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 4(2), 99-115.

Smith, B. (2003b). Whither 'certainty'? Coexistence, change and land rights in northern Queensland. Anthropological Forum, 13(1), 27-48.

Smith, B. (2005). 'We got our own management': local knowledge, government and development in Cape York Peninsula. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 4-15.




http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/index.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/about.html






289

Smith, S., & Hamon, R. (2012). Exploring Family Theories (3rd ed.): Oxford University Press.

Smyth, D. (2004). Case Study No. 4 - Developing an Aboriginal Plan for the Wet

Tropics NRM Region in North Queensland. In D. Smyth, S. Szabo & M. George (Eds.), Case Studies in Indigenous Engagement in Natural Resource Management in Australia. Canberra: Smyth and Bahrt Consultants.

SNRMO. (2014). State NRM Program grants, 23/10/14, from


Sobaih, A., Ritchie, C., & Jones, E. (2011). Consulting the oracle? Applications of

modified Delphi technique to qualitative research in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(6), 886-906.

Spence, I. (2010). The EPBC Act: toward extinction or evolution? The Australian Pipeliner, April, 76-77.

Spencer, H. (1899). The Principles of Sociology. New York: Appleton and Company.

SSCRRAT. (2010). Inquiry into Natural Resource Management and Conservation

Challenges. Canberra: Parliament of Australia Senate.

Stapledon, G. (1995). Institutional Shareholders and Corporate Governance.

Otago Law Review, 9(1), 177-179. Stoker, G. (2002). Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social

Science Journal, 50(155), 17-28. Strenger, C. (2004). The Corporate Governance Scorecard: a tool for the

implementation of corporate governance. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Corporate Governance, Birmingham.

Syme, S., Butterworth, J., & Nancarrow, B. (1999). National Whole Catchment Management: A Review and Analysis of Processes. In J. Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7: Institutional Arrangements for ICM in Queensland (Vol. 2). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

TAI. (1996). Measuring Community Capacity Building: A Workbook-in-Progres for

Rural Communities. Washington DC: The Aspen Institute: Rural Economic Policy Program.

Tamazian, A., Chousa, J., & Vadlamannati, K. (2009). Does higher economic and

financial development lead to environmental degradation: Evidence from BRIC countries. Energy Policy, 37(1), 246-253.


290

Taylor, B. (2012). Regionalism as resistance: Governance and identity in Western Australia's Wheatbelt. Geoforum, 43(3), 507-517.

Tennent, R., & Lockie, S. (2012). Vale Landcare: the rise and decline of community-based natural resource management in rural Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(4), 572-587.

Terrain NRM. (2005). The Wet Tropics Natural Resources Region. Innisfail: Terrain Natural Resource Management.

Thomas, M. (2010). What Do the Worldwide Governance Indicators Measure?

European Journal of Development Research, 22(1), 31-54. TQ. (2012). Tropical North Queensland Regional Snapshot, 5/9/12, from

http://www.tq.com.au/fms/tq_corporate/research/destinationsresearch/tropical_north_qld/12 March Regional Snapshot TNQ.PDF

TSCRC. (2010). Northern Australian Fire Information 9/4/13, from


UN. (1972). Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment. Stockhholm: United Nations Environment Programme.

UN. (1992a). Agenda 21. Paper presented at the Conference on Environment and

Development, Rio de Janeiro.

UN. (1992b). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Paper presented

at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro.

UNDP. (1997). Good governance for sustainable human development Retrieved 14/3/12, from http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htm

UNESCAP. (2012). What is Good Governance? , 16/10/12, from


UNESCO. (2013). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

and Natural Heritage. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization: World Heritage Committee.

Urry, J. (2000). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the twenty-first century.

London: Routledge.

Valdes, G., Solar, M., Astudillo, H., Iribarren, M., Concha, G., & Visconti, M. (2011).

Conception, development and implementation of an e-Government




http://magnet.undp.org/policy/chapter1.htm



291

maturity model in public agencies. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 176-187.

Van Assche, K., & Verschraegen, G. (2008). The Limits of Planning: Niklas Luhmann's Systems Theory and the Analysis of Planning and Planning Ambitions. Planning Theory, 7(3), 263-283.

Veal, A. (2006). Research Methods for Leisure and Tourism: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.). Essex, England: FT Prentice Hall.

Vella, K., Dale, A., Cottrell, A., Pert, P., Stevenson, B., Boon, H., . . . Gooch, M. (2011).

Towards more effective adaptive planning: Measuring and reporting social resilience in vulnerable coastal communities facing climate change in tropical Queensland. Paper presented at the 3rd World Planning Schools Congress, Perth.

Vella, K., Sipe, N., Dale, A., & Taylor, B. (2013). Linking Emissions Trading to Natural Resource Management (NRM): Are NRM Plans in Queensland, Australia up to the Challenge? Land Use Policy, X(X), XX-XX.

Vella, K., Sipe, N., Dale, A., & Taylor, B. (forthcoming). Not Learning Form the Past: NRM Governance and the Role of Second Generation Plans. X(x), x-x.

Venn, T., & Quiggin, J. (2007). Accomodating indigenous cultural heritage values in resource assessment: Cape York Peninsula and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Ecological Economics, 61, 334-344.

Vogel, N. (2008). Performance Excellence Guide for Regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) Organisations (2nd ed.). Toowoomba.

Vogel, N. (2011). Analysis of Performance Excellence Evaluations of Regional

Natural Resource Management Organisations. Canberra: Australian Knowledge Management Group P/L.

Vogel, N. (2013). Performance Excellence Reviews of Regional NRM

Organisations: Analysis of Findings 2011-2013: AKM Group.

Walker, D., & Bellamy, J. (1999). Information Needs for Integrated Catchment

Management: A Case Stdy of the Herbert River ICM Process. In J. Bellamy (Ed.), Evaluation of Integrated Catchment Management in a Wet Tropical Environment: Collected Papers of LWRRDC R&D Project CTC7: Synthesis of Findings (Vol. 1). Brisbane: CSIRO Tropical Agriculture.

Wallerstein, I. (1979). The capitalist world economy: essays by Immanuel

Wallerstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallington, T., & Lawrence, G. (2008). Making democracy matter: Responsibility

and effective environmental governance in regional Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 24, 277-290.

292

Wallington, T., Lawrence, G., & Loechel, B. (2008). Reflections on the Legitimacy of Regional Environmental Governance: Lessons from Australia's Experiment in Natural Resource Management. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 10(1), 1-30.

Walter Turnbull. (2005). Evaluation of Current Governance Arrangements to Support Regional Investment under the NHT and NAP. Canberra: Australian Government.

Wensing, E. (2008). Caring for our Country: The new national NRM program.

Australian Planner, 45(2), 22-23. Whelan, J., & Oliver, P. (2005). Regional Community-based Planning: The

Challenge of Participatory Environmental Governance. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 12(3), 126-135.

Whittemore, A. (2014). Practitioners Theorize, Too: Reaffirming Planning Theory in a Survey of Practitioners' Theories. Journal of Planning Education and Research, online.

WikProjects. (2010). Developing long-term sustainable indigenous governacne on the Cape. Cairns: Wik Projects Ltd.

Wilkinson, C. (2011). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning

theory. Planning Theory, 11(2), 148-169. Willems, S., & Baumert, K. (2003). Institutional Capacity and Climate Actions.

Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Global and Structural Policies Division.

Williamson, O. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of

Contractual Relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261. Winer, M., Murphy, H., & Ludwick, H. (2012). Ecological Conflicts in the Cape York

Peninsula: The Complex Nature of the Black-Green Divide. Paper presented at the ISEE Conference 2012: Ecological Economics and Rio+20: Challenges and Contributions for a Green Economy, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Wood, C. (1992). Strategic environmental assessment in Australia and New Zealand. Project Appraisal, 7(3), 143-149.

Woodhill, A. (2004). Dialogue and transboundary water resources management: towards a framework for facilitating social learning. In S. Langaas & J. Timmerman (Eds.), The role and use of information in European transboundary river basin management. London: IWA Publishing.

WTAPPT. (2005). Caring for Country and Culture: The Wet Tropics Aboriginal

Culture and Natural Resource Management Plan. Cairns: Rainforest CRC and FNQNRM.

WTMA. (2010a). Management Partnerships, 2/10/12, from



293

WTMA. (2010b). Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: History of Listing, 19/9/12,

from http://www.wettropics.gov.au/history-of-listing

WTMA. (2011). Annual Report and State of the Wet Tropics Report 2010-2011.

Cairns: Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA).

WTMA. (2012). Wet Tropics: Underlying Pressures, 10/9/12, from


Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles:

Sage.

Young, O. (1997). Rights, Rules, and Resources in World Affairs. In O. Young

(Ed.), Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Yousuf, M. (2007). Using Experts' Opinions Through Delphi Technique. Practical

Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(4). Zafrin, S., & Rosier, J. (2011). Queensland's Coastal Management: Indicators to

Measure Coastal Governance Outcomes. Paper presented at the Queensland Coastal Conference, Cairns.

Zattoni, A., & Cuomo, F. (2008). Why Adopt Codes of Good Governance? A Comparison of Institutional and Efficiency Perspectives. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(1), 1-15.

http://www.wettropics.gov.au/history-of-listing


294

Chapter 10: Appendices

The following appendices provide greater detail to support the content of this

thesis.

295

Appendix 10.1: Description of the structural and functional aspects of NRM planning governance arrangements in Cape York Peninsula in May 2014

Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial Rating (1-5)

Final Rating (1-5)

Vision and Objective Setting

Capacity: Capacity to set higher level targets, availability of financial, knowledge, human and infrastructure resources to decision-makers

Do capacities exist across the system to set higher level aspirational or condition targets for the region?

Regional Development Australia FNQTS set 6 key objectives and 12 key priorities in the Cape in the FNQTS Regional Roadmap (A meta-strategy for the whole of Far North Queensland) and covers social, economic and environmental issues (Alexander, 1998; Alexander & Colomy, 1990; Almond & Powell, 1966; Giddens, 1979). These strategies are not NRM specific, but set a higher-level aspirational vision for the region and its planning priorities

State and Federal Government departments are disjointed, leading to multiple and at times conflicting visions for the region. Although individually they have the capacity to set higher level targets for Cape York, together they lack the capacity to identify and agree on an overarching vision or targets for the region.

Conflict between institutions in the region has been a significant limitation on their capacity to set higher level aspirational targets, however recent reductions in available funding, in combination with the government-driven Statutory regional land use planning process (and its engagement processes), have led to increased discussions between and coalescence of the region’s institutions and their vision for the future of Cape York Peninsula and the way in which it is planned for and managed. Do the relevant stakeholders in the system have the knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources required to set visions and objectives for the region?

Access to resources in the region has historically been poor and continues to be an ongoing challenge for institutions in the region.

All NRM funding is currently sourced from outside of the region, primarily from Queensland and Federal Government funds/grants/funding programs. These funds are generally competitive, non-discretionary, specific to a project, issue or time frame, and usually not targeted at planning activities.

One quarter of all NRM funding for the region is distributed through CYNRM (RDAFNQTS, 2012). The remainder is distributed to other institutions and their projects, including various ranger groups, Balkanu, Landcare, South Cape York Catchments, various Land Trusts, Wik Projects, and others (Chester & Driml, 2012). In 2012 84% of CYNRM’s funding was delivered through partnerships/other institutions.

Until 2012 there was limited investment in building the capacity of institutions in Cape York to undertake regional planning. As part of the CEF, the Federal Government used a

Although there are numerous institutions capable of setting higher level aspirational/ condition targets, there is currently a discord between these institutions leading to multiple and at times conflicting targets for the region

Despite this, the regional capacity to set higher-level visions and objectives is developing and improving

There is a high degree of connectivity between broad regional interests and higher-level RDA and cross regional strategic interests.

The Queensland Government has a significant capacity to set aspirational/condition targets, however their aspirations are not always in line with the interests of regional stakeholders

Sufficient financial, and infrastructure resources available to identify visions and objectives for Cape York

Some gaps in knowledge to support vision and objective setting

Insufficient human resources

2 2

296


Final Rating (1-5)

competitive tender process that enabled institutions to apply for funding to create, or review existing plans to be more climate change ready (Chester & Driml, 2012).

CYNRM was allocated approximately $952,000 towards planning for NRM in Cape York in 2012 as part of the Stream 1 funding (more than any other NRM group in Australia) (DIICCSRTE, 2012b). By June 30th 2014, any unspent money must now be returned to the Federal Government.

Data availability is patchy and strongly biased towards the biophysical conditions of the region – accurate social and economic data availability and reliability is poor.

There is a strong divide amongst institutions in their views for the future of the region, which limits their ability to work together and agree on set goals and objectives for the future Cape York (SEWPaC, 2013).

There are varied relationships between institutions involved in NRM in Cape York some relationships are particularly unstable while others are strong and collaborative.

There are very few employees of institutions in the region with planning-based training, however, there are a small number of employees in the region that have previous experience in NRM, regional planning, training in environmental management or are currently studying in a similar field.

The planning capacity of Indigenous councils in the region is limited by financial, human, skill and knowledge constraints.

available Conflict amongst institutions

limits their capacity to work together in establishing a shared vision or objectives for NRM in Cape York, however there are signs that this is slowly improving and capacity subsequently increasing.

There is limited regional planning capacity in the individuals employed by institutions in Cape York

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to decision-making, alignment of visions and objectives to higher and lower scale visions and objectives, collaborative frameworks for setting visions and objectives,

Are relevant stakeholders actively connected to decision-making? Planning in Cape York involves many different stakeholders with diverse perspectives,

agendas, and varied qualities of relationships with one another. Although CYNRM are the region’s NRM body, DSDIP remain the primary decision-maker for

planning in the region and are much more engaged in and focused on economic strategy development and land use planning rather than NRM planning in Cape York.

The region’s communities and other stakeholders (industry groups, NGOs, government, etc.) are currently being iteratively consulted by CYNRM about their visions and objectives to contribute towards their iterative NRM planning process.

Although, the State and Federal Governments are providing funding for NRM planning in the CEF Stream 1 funding, they are largely disconnected from the regional NRM planning process, however the Queensland Government commenced a statutory planning process for the region external to the region.

Cape York’s councils have been poorly linked to NRM planning in the past, however there are signs of improvement of this in the current processes.

The capacity of communities to participate in vision/objective setting or strategy

The State and Federal Government are currently not actively linked to decision-making for NRM planning in the region.

Externally driven planning and policy-making is generally poorly linked to lower/regional levels of visioning/objective setting

Discord amongst key institutions limits the alignment of higher and lower scale visions and objectives.

Collaboration frameworks are weak and despite a foundation of

2 2

297


Final Rating (1-5)

structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives

development is varied. Many of the Indigenous communities (e.g. Aurukun, Lockhart River, Napranum) are facing significant social issues such as widespread health problems, substance abuse/addiction, poverty, and domestic violence, which may be prioritized over NRM projects. However, despite the prevalent social and health problems, Indigenous ranger groups have become strong in some of these communities.

Accessibility is a significant barrier to stakeholder participation in decision-making in Cape York –the size of the region in combination with its dispersed population makes it difficult and costly to actively engage communities, industries and other interest groups in decision-making.

There are more than 100 Traditional Owner clan groups located in 17 Indigenous communities in Cape York, and Indigenous culture dictates that groups can only speak for their traditional lands (Carney, 2012; Holmes, 2011b, 2012; Winer et al., 2012). This means that the engagement process can be time consuming and it is difficult to actively engage all 100 groups in the region in the planning process. CYNRM are supporting IRGs as a means of capacity building and engagement for NRM.

Fire planning in the region is undertaken using a participatory process whereby communities are engaged from the start of the process to set the visions and objectives relevant to them.

CYNRM are using multiple mechanisms to engage different stakeholders groups (Traditional Owners, mining sector, grazing sector, communities, conservation sector and others) in decision-making for NRM and planning for Cape York, including surveys (paper and ipad based), community events/meetings, workshops, round tables, photo competitions, education programs in schools, training events, and others.

Several of the NRM institutions use sector-based, elected representatives on their boards. The representatives are expected to be engaged with their location, Indigenous or industry-specific communities. The board members are then expected to represent their constituent’s interests in decision-making.

The degree to which some institutions have been consulted with or engaged in the current NRM planning process is varied depending on their mandate and stake in the process, with some groups more involved (e.g. ranger groups, community groups, SCYC, etc.) and others less involved (Balkanu).

Although the mining industry has substantial resources, it is poorly connected to regional decision-making and other sectors in Cape York.

Graziers are increasingly selling their land due to the increasingly unprofitability of the cattle industry in Cape York and moving away from the region. Previously strong extension

common interests There is a moderate alignment

between the visions and objectives set by CYNRM and DSDIP, following recent (2014) changes to the land use planning agenda.

There is high degree of alignment between local aspirations and the visions and objectives set out by regional institutions.

The lack of alignment between key institutions is currently preventing bargaining/negotiation frameworks from producing more effective outcomes

There are currently no existing frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives for NRM.

298


Final Rating (1-5)

frameworks and networks are losing strength as the industry’s viability falls. Are visions and objectives for the region aligned to higher and lower scale visions and objectives for the region?

There is widespread agreement amongst institutions that Cape York contains internationally significant natural and cultural values (Dredge et al., 2013), however there is significant tensions surrounding the direction in which visions and objectives for NRM should be focused and who should drive action.

Under CfoC there was a decline in the alignment of the Qld and Federal Governments policy and investment priorities. The Qld Government’s financial investment in regional NRM bodies also declined under CfoC.

NRM priorities are currently set by government agencies external to the region, and are often poorly aligned to regional priorities or aspirations.

The region’s institutions are diverse with some that are pro-economic development (CYSF, Balkanu), some more conservation-oriented (ACF, AWC, CAFNEC), and others who sit somewhere in between the two extremes (CYNRM).

Several of the region’s institutions claim to be apolitical, however this has not prevented tensions from forming surrounding their role and political position in the region.

Tensions have been exacerbated by poorly coordinated State and Federal Government strategies

Planners at DSDIP are developing the Cape York Regional Plan and have consulted with some of the region’s institutions regarding regional visions, objectives or aspirations through a specially formed Regional Advisory Group of 20 institutional representatives. The institutions involved have now (2014) become responsible for engaging the community on the land use plan, following a regional backlash regarding the areas designated for development in the draft land use plan during the consultation period. The purpose of this is to ensure greater alignment of the contents of the plan with the aspirations of regional stakeholders. Are collaborative frameworks for setting visions and objectives well designed?

There is limited collaboration between the various State and Federal Government agencies working in the region.

There are currently two broad and disconnected silos of vision setting for the region’s planning – the regional institutions, and the State/Federal Government. This is in part due to the centralised nature of decision-making in government departments. However, there is also a strong disconnect within the tiers of Government, with conflicting visions and objectives between government departments (e.g. at the State level DEHP and DSDIP differ in

299


Final Rating (1-5)

their visions and objectives). There is a lack of common interests among the silos, which means there is a very limited

foundation on which to build a vision or objectives for the region’s natural resources and management approaches.

The silos generally only draw on their own knowledge sets, all of which tend to be spatial-data rich and social/economic/cultural information-poor.

Collaborative frameworks for vision and objective setting have been successfully applied in several CYNRM projects, including the West Coast Turtle Threat Abatement Alliance and fire workshops. Are there structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives for the region?

There are few structures through which the key institutions can come together, however these are generally not used to bargain/negotiate over setting visions and objectives for NRM in the region (e.g the regional advisory group for the land use plan).

The key institutions see their roles in the region as separate – for example the Queensland Government DSDIP sees its role in Cape York to identify/designate land use (through the statutory Cape York regional plan), and CYNRM sees its role as facilitating and coordinating land management in Cape York – despite significant crossover of interests and NRM activities in the region.

Knowledge use: Availability of all forms of social, economic and environmental information for vision and objective setting, application of traditional and historical knowledge sets,

Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for vision and objective setting for the region?

Institutions in the region tend to rely on a select number of the region’s residents to ‘get a feel’ for the social and economic conditions of the region (e.g. the declining viability of the cattle industry, landscape changes observed by Indigenous rangers, etc.), rather than relying on systematically monitored locations, or robust data.

There is a broad lack of data surrounding the baseline of many of the landscapes of Cape York, leading to uncertainty in setting objectives for their management. Uncertainty is not unusual in NRM planning.

There are areas with higher concentrations of environmental research and data collection with links to external funding/institutions (e.g. Steve Irwin Reserve), or areas that have gained attention through WHA nomination processes or mining leases (e.g. Wenlock River).

Institutions may have greater or less access to different data sets depending on their relationships with government agencies, other regional or research institutions, or individuals with access. However, in 2013 the Queensland Government made all of its data sets publicly available through their website, increasing the accessibility of such data to

There is very little baseline or current and comprehensive data sets on the social, economic or environmental conditions of some areas of the Cape.

There is a bias towards biophysical data availability.

Traditional knowledge is applied by institutions in the region to support vision/objective setting

CYNRM currently lack sufficient scenario analysis decision-support tools to support and vision/objective setting.

2 2

300


Final Rating (1-5)

availability of decision-support tools to support scenario analysis

inform planning in Cape York Peninsula. Are traditional and historical knowledge sets being applied across the system to inform vision and objective setting for the region?

There has been significant investment in traditional knowledge in Cape York in the last decade as practitioners and researchers recognised its value, particularly in tackling NRM problems

Indigenous communities are engaged by NRM institutions from the early stages of conceiving NRM projects all the way through to their implementation and their monitoring.

Indigenous knowledge is being recorded by CYNRM through the use of GIS mapping, ‘how to’ management videos, video and audio mediums, iPad apps/programs and ongoing consultation with the communities with whom they are working with. Much of this information will be publicly available through CYNRM’s Atlas once it is operational. Are appropriate decision-support tools in place to support scenario analysis?

There are limited decision-support tools to support scenario analysis to inform vision and objective setting, however there is some investment in developing regional GIS capabilities, community monitoring tools, technical databases and information portals to further support scenario analysis and decision-making in the region.

There is some capacity in the region to do scenario analysis using computer-based tools, but it is yet to be widely applied to support NRM planning

Some NRM institutions in Cape York currently lack scenario analysis capacity and subsequently contract consultants to assist them in GIS mapping and analyses to support decision-making.

Institutions in the region are currently more reliant on spatial analysis tools than other more socio-political or governance analysis tools.


Capacity: Research and analysis capacities, capacity to inform other structural components, diversified research and analysis


There is a moderately strong research capacity in FNQ with multiple short and long-term research projects being undertaken by researchers from institutions including the CSIRO, RIRDC, James Cook University, University of Queensland, Charles Darwin University, NAILSMA, Australian National University, and Griffith University. These groups have demonstrated their capacity to support NRM in both the Wet Tropics and Cape York regions.

Several research consultancies also operate out of the Wet Tropics and are contracted by institutions to provide additional data or research support

The connections between research institutions and other structural components in the system involved in NRM planning vary in their quality.

Research and analysis capacity is growing in the region, but remains somewhat limited.

Due to poor connectivity and lack of knowledge management systems in the region research is only able to support/ inform other structural components of the system in a limited way,

Research and analysis capacity is strongly biased towards

2 2

301


Final Rating (1-5)

capacities

The Stream 2 funding program allocated $8 million to research institutions across 9 aggregated regional areas to support more informed and evidence-based NRM planning. Cape York is part of the Wet Tropics Knowledge Cluster that is supported by a research partnership between James Cook University (leader) and the CSIRO (CYNRM, 2011; CYSF, 2013a, 2013b; DEHP, 2012; SEWPaC, 2008a).

Knowledge management in Cape York is currently poor, however there is an emerging capacity for research and analysis for planning in the region through the Wet Tropics Cluster knowledge broker (JCU). Are there strong environmental, economic, and social research and analysis capacities in the system?

Researchers are exploring multiple aspects of Cape York – scientific/environment (UQ, GU, CSIRO, JCU), social/anthropological (CDU, UQ, GU, ANU), and governance/planning (RIRDC, QUT, UQ). Research on the economic conditions of the region is limited

John Holmes (University of Queensland) has also comprehensively explored Aboriginal land rights and the key challenges to improving the socio-political conditions in the Cape relevant to NRM planning (DIICCSRTE, 2012a).

The majority of research in the past has focused on the biophysical features of the region, but there is an emerging body of literature looking into the socio-political challenges to governance in Cape York.

Formal research institutions are the primary generator of research for the region, however in recent years numerous regional institutions such as Balkanu, Wik Projects, CYSF and the CYI have demonstrated their capacity to undertake research in the region and have published reports providing insight into the environmental and socio-political context of the region (Holmes, 2011a, 2011b, 2012).

physical/environmental research, however there are signs of increasing proficiency in socio-political and socio-economic research and analysis

Connectivity: Collaborative linkages between different research institutions, brokerage and communication arrangements between

Are there strong collaborative linkages between different research institutions engaged with the region?

Linkages between the research institutions working in the region are piecemeal and variable. Relationships are known to exist between GU and JCU, CSIRO and JCU, GU and RIRDC. Many of the existing linkages exist because of interpersonal relationships between people

who are employed at research institutions, but have worked in other NRM-related institutions in the regions previously. Are there effective brokerage and communication arrangements between research provider and end user stakeholders in the system?

There is no formal system or mechanism through which research relevant to the region can be disseminated.

There are generally weak collaborative linkages between the various research institutions and research institutions and end user stakeholders in the region.

Academic research is often poorly brokered in the region due to poor brokerage arrangements and conflicting priorities between end users and academic researchers (e.g.

2 2

302


Final Rating (1-5)

research provider and end user stakeholders, collaborative arrangements that integrate social, economic and physical research

Research on the region is not always written in a way that can be easily understood by the community and may never in fact reach the community.

Research results are often only distributed to those who contributed information/time towards the research, and may be disseminated in the region through personal networks in the region

Long time lag between research being completed and publication in academic journals, combined with reluctance on researcher’s behalves to share or distribute research before it has gone through a peer-review process or has been published, are problematic for practitioners who would benefit from accessing information as soon as it is available so that it support decision-making.

The knowledge broker position was created as part of the CEF Wet Tropics Knowledge cluster (which Cape York Peninsula is a part of) to improve the transference of knowledge from research institutions to groups involved in NRM (CYI, 2007; WikProjects, 2010; Winer et al., 2012). However, the benefits of the Knowledge Cluster are yet to eventuate in Cape York Peninsula, and are unlikely to have a significant impact on planning processes or outcomes in the region. Are collaborative arrangements in place to integrate social, economic and physical research?

There is widespread recognition that there is a strong connectivity between the social, economic and physical health of the region, particularly for Indigenous communities, however social data has been particularly poorly integrated with the region’s economic and biophysical research.

Although there are several research institutions collaborating on research in the region, they tend to focus their work on either the social, or economic or physical or cultural features of the Peninsula.

The information synthesized and distributed by the Wet Tropics Knowledge Cluster is largely biophysical and does not integrate social, economic, environmental or cultural research.

projects vs. publishing). Information sharing between

institutions in Cape York is also poor.

Research brokering between research providers and end user stakeholders in the region is generally poor.

Research on the region is biased towards biophysical data collection, and fails to integrate the social, economic, cultural and biophysical aspects of the region.

Knowledge use: Long-term research synthesis and knowledge retention systems, refinement of

Are there systems in place for long-term research synthesis and knowledge retention across the region?

Knowledge has generally been poorly managed in Cape York. CYNRM are in the process of establishing a dynamic Atlas for storing and retaining

knowledge over time based on the Living Atlas created by the Burdekin region to support their planning activities (the CEO of CYNRM was previously the CEO of the Burdekin Dry Tropics NRM).

The purpose of the Atlas is to retain information such as the data collected during CYPLUS

Knowledge management systems are weak and unable to effectively support planning activities, but they are developing and frameworks are emerging

CYNRM has emerging capacity to retain and synthesise

2 2

303


Final Rating (1-5)

broad research priority setting exercises, availability of all forms of social, economic and environmental information for systems decision-making

and current monitoring data of resource conditions, to inform future planning. The Atlas still in development. Are there broad research priority setting exercises that need to be refined?

At current there has been significant discussion amongst stakeholders regarding economic, social and cultural priority areas, but very limited actual assessment or integration of such priorities into long-term regional programs, largely due to the lack of overarching priority setting and negotiation mechanisms.

Although the region’s institutions have identified priorities, it is difficult to garner research investment – funding agencies tend to favour more action-oriented projects rather than research to support planning/implementation activities.

There is significant research and priority setting capacity in the region, however there is a problem with the connectivity between key institutions, research investment, and limited integration of social/economic/environmental issues/data in the research agenda. This is largely due to the poor connectivity between NRM and research institutions. Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for systems decision-making?

Access to data is generally very poor in Cape York Biophysical/environmental data is the most easily accessed/available (although not widely),

while accurate social and economic data for the region is more difficult for decision-makers to obtain or access

Environmental data for the region is published in academic journals; however, academic publications are expensive for non-academic institutions to access. Moreover, there is limited impetus, interest, or capacity in some research institutions to disseminate their work to practitioners or non-academic audiences.

Environmental data is not widely accessible, however reports such as those from CYPLUS do contain significant ecological information on the region’s landscapes and are being collected as part of CYNRM’s Atlas.

Available data from previous initiatives such as CYPLUS have been poorly used to support NRM planning in the region in the past, however in developing their Regional Investment Strategy, CYNRM undertook a comprehensive analysis of the CYPLUS documents.

Social and economic data is publicly available through the Australian Government’s ABS website, most other government reports and documents are also publicly available on departmental websites.

information/data in the long-term

It is unclear whether other institutions will contribute data to the CYNRM Atlas

Data availability (cultural, social, economic, and environmental) in the region is poor, and biophysical data is more available than other forms of data

The ongoing research agenda for the biophysical aspects in the region is relatively strong,

The research agenda and data availability is weak when it comes to social, economic, and cultural research.

304


Final Rating (1-5)


Capacity: Capacity to set clear strategic targets, decision-makers’ access to knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

Do capacities exist to set clear strategic targets for the region? There is significant tension in Cape York over the roles of different institutions. There are

currently multiple institutions involved in strategizing and undertaking NRM activities across the region, some of which are operating within individual silos and focused on different agendas. This is also in part caused by the lack of clarity surrounding the institutional roles and mandates in the region.

The primary NRM institutions in the region including have the capacity to set strategic targets, but tend to do so individually rather than collaboratively. Some institutions do this in an attempt to protect what they see as their role in Cape York.

This is also linked to funding limitations as well as the Indigenous worldview, where the environment and social problems are linked, which means that institutions are often tackling multiple social, environmental and economic problems, rather than having a single issue area to focus on.

This leads to duplication in objectives, plans and programs. For example, CYSF (funded by CYNRM) and Balkanu are both working on fire management but there is very little coordination or collaboration to set clear strategic targets for fire management across the region.

Balkanu write Indigenous conservation plans, while CYNRM is currently working on a regional NRM plan, and CYSF undertake fire strategy planning (a region wide strategy is yet to be delivered, but strategies have been developed for a limited to a handful of properties in the region) and developed the Cape York Regional Economic and Infrastructure Framework.

Early in 2014 CYSF and CYNRM developed and signed a memorandum of understanding to ensure greater collaboration and transparency in strategy development in the Peninsula.

The State Government is in the process of developing a statutory regional land use plan for Cape York. However, following a short consultation period on its content in late 2013, the DSDIP were forced to revise the plan’s content based on regional stakeholder dissatisfaction with the land use plan. Based on this, the land use plan will not be delivered as planned on the 30th of June 2014, rather further consultation and engagement will occur before any further drafts are formulated. Recognising the capacity of regional institutions to engage with their constituents on planning issues, the DSDIP have ceded this responsibility to the regional institutions involved in the Regional Advisory Group for the land use plan (without additional funding to do so). Do the relevant stakeholders have the knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources available to make the decisions required for the region?

Stream 1 funding provided sufficient resources to CYNRM to begin developing and

General strategic capacity of key institutions to set clear strategic targets remains chronically limited by available resources and ongoing political and institutional tensions.

The capacity to set strategic targets for the region is growing as relationships between institutions develop.

Financial and human resourcing is a limitation in strategy development for most institutions.

There is also a lack of long-term financial security for NRM

Indigenous capacity is progressively increasing in the region, but there remain many social and economic barriers to overcome.

2 2

305


Final Rating (1-5)

strengthening NRM capacity in the region’s and communities Cape York. However, (as with most regions) greater access to resources in Cape York could support further capacity building, strategies and actions.

NRM projects are a means of garnering further funding for institutions and few of the region’s institutions want to concede the power (i.e. funding) that they currently have by working with other institutions to strategically plan NRM activities in the region (despite this collaboration likely giving them greater amounts of funding to work with and thus more NRM projects and improved outcomes). However, CYNRM are an exception to this as they distribute nearly all of the funding they receive to partner organisations, conceding much of their power derived from financial resources.

There is an atmosphere of mistrust between some institutions in Cape York, which further reduces their capacity and interest in collaborating on strategy development, despite resource limitations.

There is a high degree of uncertainty in resourcing beyond the short term due to political cycles, and the time and project-specific nature of funding (1-5 year time periods), limiting the ability for institutions to undertake long-term strategic planning. For example CYNRM have certainty around their funding until 2018.

Funding for NRM in the region tends to be implementation-heavy and planning/strategy development light, in line with national NRM program priorities (i.e. CfoC).

Shifts in the state and federal political climates are particularly influential on which issues/agendas receive funding, how much money is allocated, and the funding time frames. Funding time frames varying in length, but under CfoC have generally been limited to 1-2 years of funding for a priority area.

Because of this institutions are constantly applying for more funding to undertake more NRM projects and priority is given to on-ground actions that can be undertaken in the allocated time frame, rather than strategic planning and strategy development, which can be time and resource consuming.

Short funding time frames have also limited the strategic planning capacity of institutions in the region who are not always able to continue to garner sufficient funds to continue funding the planning and implementation of strategic projects that are no longer within the priority areas of government funding agencies.

Strategic capacity of regional councils improving but is still seriously hampered by financial and human resource constraints.

Indigenous institutions and communities in the region have some capacity to participate in regional planning, however they are currently particularly focused on multiple other

306


Final Rating (1-5)

priorities and opportunities such as welfare reform, economic development, and addressing the significant health and substance abuse problems in the region.

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to strategy-making, alignment of strategies with visions and objectives, alignment of strategies with higher/lower scales of strategy development, design of collaborative frameworks for setting objectives, integration of solutions mix in strategies

Are all relevant stakeholders connected to strategy decision-making? The State and Federal Governments are generally disconnected from NRM strategy decision-

making at the regional scale. Most of the region’s NRM institutions engage with the region’s stakeholders and use their

comments/ideas to develop NRM strategies and direct decision-making Aborigines have a clan-based culture in which representation is important – Indigenous

people can only speak for the land from which their clan is from. In NRM and Cape York particularly this creates a unique challenge when addressing landscape-wide issues such as weeds, feral animals, biodiversity, or fire management. The IRGS supported by CYNRM are a significant positive step forward in coordinating NRM projects across landscapes with multiple Indigenous clan estates.

There has been contention in the region surrounding the various Indigenous communities and other stakeholders in the region and which institutions represent their interests in the political arena

There have been issues in Cape York in the past where Indigenous people have spoken for land that they did not have the right to speak for. This extends to the region as whole – no one group can represent the region – which is why some Indigenous public figures are contentious in the region (e.g. Noel Pearson).

CYNRM are providing funding for the mapping of the region’s Indigenous family groups and the land that they speak for, to ensure the right people are being consulted about NRM projects across the region.

As part of this, Indigenous Reference Groups (IRGs) are being expanded beyond the areas in which they were originally established for the Wild Rivers consultation, such as Coen and Lockhart River. The IRGs provide a culturally appropriate form of representation and voice for Indigenous people in decision-making.

IRGs exist in a number of communities in Cape York, have been used to support decision-making (e.g. in Chuulangan World Heritage consultation process). Although they do not capture all of the region’s population (e.g. non-indigenous stakeholders), they have demonstrated a high degree of efficacy engaging with Indigenous communities on planning issues.

Most of local level institutions and relevant stakeholder groups are consulted during the planning process, while at the regional scale it is more fragmented, with some institutions engaged and others disengaged with each other.

The State and Federal Government tend to be relatively disengaged with the regional NRM planning process.

Levels of stakeholder engagement in the decision-making process are varied across the region

There is some alignment between higher level strategies and regional institution’s strategies in part due to the current funding arrangements

There are a limited number of collaborative frameworks to connect monitoring of key priority areas

A wide range of suasive instruments are used in the region by institutions, and there is an opportunity to develop market-based instruments in

2.5 2.5

307


Final Rating (1-5)

CYSF use geographic and catchment boundaries to decided who is involved/engaged in decision-making for fire strategy planning/management in the Cape.

The region’s mining industry is disengaged from NRM and the high turnover of employees makes relationships difficult to maintain/build and therefore they have been poorly engaged in NRM decision-making in the past.

Regional NRM strategy development is also hampered by the discord in institutional agendas and varied interpersonal relationships between the employees of some institutions in the region. There are signs of greater cooperation and decreasing conflict in some areas (e.g. CYSF and CYNRM and the 2014 MOU).

Residents of some communities show an increasing capacity to mobilise and participate in planning and strategy development for their area, but this is yet to extend to the region as a whole. Are strategies aligned to visions and objectives for the region?

Visions for the region tend to be relatively broad motherhood statements, making it relatively easy for institutions to justify and align their strategies.

Individual institutions have varied visions and objectives for the region, which is understandable given their varied focuses (e.g. economic development institutions have visions and objectives that focus on economic develop, while Indigenous institutions have visions and objectives that focus on Indigenous issues). Despite the variety in mandate and focus, a number of the region’s institutions (Balkanu, CYSF, CYNRM) are engaged in NRM activities, but have varied degrees of alignment in their NRM strategies and broader visions and objectives.

There is a strong intent in regional institutions to increase stakeholder engagement and capacity through NRM projects, while also aligning community aspirations and State/Federal Government funding opportunities. Because of this, there is a moderate level of alignment of some institution’s strategies and overarching visions or objectives, however this is varied across the region. Are strategies aligned to higher/lower scale strategy development for the region?

The process of writing the CYNRM Regional Investment Strategy in 2013, enabled CYNRM to align their strategies to the visions and objectives of their constituents, while also aligning their strategies to government priority funding areas (e.g. Sustainable Agriculture).

The high uncertainty of political direction for the region (frequent elections and shifting agendas based on the political party in power), in combination with the lack of alignment of institutional approaches in the region can at times limit the degree to which strategies are aligned to higher or lower scale strategy development.

the future.

308


Final Rating (1-5)

The funding structures for NRM in Australia tend to be fairly specific about what the money has been allocated for (with little to no discretionary funding allocated), leading to some institution’s strategies and projects aligning with higher-level strategies because they are not funded to develop or implement other strategies.

Although CYNRM have been engaged in the land use planning process, DSDIP have poorly engaged in the NRM process. This has led to a limited degree of alignment of DSDIP strategies and planning processes with NRM planning and projects. Are collaborative frameworks for setting objectives for the region well designed?

There have been and continue to be multiple and fragmented regional approaches to NRM in Cape York. Consequently there are a limited number of collaborative frameworks to connect monitoring of key priority areas with consensus building and strategy development in Cape York, however this is currently area-specific and yet to occur region-wide. An example of an existing collaborative framework for setting objectives is the West Coast Turtle Threat Abatement Alliance, which has involved CYNRM and three indigenous councils collaborating and coordinating activities to monitor and manage threatened turtle species on the West Coast of Cape York Peninsula.

Research and associated capacity investments in the Welfare Reform Agenda have had good results in securing policy reform as well as significant on-ground change, however this is yet to occur in NRM or regional planning.

The recent introduction of the CFI and its associated brokerage arrangements indicates and emerging capacity and improving collaborative framework for setting objectives and priorities for the region. CFI projects have been taken up in Pompuraaw, Mapoon, and Aurukun with the support of CYNRM. Do strategies integrate an appropriate mix of instruments or solutions?

CYNRM, CYSF, and Balkanu draw on a wide mixture of financial and suasive instruments to implement strategies, and none of them use regulatory instruments.

CYNRM and Balkanu use a fee-for-service approach whereby individuals, groups of landholders, or institutions are paid to implement specific management strategies on the ground.

CYNRM, CYSF and Balkanu provide training, workshops, information and knowledge to stakeholders in the region to increase their capacity and the scope of outcomes of NRM projects beyond numerical targets.

Knowledge use: Availability of

Is there social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies in the region?

Due to resourcing constraints and programmatic reporting requirements, monitoring data in

There is currently very poor knowledge/data collected to support an assessment of the

1.5 1.5

309


Final Rating (1-5)

social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies, availability of decision support tools to scenario test alternative strategies

Cape York tends to be largely anecdotal or numerical (X hectares of weeds managed) and often only relating to the biophysical condition of the resource (E.g. MERI).

There is a need for greater social and economic data to support the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies in Cape York.

The MERI framework does not sufficiently assess the efficacy of NRM strategies on-the-ground. Are decision support tools available to scenario test alternative strategies in the region?

Resource limitations can be a significant determinant of strategy choice for some institutions. There is limited institutional support to undertake in-depth scenario testing.

efficacy of key strategies in the region.

Resources and institutional support for scenario testing in the region is limited

Implementation Capacity: Capacity to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions, implementers’ access to financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

Are there capacities to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions in the region? Although there is some capacity to implement a broad mix of strategies and strategic

solutions, there is a degree of territoriality surrounding who should be leading the planning and implementation of certain activities and who should be funded to implement them.

There is a broad range of financial and suasive tools currently used by NRM institutions in the region to increase community/stakeholder awareness and capacity to participate in NRM planning and implementation activities and achieve specific social and environmental outcomes.

Devolved grants and fee-for-service payments are used widely by institutions in the region to support stakeholders undertake NRM activities and build their capacity to participate in NRM.

The training/skills focused suasive tools have been applied both by single institutions and more collaboratively in the region. E.g. CYNRM, CYSF, and Balkanu coordinating to organise a feral pig/turtle workshop on the West coast, and a fire workshop for traditional owners, landholders, land managers and scientists in the region.

All of the NRM institutions in the region provide stakeholders with various training opportunities in weed management, crocodile and feral pig trapping, and technology (e.g. the iTracker) training to better enable them to implement NRM projects.

The region’s NRM institutions regularly attend and/or organise various community events to increase community awareness of NRM issues (e.g. Clean up Australia Day, Laura Dance Festival, rotary field days, etc.).

There is moderately high capacity to apply a broad range of tools/strategic solutions to achieve positive outcomes in the region

Education-based tools are broadly underutilized, while skills-based suasive instruments and financial support instruments are largely well used by numerous institutions

Data availability on the condition of social systems and natural resources to support ongoing implementation of NRM in the region is poor.

The key institutions generally have moderately-strong corporate governance and improvement systems

2.5 2.5

310


Final Rating (1-5)

Do the implementation players have the financial, human and infrastructure resources to implement?

Prior to 2010 multiple institutions received funding from the State and Federal government to implement NRM programs in Cape York. This led to some duplication in programs and funding. From 2011 a quarter of NRM funding for the region began to be distributed through CYNRM who now allocate funds towards to specific activities or other institutions to undertake NRM activities in the region.

CYNRM’s funding increased by approx. $1 million in 2013, while many other NRM regions experienced a decrease in NRM funding. Balkanu and the Northern Gulf NRM groups also received increased funding through the same fund.

NRM project funding has become increasingly competitive and dependent on institutions demonstrating collaboration to encourage multiple institutions in an area to work together to implement NRM programs and activities (DIICCSRTE, 2012a). In Cape York, this has meant that in some situations collaboration between institutions is more out of necessity and access to financial resources than it is about shared visions/objectives or improving outcomes.

Often several institutions are allocated funds towards addressing the same/similar issues, and due to the amount of funding they have been allocated, can only undertake a certain amount of work or can only implement their strategies/programs in a limited area

Some of the region’s service delivery institutions have struggled to garner sufficient resources to implement their individual NRM activities

CYNRM has partnership arrangements with numerous other institutions that are engaged with implementation of individual NRM projects, including (but not limited to) CYSF, South Cape Catchments, Cook Shire Council, APN, Mitchell River Catchment Group, Wik Projects, numerous ranger groups, land trusts, Indigenous councils, and more.

CYNRM employees are dispersed and several work remotely, out of Cairns or in the institution’s shared office facilities in Atherton (shared with the CSIRO and Terrain NRM). They are also equipped with the appropriate 4WD vehicles and resources to work (consultation, implementation, etc.) out of Cape York (as opposed to Atherton) including radios, tents, camping equipment, EPERBs and satellite phones.

Other NRM institutions in the region are similarly equipped to travel in and to the region. Funding is a significant limitation for travel however – it is costly to travel in the Cape – petrol is more expensive, accommodation, vehicle upkeep, etc.

All of the region’s NRM institutions are based out of the Wet Tropics for several reasons, including: high accommodation and transaction costs, staff recruitment difficulties, and the

311


Final Rating (1-5)

single road used to access Cape York is regularly cut off by rising creek/river levels annually during the wet season(Robins & Kanowski, 2011). The climate seasonality also makes it difficult for the region’s institutions to plan for, consult on or implement NRM projects.

Due to the remote and sparsely populated nature of the region, it can be difficult to garner large numbers of volunteers for community NRM projects compared with other NRM regions with a more concentrated population (e.g. Wet Tropics or SEQ).

Some service delivery institutions are struggling to garner sufficient financial resources to implement their programs and projects due to changes to funding arrangements. Do the key institutions involved in NRM planning have strong corporate governance and improvement systems?

CYNRM, CYSF and Balkanu all have moderately strong corporate governance systems and all have demonstrated in recent years that they are able to restructure and adapt their corporate governance arrangements.

Like other NRM groups around Australia, CYNRM use Vogel’s Performance Excellence framework to monitor, evaluate and improve organizational governance arrangements.

A representative and democratically elected board (includes 50% Indigenous representatives from various sub-regions of Cape York) oversees the corporate governance of CYNRM. Elections are held annually (with a 1/3 turnover) to ensure the representatives continue to speak for the people they have been elected to represent.

CYSF restructured in 2013 and has a sector-based board that consists of representative and democratically elected board members. Board members represent an issue or geographic area in the region –e.g. community development, mining, etc.

Balkanu has an entirely Indigenous board that oversees its activities, however the election process for their board is currently unclear.

Improvement systems are currently still being developed in the region as some institutions are less developed than others.

Centralised State and Federal government departments involved, but not based in the region also have strong governance and improvement systems.

Community and local scale institutions engaged in NRM in the region have varied corporate governance and improvement capacity.

Connectivity: Partnership and integration arrangements between policy

Are there effective partnership and integration arrangements between policy and delivery systems in the region?

Changes to funding arrangements or quantities influence the shape and quality of relationships between some institutions as money is redistributed in different ways, reducing the need for ‘middlemen’.

Alliances between decision-makers and implementing institutions tend to be based on funding rather than a shared agenda, however there is a

2 1.5

312


Final Rating (1-5)

and delivery systems, use of collaboration in implementation, research brokerage arrangements to support implementation

Coordinated action between institutions engaging in NRM is currently limited. This is partially because some institutions do not want to concede the power (i.e. funding) they currently have and thus continue to work within their silo.

CYNRM, Balkanu and CYSF have and continue to build collaborative relationships with communities in the region through the planning and implementation of NRM projects. E.g. fire management workshops and fire management regimes – engaging with Indigenous communities. Do different components of the solution mix collaboration?

Collaboration between institutions, and stakeholders can occur at different scales and stages of the project’s completion (e.g. CYNRM might provide funding, CYSF might manage implementation and monitoring, ranger groups may do on-the-ground implementation and monitoring work).

Interpersonal relationships are a significant driver of collaboration between some institutions, or communities involved in implementing NRM projects.

CYNRM and CYSF have collaborated in a limited capacity on various projects in recent years, particularly fire and feral pig management (traditionally it has been a purchaser-provider relationship).

Funding limitations have led to some institutions being economically forced to collaborate with other institutions doing NRM to ensure their ongoing access to funding and thus institutional survival. Are there effective research brokerage arrangements to support implementation in the region?

Existing research brokerage arrangements are generally poor at supporting implementation activities as it is currently brokered through interpersonal relationships and relationships between individual researchers and partners in NRM

There is a lack of integrated and strategic science programs and brokerage services in Cape York.

This may change as knowledge broker recently employed as part of the Wet Tropics cluster builds relationships and arrangements to connect research with on-ground implementation, however at this point it is unlikely that the Knowledge Cluster will drastically improve research brokerage arrangements in the region.

coalescence of regional institutions and their position on the region in higher-level policy-making discussions has recently emerged out of the current land use planning process.

The collaborative culture between NRM institutions in Cape York is currently weak, but improving.

Research brokerage arrangements are generally poor in the region and are poorly organised or designed to support implementation.

Connectivity between research institutions/agendas and implementation activities is poor

Knowledge use: Research efforts to inform

Are there research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation across the region?

There are some attempts in the region to connect research efforts with improving implementation of NRM activities/strategies in the region, however region-wide it is patchy

Research is used inconsistently to inform continuous improvement in implementation across the

2 2

313


Final Rating (1-5)

continuous improvement in implementation, use of local and traditional knowledge sets to inform implementation, management and retention of data sets concerning effective implementation

at best. Funded by CYNRM, CYSF use research and long-term monitoring data of fire management in

the region to support their fire management in the region. Are local and traditional knowledge sets informing implementation in the region?

Indigenous communities are increasingly being involved in planning for and implementing NRM activities. This has increased the influence and use of traditional knowledge on NRM practices. However, communities are wary of being used and sharing their knowledge without gaining any benefit from their participation.

Traditional knowledge is used to support the implementation of NRM projects by most (if not all) institutions in the region (Balkanu, 2013; CYI, 2013; CYNRM, 2013a; CYSF, 2010).

CYNRM, Balkanu and CYSF draw on traditional knowledge to inform their NRM projects – knowledge on fire management, land management, feral pig and weed management, weather patterns, endemic flora and fauna interactions (Balkanu, 2010b; CYNRM, 2013b; CYSF, 2012, 2013a, 2013c).

Indigenous ranger groups are frequently involved in on-the-ground implementation and monitoring (combining traditional knowledge with modern technology – e.g. I-Tracker, Fulcrum). A primary example of this is the West Coast Turtle Threat Abatement Alliance. Are effective data sets concerning implementation being managed and retained?

There has been limited retention of implementation data sets in the region. There is potential for this to change as part of CYNRM’s Cape York Atlas, however this is yet

to be completed. There is some emerging capacity across policy-making and service delivery institutions to

retain implementation data sets, however data retention systems are still in development. Some NRM delivery institutions retain data surrounding specific projects (e.g. fire or weeds),

however this is inconsistent across the region and tends to remain within individual institutions

Cape York NRM’s Atlas (currently in development) is intended as a database for information and data sets on the region, including data sets concerning implementation. The Atlas will be accessible to anyone with an Internet connection and will act as a knowledge conduit, enabling institutions to make more informed decision-making in the region.

region Traditional knowledge is used

widely across the region by institutions engaged in NRM

Data has in the past and continues to be poorly retained in a broad regional context, however there is some capacity particularly in service delivery institutions to develop data retention and management

Data management and retention are likely to improve.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Review

Capacity: Monitoring and evaluation capacity, collective

Are there effective monitoring and evaluation capacities in the system? The broad governance and institutional arrangements for NRM planning are currently not

monitored or evaluated in Cape York, due in part to a lack of resourcing. There has been very little strategic monitoring of priority social, environmental, economic

and cultural indicators in the region because of a lack of mandate, resources and

The capacity of institutions to monitor and evaluate NRM activities or planning arrangements is low, largely because systemic monitoring,

2 2

314


Final Rating (1-5)

monitoring alliances, evaluation capacities in the system, reporting capacities that enhance accountability

fragmentation of regional approaches to planning and implementation of NRM projects. NRM planning has largely been unsuccessful in the region in the past, because of this CYNRM

are monitoring their NRM processes and activities as they occur to be efficient with resources and to ensure that their strategies and activities are flexible to the needs and wants of the region’s communities and stakeholders.

No mechanism exists for the key institutions to monitor or evaluate the planning governance systems in Cape York.

Individual institutions currently undertake a degree of monitoring of their NRM projects and on-ground activities (SOE and MERI), however such frameworks tend to focus on outputs (e.g.number of trees planted) rather than outcomes (e.g. improved ecosystem connectivity and community awareness) and generally do not extrapolate whether the actions actually made a difference to the issue being addressed (this is also difficult due to a broad lack of baseline data for resources in the region)..

CYNRM monitor and evaluate their organizational governance arrangements using Vogel’s Performance Excellence framework (Balkanu, 2010b; CYNRM, 2013b; CYSF, 2012, 2013a, 2013c). Are there collective monitoring alliances in place?

CYRNM currently funds CYSF to manage the Queensland component of the North Australian Fire Information website (NAFI) that monitors the locations of current and recent fires, history of fire locations, lightning strike locations, etc. based on data drawn from satellite data. Although it is hosted by Charles Darwin University, institutions and communities across northern Australia use this information to inform fire land management practices.

Monitoring of fire regimes in the region is the most prominent collective monitoring alliance in Cape York. Monitoring is undertaken by several government agencies, landholders and regional institutions and then reported and disseminated online via NAFI (Vogel, 2011).

CYNRM are monitoring NRM planning and its impacts in the region, and there is significant interest in the process and outcomes from other institutions.

There is no mechanism through which the key institutions currently collectively identify the bigger regional issues and evaluate the risks and outcomes of various solutions. Are there defined and independent evaluation capacities in the system?

Evaluation capacity in the Cape York Peninsula is neither defined nor independent due to resource limitations, lack of mandate and institutional discords. Are there reporting capacities to enable high levels of accountability across the system?

Institutions have moderate to low reporting capacity when it comes to reporting on resource

evaluation and reporting mechanisms to benchmark such things do not exist within the region and a lack of sufficient resources to undertake or develop such monitoring frameworks

The silo mentality to managing issues in the region is a significant limitation to the region’s institutional capacity to effectively monitor and evaluate planning processes and outcomes.

Collective monitoring alliances are piecemeal and fragmented.

Evaluation capacity in the Cape York Peninsula is neither defined nor independent

Reporting capacity is low due to low levels of monitoring data or frameworks.

315


Final Rating (1-5)

conditions due the limited amount of monitoring undertaken. The capacity to report on governance conditions and planning processes has generally been

poor. Many individuals and institutions within the system tend to have a silo-oriented perspective

of the region rather than a systemic perspective. Accountability of some institutions and their projects is often low due to the lack of

monitoring, however other institutions are beginning to improve their monitoring frameworks/processes, increasing their accountability to stakeholders and funding bodies.


Are there integration arrangements between objective setting and monitoring systems for the region?

Objectives are currently poorly informed by monitoring data of resource management conditions/outcomes following management

Research institutions are currently poorly engaged in the process of linking objective setting with monitoring systems, despite capacity existing. Are evaluative and review mechanisms linked to long-term monitoring of processes and outcomes in the region?

There is an emerging push towards long-term monitoring and data retention of project outcomes in the region, however this is yet to carry over to broader monitoring of the planning system

Evaluation and review mechanisms for the systems as a whole are poorly developed and only somewhat linked to long-term monitoring frameworks. Are monitoring and reporting strategic processes able to influence strategic processes and the allocation of resources in the region?

Monitoring of NRM planning and activities in the region has generally been poor, and there has been little data on which to base further strategic decisions or resource allocation in the region.

In the past, funding has been a significant driver of the types of NRM activities (it is often provided for a specific action/issue) rather than activities being driven by local/regional priorities and funding sought to support such priorities. However, CYNRM’s recently developed Regional Investment Strategy and the data that will be stored in the CYNRM Atlas will provide them with a greater platform on which to advocate for resources based on regional aspirations and priorities.

The objective setting and monitoring systems for planning in Cape York are disjointed, and Institutions are likely to continue to discuss visions and objectives, but struggle to move forward without greater integration of objective setting and monitoring systems

There is little connection between monitoring, strategic processes and allocation of resources in the region at this stage.

The emerging CYNRM Atlas and CYNRM Regional Investment Strategy have potential to influence strategic processes and allocation of resources in the region.

2 2

Knowledge use:

Are social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system being monitored? Environmental outcomes in the systems are generally not monitored, in part due to lack of

Monitoring of social and economic conditions is weak

2 2

316


Final Rating (1-5)

Monitoring of social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system, retention of monitoring and evaluation data in the long-term

appropriate resources (particularly money and time), however there is also a broad lack of monitoring infrastructure for the region. For example, although the region contains several internationally recognised waterways, there is only one water quality monitoring station in the region located on the Normanby River.

Basic social and economic conditions are benchmarked in the Australian census every 5 years. Integration of social and economic data has been limited in monitoring/evaluation/ reporting

The environmental outcomes of the system are regularly reported through the Australian Government’s MERI framework as part of institutional requirements/responsibilities under CfoC.

Many funding bodies (i.e. Government departments) require funded institutions to provide data showing the impact of the funded management activities.

As part of the State’s responsibility for SOE reporting, the Queensland Government uses a DPSIP approach to evaluation and collects environmental and resource condition data. There is a concentration of data collection in SEQ and its surrounding regions. The rainfall patterns and river/estuarine systems of the eastern and western areas of Cape York are described and feral/pest management issues are recognised (TSCRC, 2010).

Lack of sufficient data is noted as a problem in SOE reporting of resource conditions in the Cape (DEHP, 2011). Are monitoring and evaluation data being retained in the long-term in the system?

Retention of monitoring and evaluation data has traditionally been poor in Cape York. There is currently no mechanism through which this information can be centrally stored or accessed by the different institutions interested or involved in NRM in Cape York. Rather the responsibility of long-term data retention has fallen to individual institutions that may or may not have strong data management systems in place.

CYNRM are currently working towards an online atlas that contains a culmination of the available data for the region, but it is yet to be completed or made available.

In partnership with other institutions (e.g. CSIRO, DERM), CYSF have a number of programs focused on collecting and retaining data about the ecological/biodiversity/fire conditions of the region that have been running since the mid 2000s (DEHP, 2011).

Data stored in NAFI is retained in the long-term and provides important knowledge regarding the trends and history of fire in the region.

and unable to show short or long-term changes.

Environmental conditions are not well monitored

Despite previously poor retention of monitoring data, CYNRM and CYSF are currently improving their data management systems to retain monitoring and evaluation data over time.

Total 30.5 30

317


Final Rating (1-5)

Average Score 2.04 2.00

318

Appendix 10.2: Description of the structural and functional aspects of NRM planning governance arrangements in the Wet Tropics in May 2014

Indicators Evidence Conclusions Initial

Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

Vision and Objective

Setting

Capacity: Capacity to set higher level targets, availability of resources to decision-makers

Do capacities exist across the system to set higher level aspirational or condition targets for the region?

There is a strong institutional capacity for vision and objective setting for NRM in the Wet Tropics, this is demonstrated by past and current NRM and WHA management planning processes, addressing invasive species –weeds and feral animals (particularly in local government, WTMA, and Terrain NRM), and region-wide biodiversity and conservation projects.

The GBRMPA represent the Federal Government’s interests in managing the GBR, while WTMA represent both the Federal and Queensland Government’s interests in managing the Wet Tropics WHA.

The WTMA and GBRMPA’s vision and objective setting for the region are not entirely limited to the WHA that they have jurisdiction over, however their on-ground management activities largely occur within the WHAs.

The Queensland Government articulate their vision and set broad high level aspirational/condition targets for the region and its natural resources in the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031, however the goals contained within the plan are relatively vague and difficult to measure success against (CYSF, 2013a, 2013c). Moreover, the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 lost its statutory power in 2012 when the relevant State Planning Regulatory Provision was repealed.

Regional Development Australia FNQTS set 6 key objectives and 12 key priorities in the Wet Tropics

in the FNQTS Regional Roadmap (A meta-strategy for the whole of Far North Queensland) and covers social, economic and environmental issues (DIP, 2009). These strategies are not NRM specific, but set a higher-level aspirational vision for the region and its planning priorities. Do the relevant stakeholders in the system have the knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources required to set visions and objectives for the region?

All regional NRM funding is currently sourced from outside of the region, primarily from Queensland and Federal Government funds/grants/funding programs. These funds are generally competitive and specific to a project, issue or time frame, and usually not

There is significant capacity in the region to set both higher-level and regional aspirational/condition targets for the region, particularly for the GBR and Wet Tropics WHAs

Although in the past funding has been a limitation to NRM planning for the region, the CEF Stream 1 funding has provided ample funding to support the current NRM planning process in the Wet Tropics

Institutions in the region have sufficient human and infrastructure resources available to support vision and objective setting.

There is significant knowledge/data available to support vision and objective setting in the region, however available data is strongly biased towards the biophysical conditions of the region.

There is an emerging capacity to reduce the data bias through the CEF Stream 2 funding and knowledge broker position.

3.5 4

319


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

provided for planning activities. Until 2012 there was limited investment in building the capacity of institutions in the Wet

Tropics to undertake regional planning. As part of the CEF, the Federal Government used a competitive tender process that enabled NRM bodies to apply for funding to create, or review existing plans to be more climate change ready (RDAFNQTS, 2012).

Terrain NRM was allocated approximately $607,639 towards planning for NRM in the Wet Tropics in 2012 as part of the Stream 1 funding (DIICCSRTE, 2012b). This provides Terrain NRM with sufficient resources to develop a new NRM plan for the region.

The Stream 2 funding program allocated $8 million to groups of research institutions across 9 aggregated regional areas to support more informed and evidence-based NRM planning (SEWPaC, 2013).

Terrain NRM’s employees are dispersed and work out of offices located in Cairns, Mossman, Atherton, Innisfail, Ingham or Gordonvale and have recently employed a planner to undertake the planning process using stream 1 funding.

WTMA and Terrain NRM have fewer human resources than GBRMPA. However, recent changes to government agency structures and funding have reduced the number of employees across many government agencies, including GBRMPA.

The region contains numerous catchment groups and community institutions that are focused on maintaining the region’s environmental quality. Such groups often undertake in-kind work and volunteer their labour to do environmental projects such as tree planting, weed management, etc.

Recently there has been a decrease in relevant government departments’ capacity with job cuts leading to loss of employees with knowledge and expertise in specific areas.

Employees in some institutions may have capacity but be located in the wrong position in their institution and thus unable to act in their full capacity.

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to decision-making, alignment of visions and objectives to higher and lower scale visions and

Are relevant stakeholders actively connected to decision-making? The State and Federal Governments are generally not connected to strategy decision-

making at the regional scale, and the responsibility has been ceded from the State to the regional body.

Terrain NRM consult with various indigenous, industry, stakeholder and community groups in their planning process to varying degrees. Institutions that are interested in being involved generally are engaged, while those that are not interested tend to not be involved in the planning process.

WTMA and GBRMPA are involved in vision and objective setting for the WHAs. WTMA have

Although all of the relevant stakeholders appear to be connected and engaged in the vision and objective setting process, their level of engagement with the process through different institutions is variable.

There is moderate level of alignment of visions and

2.5 3

320


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

objectives, collaborative frameworks for setting visions and objectives, structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives

been somewhat engaged in vision and objective setting for the new NRM plan, while GBRMPA have been less engaged in the process.

FNQROC provides a means through which local government can participate in the NRM agenda setting and strategy development. There is a strong emphasis on partnerships and building cross-institutional relationships to encourage and support collaboration on regional issues.

There is a degree of consultation fatigue amongst traditional owners in the region, leading to less inclination towards participating in decision-making for the new planning process. Rather, indigenous groups have argued that they would like to see how well they have achieved the visions and objectives of the 2004 plan before revising it or creating a new NRM plan.

Community groups have become wary of consultation and being engaged in vision and objective setting following years of being consulted and included in government processes, without seeing sufficient outcomes for the efforts expended.

Although some service-delivery and government institutions may be interested in being involved or consulted on vision and objective setting, they may not be actively engaged in the decision-making process.. Catchment groups have not always been actively connected to decision-making for NRM, and there has been an assumption that other groups such as Terrain NRM will represent their interests in this process. The current NRM planning process is focused on developing more stakeholder engagement processes rather than applying previously used representative or consultative processes. Are visions and objectives for the region aligned to higher and lower scale visions and objectives for the region?

There is clear alignment between the region’s previously statutory land use plan (DSDIP) and the RDAFNQTS Roadmap

Although there is a history of poor alignment of visions/objectives for the region between local government and Terrain NRM, there are signs of improvement mediated through FNQROC (Terrain NRM fund 50% of an FNQROC employee who focuses on NRM in the region)

FNQROC and RDAFNQTS have a strong relationship and there has been considerable effort to align their visions and objectives for the region – connecting local government, federal government and community aspirations to the regional planning process. Are collaborative frameworks for setting visions and objectives for the region well designed?

objectives for the region across scales.

Collaborative frameworks for vision and objective setting are well designed, but are currently weak, however these frameworks are being further developed and strengthened as part of the new planning process.

Currently there are limited and specialised structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives for the region. Frameworks explicit to NRM are expected to emerge out of the current planning process.

321


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

A limited number of collaborative frameworks remain following the 2004 planning process and are being strengthened as part of the new NRM planning process,

The collaborative frameworks are mostly well designed and important in engaging the different institutions and stakeholders in vision and objective setting for NRM.

Although relationships between institutions in the region are generally positive, there is tension amongst some of the key institutions in the region surrounding the role/s of each institution, which limits their capacity to work collaboratively to set visions and objectives for the region. Are there structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives for the region?

There are currently no structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation over setting visions and objectives for regional NRM in the Wet Tropics. Some of the region’s institutions engage in unstructured bargaining and negotiation through informal networks, however such networks are highly varied and are reliant on interpersonal relationships to function.

Structured frameworks for bargaining and negotiation exist in other policy spheres (e.g. local government), but are yet to be translated or applied in a regional NRM or NRM planning context.

Frameworks for bargaining and negotiation are being established as part of the new NRM planning process, however they are yet to designed.

The 2004 NRM plan had strong frameworks for bargaining and negotiation for vision and objective setting, however they were not been maintained due to the static nature of that plan.

Knowledge use: Availability of all forms of social, economic and environmental information for vision and objective setting, application of traditional and historical

Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for vision and objective setting for the region?

There are significant biophysical data for the Wet Tropics that describes, benchmarks and monitors the condition and ecosystem functionality of the region’s natural resources.

The availability and diversity of social and economic data for the Wet Tropics tends to be weak and is only capable of supporting vision and objective setting in the region in a perfunctory way.

Although research on the region is relatively abundant compared with other NRM regions due to the numerous research institutions based there, the research is not always well aligned to end-users and may not answer appropriate questions to make the research relevant to regional institutions.

There is an abundance of research and data available for the region, however biophysical data is much more prevalent than social or economic data, preventing vision and objective setting from being as informed by socio-economic factors as it is by biophysical data.

Although there has been an increase in the use and

3 3.5

322


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

knowledge sets, availability of decision-support tools to support scenario analysis

Although social, economic, and environmental information for the region is available (from sources such as Advance Cairns, RDA, and research institutions), it is not always used to inform NRM decision-making, because decision-makers may be unaware of the information or unable to access it. Are traditional and historical knowledge sets being applied across the system to inform vision and objective setting for the region?

There has been significant investment in traditional knowledge in the Wet Tropics in the last decade as practitioners recognised its value, particularly in tackling NRM problems, however application of traditional knowledge remains limited.

In 2002 the region’s traditional owners voiced their dissatisfaction with the indigenous engagement in the NRM planning process for the region under NHT1 and in partnership created the Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan 2005 which was based on traditional owner aspirations and values (DIICCSRTE, 2012a). Because of the indigenous plan, traditional knowledge was not used significantly in the 2004 NRM plan.

The Wet Tropics Aboriginal Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan 2005 exists congruent to Sustaining the Wet Tropics: A Regional Plan for Natural Resource Management 2004-2008, and recognises indigenous interests and visions for the region’s natural resources (Larsen & Pannell, 2006; Smyth, 2004).

There is an emerging push to better draw on significant traditional knowledge that exists in the region in the new planning process. However, it is unclear how this knowledge will be used – whether a new indigenous plan will be created or whether the two plans will merge into a single NRM plan for the region in the current process.

Traditional knowledge of and in the region is abundant, however much of it has not been recorded and consequently may not be easily accessed or used to inform vision and objective setting

Similarly, members of community groups tend to have significant historic knowledge of the region and its resources, however this knowledge is also shared orally rather than written down or recorded, and therefore may not be available or easily accessed by planners. Are appropriate decision-support tools in place to support scenario analysis?

NRM Institutions in the Wet Tropics have access to several decision-support tools to support scenario analysis in the planning process, however scenario analysis in the region is limited.

Scenario tools used by local government in town planning and invasive species contexts

application of traditional and historic knowledge, there remains a significant amount of traditional and historical knowledge that is yet to be drawn on to support the planning process.

Although some institutions have spatial and scenario analysis tools and skills, their application in NRM planning remains limited.

There is emerging capacity to do scenario analysis for the planning process as a scenario analysis tool is currently being developed collaboratively in the region.

323


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

including cost-benefit analysis frameworks, objective setting frameworks, and situational analysis, are yet to be used to support NRM planning in the region.

Several of the region’s institutions employ people with skills and experience using GIS and undertaking spatial analysis (FNQNRM, 2004; WTAPPT, 2005), however higher-level analytical skills applying GIS are relatively limited.

Although there is currently no specific tool for scenario analysis, Terrain NRM are currently working with FNQROC and CSIRO to develop a region-specific scenario analysis tool called Community Vis. to assist their strategy development.

Decision-support tools such as GIS or Community Vis. are emerging as part of the current NRM planning process, however, scenario analysis is yet to be used widely to support decision-making for NRM in the Wet Tropics. It has been used in a small number of projects, including by Terrain NRM around the Mossman area and GBRMPA in the GBR.




There is a strong research capacity in FNQ with multiple research institutions and coordinators based in and out of the region undertaking short and long-term research projects, including the CSIRO, RIRDC, James Cook University, University of Queensland, Charles Darwin University, Griffith University, Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, and the NERP Tropical Ecosystems Hub.

Several research consultancies also operate out of the Wet Tropics and are contracted by institutions to provide additional data or research support –e.g. Bill Cummings, Dermot Smyth

The Wet Tropics NRM region is part of the Wet Tropics Cluster that is supported by a research partnership between James Cook University (leader) and the CSIRO (Pert, 2013).

There is emerging capacity for research and analysis for planning in the region through the Wet Tropics Cluster knowledge broker (JCU).

Some of the region’s management institutions also undertake research themselves, including WTMA and GBRMPA. Are there strong environmental, economic, and social research and analysis capacities in the system?

Researchers are exploring multiple aspects of the Wet Tropics – scientific/environment (JCU, UQ, GU, CSIRO, CDU, MTSRF, NERP, RRRC), social resilience (GU, JCU), and governance/planning (RIRDC, GU, JCU).

The region has a particularly strong environmental research and analysis capacity due to

The Wet Tropics has a strong research capacity and multiple public, private and government research institutions are based in the region

The region’s research institutions are largely able to inform other structural components of the system

The environmental research and analysis capacity of the system is particularly strong with many research institutions almost entirely focused on studying and monitoring the biophysical conditions of the region

The social and economic research capacity is developing, but remains less developed than environmental/biophysical

3.5 3.5

324


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

the location and diversity of research institutions located in the region. Although there have been (and continues to be) research projects investigating either the

environmental, social, economic, or cultural aspects of the region, the body of existing research tends to focus primarily on the biophysical features of the region, particularly within the Wet Tropics and GBR WHAs(DIICCSRTE, 2012a).

Although Cummings Economics provides insight into the economic conditions and trends in Far North Queensland annually, there is limited socio-economic data for the region aside from the Census data collected by the ABS (Campbell et al., 2001; Mapstone et al., 2004; Nilsson et al., 2010).

Researchers from the Cairns Institute (JCU) and QUT are currently exploring socio-political and socio-environmental aspects of the region relating to community resilience to the impacts of climate change in the region and its surrounds, and NRM planning (Cummings, 2010; Cummings, 2012a, 2012b).

research capacity in the region.


Are there strong collaborative linkages between different research institutions engaged with the region?

Collaborative linkages are varied between research institutions, with relationships more prevalent between researchers working in the region, compared with those based outside of the region.

Many of the region’s experts wear several hats and may work/associate with several institutions, leading to numerous informal and formal connections between research institutions and other organisations in the region

Many of the existing linkages exist because of interpersonal relationships between people who are employed at research institutions, but have worked in other NRM-related institutions in the regions previously.

Strong relationships are known to exist between QUT and JCU, GU and CSIRO, CSIRO and JCU, QUT and RIRDC.

The National Environmental Research Program – Tropical Ecosystems Hub is based in the Wet Tropics.

There are few incentives for researchers to collaborate at current, and subsequently interpersonal relationships between researchers across institutions tend to result in more collaborative research projects, than institutional relationships deliver. Are there effective brokerage and communication arrangements between research provider and end user stakeholders in the system?

There is no formal system or mechanism through which research on the region can be

Despite the significant number of research institutions in the region, the linkages between them are piecemeal, variable, competitive, and often driven by interpersonal relationships.

Research currently being done on/in the region tends to be poorly aligned to end-users and sometimes falls short servicing the needs of people on the ground.

Social data has been particularly poorly integrated with the region’s economic and physical research.

Collaborative research arrangements in the region are increasing in strength, but are largely failing to integrate social, economic and physical

2.5 3

325


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

disseminated to end-users. Research results are often only distributed to those who contributed information/time

towards the research, and may be disseminated in the region through personal networks in the region

There are several applied researchers in the region who have particularly strong relationships with end-users, however such relationships require regular attention and support to be maintained. Researcher and end-user brokerage arrangements in the region are variable and could be further strengthened.

Long time lag between research being completed and publication in academic journals Signs of improvement with the creation of the knowledge broker position as part of the

CEF Wet Tropics cluster, which is specifically designed to improve the transference of knowledge from research institutions to groups involved in NRM (Dale et al., 2013a; Vella et al., 2011; Vella et al., 2013). Are collaborative arrangements in place to integrate social, economic and physical research?

Although there are many research institutions collaborating on research in the region, the majority are focused on the biophysical features of the region and fail to integrate their research with social or economic research or data.

There are some signs of improvement in this situation in the region with JCU and GU collaborating on research that draws on social, economic and environmental data. There is also some emerging capacity in social research in the CSIRO.

research The silo mentality remains strong

in the research sector, with few incentives for researchers to collaborate.

Knowledge use: Long-term research

synthesis and knowledge retention systems,

refinement of broad research priority setting

exercises, availability of all forms of social,

Are there systems in place for long-term research synthesis and knowledge retention across the region?

Terrain NRM and Landcare/catchment groups in the Wet Tropics have generally been poor at retaining or synthesizing knowledge over time. There is currently no framework, data management system or mechanism/s through which research or data can be retained or distributed across the region. WTMA, GBRMPA and CSIRO have all introduced long-term monitoring and data retention programs for specific areas or projects.

Individual institutions vary in their retention of knowledge and synthesis capacity Research institutions and NRM institutions tend to be poorly linked, but could provide

support to such institutions to better retain and synthesis data/knowledge. There is sufficient capacity within the system to create such synthesis and knowledge

retention systems, however these systems are yet to be realized Are there broad research priority setting exercises that need to be refined?

There is currently no broadly

used system to enable long-

term research synthesis or

knowledge retention in the Wet

Tropics. Several specialised data

retention frameworks have

been developed, but have not

been applied regionally for

research synthesis or knowledge

retention.

Connectivity between research

2.5 2.5

326


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

economic and environmental information for

systems decision-making

As part of the stream 2 funding Terrain NRM have worked both internally and with the research institutions involved in the Wet Tropics cluster to identify research priorities for the region and key gaps in existing knowledge (focused particularly on the lack of biophysical data)

Although priorities have been identified, it is difficult to garner research investment – funding agencies tend to favour more action-oriented projects rather than research to support planning/implementation activities.

There is significant research and priority setting capacity in the region, however there is a problem with the connectivity between key institutions, research investment, and limited integration of social/economic/environmental issues/data in the research agenda. Are all forms of social, economic and environmental information available for systems decision-making?

There is a significant body of research on the biophysical stresses and conditions of the Wet Tropics, particularly within the Wet Tropics and GBR WHAs however there is a significant lack of socio-economic data for the region and very little socio-economic research to support systems decision-making.

Many of the region’s institutions publish their data online to disseminate and disperse the information into the community and to other stakeholders. This is currently limited to biophysical data (particularly relating to the monitoring of the GBR).

institutions in the region could

be strengthened and greater

focus on projects that

incorporate social, economic

and environmental aspects of

the region could be further

developed.

Biophysical data availability is good, while social and economic data availability is limited.


Capacity: Capacity to set clear strategic targets, decision-makers’ access to knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

Do capacities exist to set clear strategic targets for the region? Terrain NRM, WTMA and GBRMPA have more than 40 years experience between them in

planning, managing and monitoring the region’s natural resources. Each of these institutions has a plan for a specific resource or the NRM region as a whole, containing mostly clear strategic targets or objectives.

There are multiple institutions involved in strategizing and undertaking NRM activities across the region, however most of operate within individual silos and focused on different agendas or limit in their strategizing to a specific resources (e.g. the GBR).

The NRM plan for the region contains a long list of strategies for the region that are supported by evidence, however there is a lack of prioritization of the strategies and there was inadequate funding for implementation of all of the strategies in the plan.

The NRM plan was also static, meaning the strategic targets could not updated over time, reducing their relevance over time.

The development of the new NRM plan indicates an increasing capacity for the plan to be updated and evolve based on new information or changes to resource conditions.

There is significant capacity in the region’s institutions to set strategic targets for the region, however institutional fragmentation limits their capacity to set clear strategic targets for the region collaboratively

Although there is a limited amount and diversity of socio-economic data and an abundance of biophysical data for the region, there is an adequate amount of social, economic and environmental information to

3.5 3.5

327


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

Decision-making for strategy development is frequently based on experiential knowledge and experience rather than evidence or science, and has led to some institutions using a ‘trial and error’ approach to strategies. Do the relevant stakeholders have the knowledge, financial, human and infrastructure resources available to make the decisions required for the region?

Under CfoC there was a decline in the alignment of the Queensland and Federal Governments policy and investment priorities, leading to a 40% reduction in NRM body funding and a greater emphasis on competitive funding for projects that address key priority areas/problems.

Research institutions in the regions generate and disseminate significant quantities of resource condition data to support NRM planning and activities. Application of such research is varied, and is limited by issues of accessibility, availability, dissemination, and focus.

Funding for NRM in the region tends to be implementation-heavy and planning/strategy development light and shifts in the state and federal political climates are particularly influential on which issues/agendas receive funding, how much money is allocated, and the funding time frames. Funding time frames varying in length.

Because of this NRM institutions are constantly applying for more funding to undertake more NRM projects and priority is given to on-ground actions that can be undertaken in the allocated time frame, rather than strategic planning and strategy development, which can be time and resource consuming.

Funding under CfoC is also tied to specific Federal Government identified ‘priority areas’ and consequently projects that do not fall under those areas are unlikely to be allocated funding. The broad priority areas under CfoC are not aligned to Terrain NRM’s regionally specific priorities and therefore limits the capacity of the NRM group to undertake NRM activities.

FNQROC is able to push strategic agendas that individual councils may not be able to (usually for political reasons) during strategy development for NRM in the region.

inform basic decision-making and strategy development for the region.

Resourcing has been a significant limitation for strategy development, both in the amount of money available, time frames for grants, the progressive decrease in grant numbers, and shifting political funding priorities.

Government funding is often project or outcome specific, meaning there are not always enough funds available to develop and implement strategies focused on regional priority areas.

Spatial tools such as GIS are widely available and several of the region’s institutions have employees trained in their use. However, the capacity to do higher-level analysis using such tools remains limited.

Connectivity: Connectivity of stakeholders to strategy-making, alignment of strategies with

Are all relevant stakeholders connected to strategy decision-making? Relationships between individuals within and across the region’s institutions are critical to

strategy development in the Wet Tropics. Where there are strong interpersonal relationships between employees of different institutions (or within them), there tends to be greater collaboration and communication of ideas. However, there has been a relatively high turnover rate of employees at some institutions in the region in recent years.

Some connectivity exists between institutions in the region, however these connections are fragmented and tend to be driven by convenience or mandates for

2.5 2.5

328


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

visions and objectives, alignment of strategies with higher/lower scales of strategy development, integration of solutions mix in strategies

As individuals in the region shift positions or institutions then the dynamics also change, which can both increase and decrease the capacity of institutions to ‘get things done’. However, where people are passionate about specific issues or strategies then collaboration and strategies are more likely to develop.

The relationship between some relevant stakeholders is somewhat fragmented and institutions such as Terrain NRM, GBRMPA and WTMA tend to work within individual silos (and collaborate only where convenient, necessary or mandated – and more so on-the-ground rather than strategically).

The State and Federal Government tend to be poorly connected to region-based NRM strategy development.

This fragmentation limits collaboration on strategy development and decision-making for the region’s resources, vision and objective setting and implementation.

Terrain NRM consults with community and industry representative groups in the planning process, however there is an opportunity for this to be expanded and built on as the current planning process occurs.

The region’s indigenous population has their own NRM plan that emphasises indigenous aspirations for country and its management. The 2005 indigenous plan exists congruently to the 2004 Wet Tropics NRM plan. Due to the lack of monitoring of both plans, there is no way to know how many and to what degree the strategies or objectives have been achieved. The region’s indigenous groups have suggested that they would like to know what they have achieved against the last plan before they commence a new planning process as has been commenced by Terrain NRM to create a new NRM plan for the region. Are strategies aligned to visions and objectives for the region?

Visions for the region tend to consist of broad and relatively vague motherhood statements for the region, making it easy to make any NRM action or strategy appear linked to the visions despite no previous intention to align them.

However, there is broad agreement amongst the region’s institutions that the Wet Tropics contains internationally significant natural resources that need to be appropriately managed to ensure access to future generations (DIICCSRTE, 2012a).

The alignment of strategies with visions and objectives for the region is varied. For example in the 2004 NRM plan, Terrain NRM’s strategies were moderately aligned with visions and objectives for the region, however they proved difficult to operationalise and monitor in practice (GBRMPA, 2011; Terrain NRM, 2005; WTMA, 2012). Are strategies aligned to higher/lower scale strategy development for the region?

on-the-ground activities or reporting rather than strategic decision-making.

Despite consensus on the importance of the region’s resources, the alignment of strategies with visions and objectives in the region is varied and fragmented

Strategy alignment between regional institutions and local groups tend to demonstrate greater alignment than the alignment between State and Federal Government strategies and priorities and regional institutions and their strategies.

Collaborative planning in the region has been limited in recent years, leading to limited alignment of visions and objectives.

The solutions mix is varied on a project-by-project basis, while suasive instruments are the primary tool used by institutions in the region, despite capacity and authority to use both regulatory instruments existing in the region

329


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

Alignment of strategies and strategy development for the Wet Tropics is varied across institutions and scales, with some showing significant alignment (e.g. RDA and FNQROC), while others show little to no alignment of strategies.

The RDA’s vision/objective/strategies are aligned with the visions/objectives/strategies of other institutions in the region including FNQROC, Terrain NRM, and WTMA.

State and Federal NRM priorities change so frequently that it can be hard to maintain strategy alignment once it is established.

As the State and Federal Governments fund Terrain NRM to undertake projects as part of initiatives such as CfoC and Reef Rescue, there is a strong degree of alignment between certain on-ground projects or activities and higher-level strategies. However, strategies and projects that are developed within the region are not always well aligned with higher-level strategies. Do strategies integrate an appropriate mix of instruments or solutions?

Some projects using a number of approaches, whilst others may rely on only one instrument. This is dependent on the project and the institution leading the action, and consequently there are examples both appropriate and inadequate solutions mixes being used in NRM.

The high reliance of regional institutions on grant money has led to a limited number of solutions being used.

Grant money is generally allocated to institutions for a specific activity and consequently the institutions may simply provide a fee for service for on ground labour or use a predetermined set of actions.

WTMA and GBRMPA have the power to apply regulatory controls under state and federal legislation. However, WTMA and GBRMPA rely more on suasive instruments rather than regulatory instruments to encourage greater community and stakeholder awareness and instigate behavioural changes

Knowledge use: Availability of social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of the

Is there social, economic and environmental knowledge relating to the assessment of the efficacy of key strategies in the region?

Although the appropriate information to assess the efficacy of some strategies in the region may exist, there has been little attempt to do such an assessment. This is in part due to lack of funding and impetus.

In many instances, there isn’t enough social or economic data to support a holistic assessment of the efficacy of the strategy/ies, while there may be sufficient biophysical data in other projects (e.g. Reef Rescue).

Data availability in the region is relatively high (particularly biophysical data), however, the information is yet to be applied to assess the efficacy of key strategies in the region.

There is capacity to scenario test strategies in the region,

2.5 3

330


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

efficacy of key strategies, availability of decision support tools to scenario test alternative strategies

Are decision support tools available to scenario test alternative strategies in the region?

Currently, Terrain NRM are not able to test alternative NRM strategies, however there is emerging capacity as Terrain NRM, FNQROC and CSIRO develop a program to enable them to do scenario analysis of strategies for the region.

There is strong GIS capacity in some of the region’s institutions to undertake some scenario testing (FNQNRM, 2004), however the tool that is in development will enable institutions to undertake more complex scenario testing.

however the application of available tools is limited in NRM. This is expected to change as a scenario-testing skills and tools are being developed as part of the current NRM planning process.

Implementation

Capacity: Capacity to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions, implementers’ access to financial, human and infrastructure resources, corporate governance and improvement systems

Are there capacities to implement a broad mix of strategic solutions across the region?

In order to achieve their objectives institutions in the Wet Tropics apply a combination of regulatory, and suasive instruments.

The Wet Tropics’ natural resources are managed according to and protected by both broad and resource-specific State and Federal legislation.

The GBR is managed by GBRMPA who are guided by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cwth), while the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area is managed by the WTMA which was established under the Wet Tropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993 (Qld).

Both WTMA and GBRMPA have regulatory power to enforce the controls to achieve the goals set out by the Federal Government in the legislation corresponding to each of the WHAs.

More broadly, the region’s developments and NRM activities must comply with the conditions set out in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth), the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld), etc.

Both WTMA and GBRMPA have statutory powers that enable them to enforce regulations in the WHAs, however, WTMA, GBRMPA and Terrain NRM (who do not have regulatory powers) rely primarily on suasive instruments.

Suasive instruments are widely used by the region’s Landcare groups, WTMA, GBRMPA and Terrain NRM to achieve behavioural change in the region’s landholders, communities and industries.

These instruments broker the scientific research undertaken by the region’s research institutions and translate it so that stakeholders can be more informed in their practices.

Suasive instruments have been particularly important in programs such as Reef Rescue in

There is capacity to apply a broad range of tools/strategic solutions to achieve positive outcomes in the region, however the diversity of tools used is currently limited.

Market-based instruments are not widely used or well developed in the region.

Institutions in the region have demonstrated significant capacity to apply various suasive instruments.

Resource availability for NRM implementation has become more competitive and the number of grants available has decreased in recent years.

Past project successes indicate a high degree of capacity to develop and implement strategies at the local scale in the region

Although most regional scale institutions in the Wet Tropics largely have sufficient funds and

3 2.5

331


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

which many of the region’s institutions collaborated to improve the water quality entering the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. The program is separate to Qld’s regulatory controls for the reef and involves multiple suasive instruments (Hill et al., 2010; Pert, 2013).

Institutions that are involved in Reef Rescue in the Wet Tropics include Terrain NRM, Cane Growers GBRMPA, Queensland Dairy, Banana Growers, Landcare and catchment groups, and numerous other local groups.

Several of the region’s NRM institutions have collaborated on a limited number of projects (such as the Mission Beach project) and used a combination of education and incentive grants to build community skills and achieve desired strategic outcomes.

The capacity of Landcare and catchment groups is varied across the region, with some highly capable of undertaking water quality management projects, best management practice testing, and habitat conservation projects. Do the implementation players have the financial, human and infrastructure resources to implement?

Terrain NRM have partnership arrangements with many other institutions in the region including GBRMPA, WTMA, Landcare Groups, traditional owner institutions (Girringun, Jabalbina, Yalanji) FNQROC, RDAFNQTS, DEHP, DNRM, and numerous industry and community groups.

At the same time as funding cuts were announced, Terrain NRM reduced the number of staff members they employed in 2013 to increase the resources available to target regional priority actions on the ground. Unfortunately, reduced funding for the institution has led to less money available to invest in projects.

In the past there were sufficient resources for Terrain NRM to plan for the management of natural resources in the region, but resources to actually implement such plans were limited.

Implementation funding is often limited to specific time frames, this combined with shifting funding/government NRM priorities means that many projects that would otherwise have continued to deliver positive outcomes, must end once the funding time-frame has ended due to lack of resources to continue.

Similar to Terrain NRM, WTMA receive competitive funding to undertake on-ground projects, targeting issues including feral pigs, yellow crazy ants, and developing climate corridors. Many of WTMA’s resources are dedicated to developing plans and strategies for the management of the Wet Tropics WHA, some of which is then implemented by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife service and other partner institutions.

other resources to do the job that they are contracted to do by the government, they are unable to do any additional work above and beyond their contractual requirements due to lack of resources.

Many local scale NRM institutions (including traditional owner groups) have limited capacity to garner financial resources to undertake NRM activities, despite having significant implementation capacities.

Corporate governance of NRM institutions in the region is generally strong, however improvement and review systems are highly variable across the region, with recent government changes decreasing the certainty and reliability of existing government structures in the region.

332


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

The NRM body funds a catchment coordinator position whose role is to coordinate the activities of local and community management groups within individual catchments in the region. Such groups are sometimes contracted by institutions such as Terrain NRM to undertake ‘fee for service’ on-ground works.

Funding available to catchment groups in the Wet Tropics is variable, with some groups struggling financially (largely due to poor grant-writing skills and limited capacity to garner sufficient funds for their activities), while other catchment groups in the region have been awarded million dollar grants to undertake water quality projects.

Grant availability for catchment groups has decreased in recent years, leading to increased competition between institutions who are funded only as well as their best grant writer can write grants.

The number of volunteers available to do implementation is decreasing due the lack of succession planning in local groups in the region that are facing an aging demographic and low interest from and availability of younger generations.

Traditional owners have significant aspirations connected to implementing NRM strategies on the ground, ranging from employment to healthier country, however, such groups have significant capacity limitations and generally insufficient skills to source adequate grant funding.

The technical capacity (skills, knowledge and experience) is especially high in local Landcare and catchment groups who are engaged in on-ground activities. Do the key institutions involved have strong corporate governance and improvement systems?

Like other NRM groups around Australia, Terrain NRM use Vogel’s Performance Excellence framework to monitor, evaluate and improve organizational governance arrangements. Terrain NRM also has a representative board of directors.

Terrain NRM restructured in 2013 in due to funding cuts and in order to increase the efficacy and efficiency of their team to do NRM planning and implementation in the region. This involved downsizing staff numbers, strategic refocusing and shifting the focus from doing the activities that could garner funding based on government priorities, to garnering funds to achieve actions that are strategic priorities in the region.

The improvement systems of service delivery and policy-making institutions in the region are relatively weak particularly in relation to operations.

GBRMPA and WTMA have well developed and relatively stable corporate governance arrangements, and improvement systems.

333


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

There is a high degree of instability in government agencies and their structures due to the significant political changes that have occurred at the State and Commonwealth scales between 2012 and 2014, leading to significant changes to government structures, and reduced capacity.


Are there effective partnership and integration arrangements between policy and delivery systems in the region?

The Wet Tropics is one of the most planned for regions in Australia, but despite this there have been significant problems in the past with moving beyond the planning stage of the planning process and actually implementing the strategies and objectives contained within the plans, indicating a poor connection between policy and delivery systems in the region.

The increased focus on competitive bidding for funding under CfoC was intended to encourage institutions to collaborate on projects, however the reality of this shift was that institutions have become more competitive with each other rather than more collaborative.

Although collaborative arrangements exist in the region they tend to be out of convenience rather than with the intention of strengthening the delivery of NRM policies/programs. There are currently no incentives for institutions to collaborate, which has led to relatively fragmented NRM implementation activities.

Due to budgetary constraints, WTMA work in partnership with other institutions in order to operationalise their objectives (they are not directly involved with on-the-ground activities). WTMA work with Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, tourism industry representatives (TTNQ, AMPTO, etc.), Biosecurity Queensland, local government, and the Commonwealth Government.

WTMA have a limited relationship with Terrain NRM and GBRMPA and generally collaborate in situations where the institutions share common interests.

There is a strong relationship between FNQROC and Terrain NRM who share the cost of an employee whose job is to bridge the gap between local governments across the region and NRM institutions.

There are examples of successful partnership arrangements for implementation on some individual projects (e.g. Mission Beach, Reef Rescue), however collaboration between the major NRM institutions remains fragmented on a project-by-project basis.

At times it can be difficult to find an institution to take on the ‘lead role’ in strategy implementation and coordination. Do different components of the solution mix collaboration?

The limited number of instruments used in the Wet Tropics has generally not been

There is a disconnect between the policy and delivery systems in the Wet Tropics, with significant investment and engagement in the planning process, but difficulty operationalizing the strategies collaboratively or in an integrated way.

There have been some local project successes that involved multiple solutions and institutions working collaboratively, however this is yet to be carried out at a regional scale.

Existing research brokerage arrangements are generally poor at supporting implementation activities, but are improving.

2 3

334


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

collaborative, with institutions tending to work within their own ‘silos’. This in combination with limited investment in collaborative planning and increasingly competitive funding arrangements have discouraged collaborative NRM arrangements.

Terrain NRM collaborates with both WTMA and GBRMPA on fulfilling legislative requirements (particularly monitoring of outputs/outcomes), however there is limited collaboration between the three institutions in implementing projects or achieving objectives.

There are no shared programs between Terrain NRM and WTMA, while Terrain NRM and GBRMPA collaborate on the implementation of the Reef Rescue program.

The relationship between WTMA and GBRMPA is limited. Are there effective research brokerage arrangements to support implementation in the region?

At current, research is largely brokered through interpersonal relationships and relationships between individual researchers and partners in NRM

This may change as knowledge broker recently employed as part of the Wet Tropics cluster builds relationships and arrangements to connect research with on-ground implementation

Knowledge use: Research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation, use of local and traditional knowledge sets to inform implementation, management and retention of data sets concerning effective implementation

Are there research efforts to inform continuous improvement in implementation across the region?

It can be difficult to line up research and NRM priorities, leading to a mismatch in the research being produced and end-user needs.

Some regional groups commission a research institution to do research that is needed, but funding limitations mean that this is rare and only where absolutely necessary.

Moreover, research milestones are not always well aligned with regional institutions’ milestones (e.g. Stream 2 funded research and the planning process), leading to information being released too late to contribute towards decision-making or implementation.

The Federal Government’s MERI system does not link actions to outcomes, but focuses on outputs – i.e. number of hectares of weeds sprayed, rather than whether the habitat is healthier following such actions. Are local and traditional knowledge sets informing implementation in the region?

There has been some attempts to include traditional owners in the planning process, however the use of traditional knowledge to support implementation is generally limited, with some institutions and projects taking greater efforts to incorporate traditional

Generally there is limited research to inform improvement of implementation

Traditional and local knowledge sets are used in a limited way to inform implementation of strategies in the region.

The MERI system is currently unable to inform continuous improvement of implementation activities in the region.

Due to limited monitoring of projects in the past, few data sets detailing effective

1.5 2

335


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

knowledge. Local and traditional knowledge sets tend to be kept orally rather than written down or

recorded, meaning that the knowledge tends to remain within specific institutions or stakeholder groups. Such knowledge may be applied in a Catchment Group setting, but is not used widely throughout the region.

Some of the region’s institutions are using audiovisual technology to record these types of knowledge and ensure that they are able to inform implementation and other stages of the planning process. Are effective data sets concerning implementation being managed and retained in the system?

There has been low retention of implementation data sets in the region due to limited monitoring.

A limited number of institutions have retained data sets regarding implementation (e.g. CSIRO), rather such data tends to be retained by landholders and implementers as experiential knowledge rather than written or recorded knowledge/data.

implementation have been retained in the region, however this is currently improving.

Monitoring, Evaluation and

Review

Capacity: Monitoring and evaluation capacity, collective monitoring alliances, evaluation capacities in the system, reporting capacities that enhance accountability

Are there effective monitoring and evaluation capacities in the system? There is capacity in the system to undertake monitoring and evaluation of projects;

however the operationalization of monitoring strategies on the ground has been fragmented and variable.

Areas that have demonstrated a degree of effective monitoring capacity include blue mapping (Reef Rescue), vegetation mapping, condition mapping following cyclones, wetland monitoring, local government monitoring of pests and weeds, and monitoring of threatened species.

Monitoring of NRM has traditionally been poor, despite requirements for ongoing reporting to appropriate funding bodies and government agencies.

Funding has been a significant limitation on institution’s capacity to monitor system processes and outcomes and institutions have tended to dedicate their funds towards more on-the-ground activities rather than monitoring or evaluation.

NRM activities and their outcomes in the region have generally not been systematically monitored, preventing institutions from knowing what has been achieved and where their actions have been successful or not.

The broad governance and institutional arrangements for NRM planning are currently not monitored or evaluated in the Wet Tropics.

No mechanism exists for the key institutions to monitor or evaluate the planning

Although there is capacity in the system to do monitoring and evaluation, capacities have been traditionally limited in the system because it has generally been inadequately funded and consequently poorly mobilized in the region.

Collective monitoring alliances in the region exist, but tend to be on a project-by-project basis rather than widespread throughout the region. The exception to this is Reef Rescue, which has demonstrated significant success in bringing together multiple institutions to monitor conditions.

Evaluation capacity in the Wet

3 2.5

336


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

governance systems. Individual institutions currently undertake monitoring of NRM projects and on-ground

activities (SOE and MERI), and monitor and evaluate their organizational governance arrangements using Vogel’s Performance Excellence framework (Agforce, 2013; RRRC, 2011).

However, in the past some regional institutions have provided exaggerated information surrounding the outcomes of projects or resource conditions in government reporting processes (e.g. MERI) because institutions that demonstrate success are generally allocated greater amounts of money than those that do not deliver as many successful outcomes.

There are a limited number of examples where regional institutions have successfully undertaken systematic monitoring processes in specific localities, however this is yet to be carried out across all projects or strategies.

SOE reporting for the regions only began using regional data in the latest iteration and the reports have generally drawn only from state collected data, leading to an inaccurate and poor portrayal of the region’s resources and their conditions.

MTSRF attempted to do a SOR report in 2010, however it only focused on biodiversity and vegetation rather than looking at the region as a whole (Vogel, 2011). Are there collective monitoring alliances in place?

Legislative requirements are a significant driver of action and collaboration in the region, including monitoring.

There are many alliances of convenience in the region, where institutions collaborate on specific acts such as reporting to fulfill legislative requirements or contribute towards a common interest.

WTMA and GBRMPA collaborate with several research institutions and government agencies in the region to monitor the conditions of the WHAs.

Terrain NRM is facilitating the NRM planning process and is expected to monitor its impacts in the region.

The region’s key institutions have previously not shown interest in collectively monitoring or evaluating the region’s governance arrangements, however there is emerging interest in monitoring the ongoing governance arrangements surrounding NRM and its planning from the NRM body and other regional institutions.

There is a significant monitoring alliance in place surrounding the Reef Rescue program. Reef Rescue is one of the only programs that has successfully engaged with multiple institutions across the region over a relatively long program time frame to collect data on

Tropics is neither defined nor independent

Institutions in the region have a high capacity to report on their activities, however the information to support such reports in generally anecdotal rather than systematically collected through monitoring, which decreases the strength and reliability of such reports.

Accountability is generally low due to the lack of monitoring in the region.

337


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

the ongoing condition of the GBR. There are signs of partnerships for monitoring in the region being developed as part of the

new NRM plan, however it remains to be seen how these will work or whether they will lead to actual collective monitoring alliances. Are there defined and independent evaluation capacities in the system?

Although research institutions are currently researching the governance arrangements surrounding NRM planning in the region (this researcher, GU, and JCU), there is yet to be an independent assessment of the region’s governance system.

Lack of resources is a key limitation on such an assessment – although there is some interest amongst institutions in the region in the results of such an assessment, as resources are already limited in the region institutions are more likely to allocate available funds towards on-ground activities rather than an independent assessment of the region’s governance.

Are there reporting capacities to enable high levels of accountability across the region? Although the key institutions have good reporting capacity when it comes to reporting on

resource conditions, the capacity to report on resource or governance conditions and planning processes has generally been poor.

Many individuals and institutions within the system tend to have a silo-oriented perspective of the region rather than a broader systemic perspective.

Reporting in the region often does not draw on ‘hard’ data or any form of monitoring data to inform stakeholders of NRM activities/project outcomes, but uses anecdotal evidence from participants of projects (e.g. we cleared x number of hectares).

Government authorities in the region are accountable to Commonwealth Government agencies and ministers and their reporting tends to include greater amounts of systematically collected data compared with non-government authorities’ reporting.

Connectivity: Integration arrangements between objective setting and monitoring systems, connectivity between

Are there integration arrangements between objective setting and monitoring systems for the region?

There are some instances where specific approaches to strategy implementation have been tested in a project and then monitored to observe its efficacy to feed back into future decision-making, however this is not widespread in the region.

Research institutions are currently poorly engaged in the process of linking objective setting with monitoring systems, despite moderately high capacity existing. Are evaluative and review mechanisms linked to long-term monitoring of processes and outcomes in the region?

Visions and objectives in the region are currently poorly informed by monitoring data of resource management conditions/outcomes following management

Limited impetus to monitor the processes and outcomes in the region, to inform evaluations of

1.5 2

338


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

evaluative and review mechanisms, and long-term monitoring, capacity of monitoring and reporting strategic processes to influence strategic processes and the allocation of resources

There is an emerging push towards long-term monitoring and data retention of project outcomes in the region, however this is yet to carry over to broader monitoring of the planning system

Evaluation and review mechanisms for the systems as a whole are poorly developed and only somewhat linked to long-term monitoring frameworks.

Capacity is emerging in the region to better link these two mechanisms through the stream 2 funding. Are monitoring and reporting strategic processes able to influence strategic processes and the allocation of resources in the region?

The lack of monitoring data for the region prevents the closure of the feedback loop and consequently decisions surrounding future strategies and the allocation of funds/other resources are not informed by data surrounding the efficacy of current strategies or ideas.

strategies and to inform future strategic decision-making.

MER frameworks continue to develop as institutional arrangements for planning evolve in the region.

Knowledge use: Monitoring of social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system, retention of monitoring and evaluation data in the long-term

Are social, economic and environmental outcomes from the system being monitored?

The environmental management outputs of the system are regularly reported through the Australian Government’s MERI framework as part of institutional requirements/responsibilities under CfoC.

Many funding bodies (i.e. Government departments) require funded institutions to provide data showing the impact of the funded management activities.

As part of the State’s responsibility for SOE reporting, the Queensland Government uses a DPSIP approach to evaluation and collects environmental and resource condition data. There is a concentration of data collection in SEQ and its surrounding regions.

The condition of the natural resources in the Wet Tropics are documented in the SOE report, with a significant focus on water quality, the GBR and flora/fauna biodiversity (Pert et al., 2010a).

Social and economic data is collected through the national census every 5 years, and provides insight into social and demographic change in the region over time. A small body of research on the socio-economic status of the region is generated 6-12 monthly by region-based research consultancies such as Cummings Economics. Are monitoring and evaluation data being retained in the long-term in the system?

There is currently no mechanism through which this information can be centrally stored or

Integration of social, environmental and economic data has been limited in monitoring/evaluation/ reporting

Retention of monitoring and evaluation data has and continues to be generally poor in the Wet Tropics, however there is a strong impetus to improve monitoring in the new planning process.

Retention of monitoring data in the region is improving at an institutional and project level, but is yet to occur in all institutions or projects in the region.

1.5 2

339


Rating

(1-5)

Final

Rating

(1-5)

accessed by the different institutions interested or involved in NRM in the region. The responsibility of long-term data retention has fallen to individual institutions that may

or may not have strong data management systems in place. WTMA, GBRMPA and CSIRO have developed long-term monitoring and data retention

programs for specific areas or projects, but are yet to apply such programs in all projects. Total Score 38.5 42.5

Total Average Score 2.57 2.83

Date post:	27-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Exploring the usefulness of structural-functional...

Documents